5 ms·
What always gets me about this class of articles is that they are a classic case of bikeshedding. Is anyone really having that much trouble with ls? Yes, thing
by glangdale 10y ago
What always gets me about this class of articles is that they are a classic case of bikeshedding. Is anyone really having that much trouble with ls?
Yes, things like ls could be better - but is switching between "ls --plus -a --pile --of --options" and "ls | one | damn | filter | after | another" a particularly core concern?
I tend to agree with this bit... "Rather than re-evaluating the Unix command line with an eye towards improving its usability under the greatly relaxed technological constraints of modern hardware, we’ve written terminal emulators that faithfully reproduce the constraints of the mid-1970s",
... but feel that the author decided that it was a lot more fun and easy to complain about ls instead of properly exploring this idea.
- ygra 10y agoUnless Unix dies a swift death for some reason or another, going forward there will be many more people who have to learn this than there are that have learned it already. Surely, once you're using those things on a daily basis it doesn't matter how inconvenient, illogical, or badly designed things are, you just know how to do them right. Is that a good reason to scoff at anyone who points out that things are badly-designed? Backwards-compatibility seems a far better argument in favor of keeping things like they are than »it doesn't bother me much in practice«.