3 ms·
I have just publish a report on monday where I explain that the command line should be used instead of some small scripts that encapsulate for loops. The argum
by webreac 14y ago
I have just publish a report on monday where I explain that the command line should be used instead of some small scripts that encapsulate for loops.
The argument is that basic shell knowledge should be trained in order to not lose skill (or to improve). At my work, these skills are useful when facing unexpected urgent needs.
Having a short script is a very poor benefit (simpler syntax and reduced key typing) for a big loss:
- loss of knowledge
- loss of understanding of what the script is doing
- need to learn the name of the script which is not a reusable knowledge.
Learning the basic usage of sed, awk, shell is an investment that is quickly rewarded.
Learning all the intricacy of "replace" needs to know many javascript details and how they interact with shell escape sequences and your LOCALE configuration. I am sure it is less documented than the sed command.
- jsmeaton 14y agoThis is like saying you should learn C before using [some-lang] when all you want to do is cobble together a web page. Yes, it might be beneficial to some, but it's not absolutely required. Some people just don't live in the shell. We're taught to build upon useful building blocks to make useful things - why would you not abstract away the monotonous tasks?
- bruceboughton 14y agoAll I can say is I'm glad I don't work somewhere where someone writes a report on how I should get my work done at the most basic level.
- webreac 14y agoIt is a report on How and why I have done my work the way I did, What were the advantages and disadvantages, What could be done to improve the process. This kind of reports are useful for people doing similar activities.