4 ms·

I lol'd, but do you think this is valid? https://github.com/wallach-game/bashumerate/pull/1/files https://github.com/wallach-game/bashumerate/pull/1/files to

• giov4 3mo ago
  On a second thought I think that the effort in trying to find a shell uncomfortability problem and trying to solve it with a "wrapped workaround" still represents positive effort and should be supported and fostered without jumping directly in 90's like rtfm mode. especially in the case of a younger profile, learning and putting dev effort, even if vibed or redundant, its still effort and a learning activity! https://github.com/wallach-game https://github.com/wallach-game so I support this even if the result and problem solving can be less significant
  • Dibby053 3mo ago
    It's possible the tool is useless and a consequence of not reading the manual, but it could just be the tool is nice but the examples are too simplistic. In any case, toxicity aside, publishing a command line project and having someone dismiss the examples with shell oneliners is also a valuable lesson, and I don't think it will make him a worse developer.
    • giov4 3mo ago
      that's what I also thought when I saw the pull request, that it could be a useful lecture. But again the usefulness of the final tool should not compromise appreciation of effort and learning. Unless the tool targets, claims or pretends to be the best, final and universal solution to such problem. I believe it isn't, I will still fall back to my bash memories, I will not need, install and use this tool, I will not need, install or use custom shells. The effort wasted in re-aligning my brain to a tool change would superseed instantly the few second effort needed to reach the needed bash one-liner. Also, didn't you also feel good and amazed when completing a very long and nested working one-liner? wasn't that orgasmic? :D
• Dibby053 3mo ago
  Some of these are wrong, as standard shell globs don't traverse directories. For instance the first example should be: ls **/*.sh I think that would work in Bash just as well as using find. But yeah, even in POSIX it feels redundant when we already have find, seq, grep and whatnot.
  • wongarsu 3mo ago
    I frequently have cases where `ls **/*.png` fails because the argument list is too long. Just happened yesterday with an rm I wanted to run. Find works, but the syntax is arcane. Not bad, but unlike any other common cli tool, which makes it more difficult to remember if you haven't needed it in a while
    • giov4 3mo ago
      I agree and I usually ended-up combining find reliability with other commands to obtain what I needed without big issues or too much looping syntax effort. Regarding remembering the find syntax I think its being arcane is what it made for me more easy to remember :) I now have a unique brain area dedicated to remember only that.
    • jimmaswell 3mo ago
      > Find works, but the syntax is arcane. fd is a lifesaver: https://github.com/sharkdp/fd https://github.com/sharkdp/fd
    • Grimeton 3mo ago
      Newer finds have a -delete option. Dunno if that's standard or some GNU addition, but it's there.
  • IsTom 3mo ago
    To be pendantic ls -- **/*.sh Otherwise it will fail if you've got a file named e.g. --help
    • ahoef 3mo ago
• inigyou 3mo ago
  The main reason to use xargs is to split up argument lists before they exceed the limit.
• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]