3 ms·
Don’t make tools use processes for “plug-in behavior”. Do one thing and do it well doesn’t really appeal to me to begin with but “let the first thing do the nex
by alkonaut 5y ago
Don’t make tools use processes for “plug-in behavior”. Do one thing and do it well doesn’t really appeal to me to begin with but “let the first thing do the next thing on its own” is definitely a bastardization of that idea as well. Git has that Unix disease where the go to method of getting anything user configurable done with one program is launching another program. I’d much rather use tools that use huge convoluted script languages or good plug-in apis than tools that duct tape together with exit codes.
- Emanation 5y agoModular design is bad for profit, amirite
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rswail 5y ago> I’d much rather use tools that use huge convoluted script languages or good plug-in apis than tools that duct tape together with exit codes. The Unix "plug-in API" is pipes and exec and "everything is a file (descriptor)". A "good plug-in API" that doesn't support anything written outside the "huge convoluted script language" is not a plug-in API, it's an internal API of the "convoluted script language". "Do one thing and do it well doesn’t really appeal to me to begin with" means that you don't like the Unix model in general.
- alkonaut 5y ago> means that you don't like the Unix model in general. Absolutely correct. While it does have benefits in some situations, writing cross platform command line tools isn’t a place where it shines.
- avgcorrection 5y ago> "Do one thing and do it well doesn’t really appeal to me to begin with" means that you don't like the Unix model in general. Yes? Some people don’t like it.