4 ms·
What? You should totally be into .ini files. I mean, one incomprehensible difficult to automate bizarre ass user interface file is no better than any other.
by zedshaw 16y ago
What? You should totally be into .ini files. I mean, one incomprehensible difficult to automate bizarre ass user interface file is no better than any other.
- tptacek 16y agoIt's a false dichotomy to suggest that because INI files are incomprehensible, difficult to automate, and have bizarre asses, all text configuration files must be the same. But, like your comment, that's just message board geekery. I wouldn't want to suggest that it's worth arguing about.
- zedshaw 16y agoYou keep using the logic phrases that you seem to not understand. It's not a false dichotomy, it's a generalization that has no external validity. It has internal validity though.
- tptacek 16y agoVocabulary really seems to be tripping us up today. Let's just cite the Nizkor list when critiquing arguments. For reference, I'm invoking #24, "False Dilemma": http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html Specifically: Bill: "We'll have to keep our configurations in a database and avoid flat text files." Jill: "Why?" Bill: "Because otherwise we'll be stuck with incomprehensible text files with bizarre asses."
- cdavid 16y agoI wonder: what kind of format is easy to automate ? What makes configuration file difficult to "automate" is their multiple format (especially on unix), the fact that it is not easy to reload a configuration (most applications don't even allow it) and that there is no easy way to check that your configuration matches how the app is configured (especially for bad softwares). The format only helps for the first point.