3 ms·
There’s clearly some good thought gone into this - i especially like the ergonomics of the “fake” command and arguments. However, having been down this path my
by CraigJPerry 6y ago
There’s clearly some good thought gone into this - i especially like the ergonomics of the “fake” command and arguments.
However, having been down this path myself, i don’t think it’s a great idea.
Beyond the hello world examples you start to run into the need to defang commands being tested or getting better visibility of what they’re doing just so you can make a useful assert, you end up LD_PRELOAD’ing shims to intercept calls and it gets a bit horrifying, very quickly.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- acdha 6y agoI agree: this is great as an intellectual exercise but I’m reminded about how many times I’ve been glad that I set a policy in the 2000s that any bash script too large for a normal size screen should be rewritten in Python.
- fooflarney 6y agoor just make
- CraigJPerry 6y agoGNU make? BSD make? (Trick question - which BSD make?) nmake? (Another trick question...) - and that’s just Linux, MacOS and Windows today. Admittedly it was even worse previously. There’s so many flavours of make with annoyingly incompatible syntax and that’s before you get into the presence of GMSL or equiv on each platform. There’s only one fitting answer to this and it’s the output of the following command: make love Except depending on your make, this joke doesn’t work :-(