Post AkGKgNb4liSVi658xU by pieist@qoto.org
 (DIR) More posts by pieist@qoto.org
 (DIR) Post #AkEwJz82T7HLOVKRQu by danderson@hachyderm.io
       2024-07-23T23:33:40Z
       
       1 likes, 1 repeats
       
       New rule for software design discussions: if your argument for a design includes the words "the unix philosophy", your design is automatically rejected, with no appeal available.If you mean a specific design goal, say what you mean. "The unix philosophy" has half a dozen definitions, unix never followed any of them religiously at all times, and has become shorthand for "I like this and don't feel like unpacking why".
       
 (DIR) Post #AkEwK27RLnaAfW4VPs by danderson@hachyderm.io
       2024-07-23T23:38:06Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Alternatively, if you insist on taking Unix's name in vain to win arguments, I am going to start taking you literally, and require you to show your work.Please explain how your design for commit hooks embodies "salvation through suffering", as described in Ritchie and Thompson (1974).Please describe, precisely, how your protocol buffer based microservice cloud works with text streams, the universal interface.Where is the filter in your design, which as we know every program must be?
       
 (DIR) Post #AkEwK55mIR2FtEJik4 by danderson@hachyderm.io
       2024-07-23T23:41:42Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       You claim that you want your rust program to embody the unix philosophy, and yet you refuse to implement half your logic in shell scripts to increase leverage and portability. Please explain.Your design doc uses "and" in its description of the program. Please explain how you reconcile this with doing one thing only.Justify your choice to make this SIMD library compute things fast at the expense of VAX VMS support, in direct violation of the commandment of portability over efficiency.
       
 (DIR) Post #AkEwK81zMymr0LZEki by danderson@hachyderm.io
       2024-07-23T23:44:37Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Or you know, if we're just using the Unix philosophy to mean whatever we feel like to win an argument, I'm going to argue against it on the basis that this small javascript helper library is not designed to run on a mid-range PDP-11 in the late 1970s, nor is it intended to be a self-supporting operating system optimized for rapid prototyping. Therefore, your entire design is premised on a nonsensical set of constraints, and is hereby rejected.
       
 (DIR) Post #AkF2qRegXh74rLSajw by kura@z0ne.social
       2024-07-24T02:31:55.480Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @danderson@hachyderm.io most of the time they refer to "do one thing and do it well". But I get what you mean.
       
 (DIR) Post #AkGKgMg0Bunyr5NYzw by lhp@mastodon.social
       2024-07-24T06:52:20Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @kura @danderson that isn't very actionable though. What is  "one thing"? How atomic do you have to get before it counts as "one" thing? Is the "one thing" from the PoV of the implementor or from the PoV of the user who wants to achieve a task? What is "well"? Well enough for one specific task? Or generally applicable? Who decides the magic barrier for "one thing"-implementations are programs instead of libraries?tl;dr: good code ignores the unix philosophy
       
 (DIR) Post #AkGKgNb4liSVi658xU by pieist@qoto.org
       2024-07-24T17:12:38Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @lhp @kura @danderson Also, someone explain busybox to me now
       
 (DIR) Post #AkGKgQ5dV45nRSOZs0 by kura@z0ne.social
       2024-07-24T17:26:27.789Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @pieist@qoto.org @lhp@mastodon.social @danderson@hachyderm.io it is a busy box