3 ms·

Wrong thread? How is this a response to the previous comment? Arguing that you want /usr/bin/yes to "be the best possible implementation" in terms of efficien

Wrong thread? How is this a response to the previous comment? Arguing that you want /usr/bin/yes to "be the best possible implementation" in terms of efficiency is a weird way of being in "violent agreement" (more like "aggressive agreement", but whatever). If writing a defensive response, you should actually defend the thing on the other side. Namely, the response here should defend the position that it's more important for yes to be simple than it needs to be efficient. That's what the previous comment challenges potential respondents to come up with.

XorNot 5y ago
You don't take a position. That's my point. What is wrong with yes being capable of doing 10Gib/S? Nothing. It's optimum for a utility which has that sole function. It's not a bad retort, it's the end of the story: there is a superior utility, it's implemented.
- pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
  You're either still misreading and believing that you're arguing against a position that is at odds with yours, or you know it's not at odds but have weird ideas about how argument works. My position is: either articulate an argument for why it's bad for /usr/bin/yes to be implemented the way GNU yes is implemented or drop the argument entirely. Your comments manage to be in disagreement with those on the other side of this, and yet still adopt an argumentative/defensive tone with respect to what I've written. I consider this to be an even bigger waste of time than the people (like OP) who are upset about GNU yes's implementation.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    And I quote: > as bad as the GNU advocates' retort ("GNU yes is 10GiB/s fast"). If you don't want to defend your position, don't take it.
    - pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
      I can defend my position—which is and always has been from the beginning of this (annoying) argument that anyone who says that GNU yes's implementation is bad—or that "10GiB/s" is pointless feature for something like /usr/bin/yes—needs to be able to defend the decision to scrutinize "something like /usr/bin/yes" in the first place. For whatever dumb reason, you think it's a good idea to argue about this, even while apparently believing yourself that the way GNU yes is implemented is a good thing. This makes no sense. (Are you under the impression that "X is at least as bad as Y" is the same thing as saying "Y is bad"—and that that means I need to defend the position that Y is bad? It doesn't. Maybe learn to read English better, especially before leaping so confidently into trying to argue with someone over what you're reading. Another bonus tip: not only is it important to read in complete sentences, but it's important to write in complete sentences, too, and to make sure that the sentences follow logically one after the other.)

XorNot 5y ago

You don't take a position. That's my point. What is wrong with yes being capable of doing 10Gib/S? Nothing. It's optimum for a utility which has that sole function. It's not a bad retort, it's the end of the story: there is a superior utility, it's implemented.

pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
You're either still misreading and believing that you're arguing against a position that is at odds with yours, or you know it's not at odds but have weird ideas about how argument works. My position is: either articulate an argument for why it's bad for /usr/bin/yes to be implemented the way GNU yes is implemented or drop the argument entirely. Your comments manage to be in disagreement with those on the other side of this, and yet still adopt an argumentative/defensive tone with respect to what I've written. I consider this to be an even bigger waste of time than the people (like OP) who are upset about GNU yes's implementation.
- XorNot 5y ago
  And I quote: > as bad as the GNU advocates' retort ("GNU yes is 10GiB/s fast"). If you don't want to defend your position, don't take it.
  - pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
    I can defend my position—which is and always has been from the beginning of this (annoying) argument that anyone who says that GNU yes's implementation is bad—or that "10GiB/s" is pointless feature for something like /usr/bin/yes—needs to be able to defend the decision to scrutinize "something like /usr/bin/yes" in the first place. For whatever dumb reason, you think it's a good idea to argue about this, even while apparently believing yourself that the way GNU yes is implemented is a good thing. This makes no sense. (Are you under the impression that "X is at least as bad as Y" is the same thing as saying "Y is bad"—and that that means I need to defend the position that Y is bad? It doesn't. Maybe learn to read English better, especially before leaping so confidently into trying to argue with someone over what you're reading. Another bonus tip: not only is it important to read in complete sentences, but it's important to write in complete sentences, too, and to make sure that the sentences follow logically one after the other.)