3 ms·

> I'm just tired of people hiding behind POSIX compliance. grep exists in base primarily to support shell scripting, as well as the benefits of standardization

> I'm just tired of people hiding behind POSIX compliance. grep exists in base primarily to support shell scripting, as well as the benefits of standardization that I mentioned. That’s not hiding - it’s a basic expectation if you want scripts to run. Why should ripgrep be on base and what kind of overhead are we adding to install? > how many of your invocations of grep are not POSIX compliant. It would be a different argument if ripgrep was compliant with extensions, like gnugrep, but being a completely separate tool with a similar name, it doesn’t fill the same role. I like it and install it when I need it.

burntsushi 2y ago
I think my comment already addressed every single piece of what you said here. And you're shifting your original claim! You are no longer hiding behind POSIX compliance here. Instead, you're making a more nuanced argument based on more than just POSIX compliance, and one that I find very reasonable! But that's not what you originally said.
- grandempire 2y ago
  > I think my comment already addressed every single piece of what you said here. You did not mention a word about scripting. > But that's not what you originally said. It is. The reason ripgrep should not be in base is because it’s not posix compliant.
  - burntsushi 2y ago
    As I said, there are tons of things in `base` that aren't POSIX compliant. So that is clearly not a sufficient criteria to exclude something from `base`. You need something else (like what I said, and then you repeated without acknowledging that I had already said it). > You did not mention a word about scripting. WTF. Literally right there in my first comment: > Of course, grep still has a POSIX compliant base. And so long as your scripts only rely on that POSIX compliant base (no -a or -r or -o flags, for example), you can reap the portability benefits of POSIX. I hate to say, "please re-read my original comment," but I think it might actually apply in your case.
    - grandempire 2y ago
      > Literally right there in my first comment: In regards to ripgrep > that is clearly not a sufficient criteria to exclude something from `base`. You need something else The burden is on you to demonstrate why it should be included absent of a standard, not me to show why it should be excluded. Base maintenance work is a scarce resource. Your only argument so far has been that posix compliance doesn’t matter. This interaction is actually souring me on the project.
      - burntsushi 2y ago
        How could you possibly miss this in my first comment??? > Now, you could say having both grep and ripgrep installed by default would be somewhat wasteful. As the author of ripgrep, I agree with that. ripgrep is fine being something you opt into so long as coreutils is already included by default. ... > This interaction is actually souring me. You and me both. Maybe you could try actually reading my comments. I feel like I'm talking to an AI that has been trained to be maximally annoying through gaslighting. So unless you can demonstrate that you're a real person (like my profile does), you're now on my ignore list.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

burntsushi 2y ago

I think my comment already addressed every single piece of what you said here. And you're shifting your original claim! You are no longer hiding behind POSIX compliance here. Instead, you're making a more nuanced argument based on more than just POSIX compliance, and one that I find very reasonable! But that's not what you originally said.

grandempire 2y ago
> I think my comment already addressed every single piece of what you said here. You did not mention a word about scripting. > But that's not what you originally said. It is. The reason ripgrep should not be in base is because it’s not posix compliant.
- burntsushi 2y ago
  As I said, there are tons of things in `base` that aren't POSIX compliant. So that is clearly not a sufficient criteria to exclude something from `base`. You need something else (like what I said, and then you repeated without acknowledging that I had already said it). > You did not mention a word about scripting. WTF. Literally right there in my first comment: > Of course, grep still has a POSIX compliant base. And so long as your scripts only rely on that POSIX compliant base (no -a or -r or -o flags, for example), you can reap the portability benefits of POSIX. I hate to say, "please re-read my original comment," but I think it might actually apply in your case.
  - grandempire 2y ago
    > Literally right there in my first comment: In regards to ripgrep > that is clearly not a sufficient criteria to exclude something from `base`. You need something else The burden is on you to demonstrate why it should be included absent of a standard, not me to show why it should be excluded. Base maintenance work is a scarce resource. Your only argument so far has been that posix compliance doesn’t matter. This interaction is actually souring me on the project.
    - burntsushi 2y ago
      How could you possibly miss this in my first comment??? > Now, you could say having both grep and ripgrep installed by default would be somewhat wasteful. As the author of ripgrep, I agree with that. ripgrep is fine being something you opt into so long as coreutils is already included by default. ... > This interaction is actually souring me. You and me both. Maybe you could try actually reading my comments. I feel like I'm talking to an AI that has been trained to be maximally annoying through gaslighting. So unless you can demonstrate that you're a real person (like my profile does), you're now on my ignore list.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]