3 ms·
That's all well and good, but has nothing to do with my argument. If you need to invoke a program for every prompt, when the alternative is to just let the she
by usrbinbash 3y ago
That's all well and good, but has nothing to do with my argument.
If you need to invoke a program for every prompt, when the alternative is to just let the shell do it's thing, it's no longer "minimal", period.
- daliusd 3y agoWell, we are arguing about semantics. You say that minimal means that it must be functionally minimal. I say that minimal UX is valid meaning as well.
- usrbinbash 3y ago> Well, we are arguing about semantics. No, we are not. "minimal" has a defined meaning, and "minimal" and "minimalism" as a design philosophy are not the same.
- sevg 3y agoTo use your own argument against you, no, a minimal prompt does not look like this: $ It looks like this:
- usrbinbash 3y agoPlease explain how this "uses my own argument against me", when my argument is that "minimal" prompt doesn't involve calling an external program to build the prompt? Both "$ " and "" can be built by the shell itself.
- sevg 3y agoHeh oh my bad, I didn't realise you have the privilege of gatekeeping what "minimal" means ;) I see one dictionary definition is "the least possible". Seems like the least possible prompt is no prompt at all, but it's really just a matter of opinion ;)