Have you even read TUPE? On Mar 31, 2013 4:19 PM, "Calvin Morrison" <mutanttur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 2013 9:57 AM, "Charlie Kester" <corky1...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > On 03/30/2013 23:49, Chris Down wrote: > >> > >> I really don't see the need for a tool like this. Saying sed and awk are > >> not suckless is like saying C is not suckless -- sed and awk are > languages > >> with a very specific domain, text processing. Perhaps you think *an > >> implementation* sucks. Good. GNU coreutils packages awful versions of > >> awk/sed. If you want to debate that these tools suck on a conceptual > level, > >> you've completely lost me, because your idea to completely cripple the > user > >> from being able to do anything remotely interesting is downright > baffling. > >> > >> You have introduced ANOTHER binary to do a job that plenty of tools can > >> already do in a completely non-sucky way, which is the most sucky thing > you > >> could have possibly done. I can only hope that you've mistakenly posted > >> this one day early for April 1st. > >> > >> I'm not usually this annoyed on this ML, even if it is the norm, but > >> Christ. If this is serious, I just don't even know what to say about it. > >> > > > > I'm inclined to agree, and that's why I chose to treat it as a coding > exercise rather than a serious proposal for a new utility. > > > > As a coding exercise, it did bring out some interesting responses which > might help clarify what we mean by programs that suck less. > > > > I brought it up also the make people think about how we easily accept > tools that already exist without scrutiny. > > Sed does many things and many things well, but the unix philosophy is to > do one thing and one thing well. > > Calvin >