unixgoddess

8 ms·

61.
by unixgoddess 4y ago
it was a "rare insect", so killing it is potentially catastrophic as insects are highly likely to play an important role in any ecosystem.
62.
by unixgoddess 4y ago
it's the opposite actually. Insects are incomparably more important than highly complex highly specialized animals when it comes to biodiversity.
63.
by unixgoddess 4y ago
I wonder when will they start editing Harry Potter, what with the Dursleys being caricature fatsos = villains.
64.
by unixgoddess 4y ago
it's not just about forking processes. Instead than a single binary that needs to satisfy as much use cases as possible while remaining small and general, you would have a lot of more atomic functions that users can mix and swap as nee
65.
by unixgoddess 4y ago
As stable as, say, golang's standard library. Sure, it needs upfront thinking and commitment, but it's not that difficult and might be well worth it. In the case of coreutils, the problem space is fairly simple and well-understo
66.
by unixgoddess 4y ago
what if it were written as a library, with the traditional cli implementation as a thin layer over it? I'm thinking about the wider FOSS ecosystem, for example if Firefox was built as a gui gluing together a modular collection of libra
67.
by unixgoddess 4y ago
nope. it's still a traditional binary meant to be used as traditional binaries from the posix shell. What I mean is, replace both the binaries and the shell with a library equivalent of coreutils running from a REPL.
68.
by unixgoddess 4y ago
I wonder why not reimplement coreutils as library functions, to be used within an ad-hoc REPL. It would be much more flexible and extensible. AFAIK, originally the reason why they were made as programs was that the available programming lan