2 ms·
They're saying they find "cat" more natural than "<" which I can understand. Unless you regularly use "<", it's probably easier to remember "cat" and it's more
by oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
They're saying they find "cat" more natural than "<" which I can understand. Unless you regularly use "<", it's probably easier to remember "cat" and it's more self-documenting.
- latexr 2y ago> They're saying they find "cat" more natural than "<" which I can understand. I don’t think that’s what they’re saying. I think they’re making the point that going left to right with the file first is what makes sense to them, as opposed to `... < file.txt`.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y agoYou're assuming they don't know about `<file.txt ...` That may be the case, but I can still see an argument for "cat" being more natural than "<" in this context.
- latexr 2y ago> You're assuming they don't know about `<file.txt ...` And you’re assuming they do. It’s safe to assume at least one person reading the comment won’t know about the feature, the information is useful to more than that poster. > but I can still see an argument for "cat" being more natural than "<" in this context. You’re also assuming I don’t understand that sentiment. That has nothing to do with my original post. I don’t care what you use, do whatever makes you happiest. I was merely offering an alternative that would still satisfy what I perceived to be the original point (command piping left to right) to share knowledge, I was in no way criticising their method or saying they shouldn’t use it. This is a useless conversation.