4 ms·
At a glance it looks a bit too simple. I didn't look to far into it, but it seems to be missing short options, prompting for options and using environment varia
by onei 6y ago
At a glance it looks a bit too simple. I didn't look to far into it, but it seems to be missing short options, prompting for options and using environment variables for options. As it's built on click, I'd guess you can call into click to do those, but at that point I don't see a major benefit typer is providing.
- juped 6y agoLook, much of the purpose of posting things in a public forum is not to directly converse with the person to whom you are replying, but to add something relevant and interesting to third-party readers of the thread. It's up to you whether you're interested in the software package linked in the comment or not, but it is harmful to third-party readers who might potentially be interested in it when you inexplicably reply with unsubstantiated lies about it, which they might take as true.
- Noumenon72 6y agoA comment actually directed toward third-party readers would read like "For people who like Click but could also use X, try Typer." Using the second-person imperative to say 'Try this' challenges your interlocutor to ask "Why should I?", to evaluate it for their own use case, to say "You shouldn't have recommended this to me with no qualification, it's not for everyone."
- juped 6y agoTo be clear, not only is the package in question not "missing short options, prompting for options and using environment variables for options", there is not even the slightest indication on its docs site that it might be missing such features. I'm not harmed by the reckless indifference of that comment, because I know a decent amount about these libraries, and it's not my business if people want to self-harm by believing false things, but people scrolling the thread are potentially harmed ("damn, I like the syntax of this, but it doesn't support short options?").