4 ms·
Look at the title above. It only says Eza and ls. It says eza is maintained, which tells me the other,ls, is not maintained. Doesn’t mention exa. Yes it’s mis
by ehutch79 2y ago
Look at the title above. It only says Eza and ls. It says eza is maintained, which tells me the other,ls, is not maintained.
Doesn’t mention exa.
Yes it’s missing nuance if you don’t click through, but that’s a complete statement, and I wouldn’t expect people to click through to get more context
- timeon 2y agoYes title is not clear so parent was just clarifying.
- wffurr 2y agoDon’t comment based on just the title, please.
- kazinator 2y agoI clicked through the title, but mostly looked at code and example invocations and output.
- ehutch79 2y agoSide note: the English language is a dumpster fire, and it’s easy for these issues to happen.
- klyrs 2y agoCorrection: the English language is a dumpster.
- kazinator 2y agoI strongly suspect the title could be translated into numerous languages verbatim, without losing the unintended interpretation. It is so for a few languages I know. You can try it with translation tools. The problem is semantic: in any language whatsoever (I suspect) if we express the idea that X is a replacement for Y, and in the same sentence mention some attributes of X, it means that those attributes are relevant to qualifying X as a replacement, which implies that those attributes are lacking or inadequately present in Y. Without heaps of prior context, it is an impossible interpretation that the X attributes are not actually lacking in Y, but in a previously attempted replacement Z.
- crazygringo 2y agoAbsolutely nothing in the confusion here is specific to English. I don't know why you would try to take this opportunity to criticize English when this misunderstanding could be present in literally every other language. Because there is nothing whatsoever here that is a case of linguistic confusion or vagueness -- it is a conceptual issue of comparing two items, applying an adjective to one, and leaving the reader to wonder what that implies about the other item. And no, English is not a "dumpster fire". Every language has its pros and cons. But there is no language on Earth that is a "dumpster fire". There is absolutely nothing productive or good that can come out of blanket, utterly unfounded statements like that.
- elashri 2y agoI agree with you that their usage of language is ambiguous and should be clear. I was just explaining the situation not defending the description.
- L3viathan 2y agoIt's saying "modern, maintained", implying that ls is either not maintained (wrong), or ls is not modern (can be argued to be true). Only one of those two properties need to hold for the entire label to fit.