3 ms·
So what I don't understand about recutils is in what category of problems does it really excel at over other solutions? If I want human readable files I think
by ahnick 7y ago
So what I don't understand about recutils is in what category of problems does it really excel at over other solutions?
If I want human readable files I think I would opt for just a bunch of markdown files in a directory structure before I go the recutils route. If I want a lightweight database I think I would go for SQLite like others have already mentioned. In what situation do you really run into that you need human readable/editable referential integrity?
- svnpenn 7y agoSome people might prefer human readable databases. For example if your database is not too large, you could use it with Recutils and version control the database itself. You can do this with SQLite but it would require CSV export: https://sqlite.org/cli.html#csv_export https://sqlite.org/cli.html#csv_export https://gnu.org/software/recutils/manual/Purpose https://gnu.org/software/recutils/manual/Purpose
- ahnick 7y agoSo maybe the key technical benefit is human readable diffs of the database where the tool enforces referential integrity? Otherwise, it feels like a subjective personal preference thing. (e.g. I like the color green, but you like the color red)
- Aeolun 7y agoI think it would work for any situation that people would normally use MS Access? Though arguably Sqlite solves the same problem.
- yuonotthat 7y agoThose are not plain-text, not easily "hand-searchable" or editable by hand. The idea is to take full advantage of plain text, just like, markdown! You could even use git for versioning.
- yuonotthat 7y agoIt's like markdown, but for data. Just like markdown provides a quick way in that to renderize something pretty, but is still readable in plain text, recfiles do the same for data, it has data types, keys, integrity, and is easily queryable with its tools, and also easily read in plain text. Sure, you could use some type CSV, but that is not pretty to read as recfiles. The point is the same as markdown, usable as just text, but with good tooling around it. with markdown files in a dirs, you would have to provide you own tooling.
- ahnick 7y agoOkay, but markdown is data (perhaps not well structured, but data nonetheless) + formatting. If I'm editing and going into the files directly anyway why do I need to be able to do queries? I guess I'm asking what's the point? Can't I find the info I want just using find and grep on a bunch of markdown files? Maybe I don't even have to do that if I've organized my markdown files sufficiently well. Let me be clear, I get that you don't have db operations with a bunch of markdown files with a directory structure, but on small scale data repositories do you really need that? For example, if I have a bunch of recipes in my "personal database of markdown files" I can quickly find the chili recipe I'm looking for by going to the directory "Soups & Salads > Chili > Slow Cooker Chili Recipe" or something along those lines. Or I could have grepped for "slow cooker chili". Either way I'm going to find that recipe with no extra tooling on my part. Where do rec files features add value? Plus, if I use rec files now it seems I have to build my own formatting because I can't rely on markdown editors to build it automatically for me. Or is there a way to specify formatting for rec files?
- jamestomasino 7y agoHere's a real example: https://gopher.tildeverse.org/sdf.org/0/users/dbucklin/posts/maintenance.txt https://gopher.tildeverse.org/sdf.org/0/users/dbucklin/posts...
- GoblinSlayer 7y agoRecfile is for tabular data, markdown is for text documents.