4 ms·

> When I type "ls", I'm getting a text-serialized list of objects. Why can't I just get the (serializable) list directly? Because then the output of ls can be

> When I type "ls", I'm getting a text-serialized list of objects. Why can't I just get the (serializable) list directly? Because then the output of ls can be used by programs that don't know what a list is, or what a file is; and this is breathtakingly beautiful.

Scene_Cast2 6y ago
Make it auto-serialize to text if the receiving end doesn't understand lists. Working with text directly doesn't get me any type safety, or any safety at all (unless I'm writing a one-off, where it matters less).
- enriquto 6y ago
  "type safety" is the "structured programming" of the twenties
  - comex 6y ago
    ...As in, it will become so universal that languages without it are utterly unheard of, except for assembly and joke languages?
Too 6y ago
Ok cool I can pipe ls into gz and pipe further into scp. Now what? How do I use it on the receiving end after unzipping it again? You still have to parse it into a structural list of files over there somehow to make use of it? Not everything is a tunnel. Structural data can still be serialized easily, take json for example which’s spec fit on a napkin.