On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 01:28:20PM -0500, songbird wrote: > <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > ... > > That's why I cringe when people name executables "foo.sh". What do you > > do when you decide to rewrite the thing in C (or Rust, or whatever)? > > > > Do you go over all calling sites and change the caller's code? > > no, i would just consider it a transition or a change > in versions. :)
Again. You have one script, say /usr/local/bin/ring-the-bells.sh You use it in several other scripts. If you now re-implement it in your favourite Pascal as ring-the-bells.pas or something, you go over all your executables and fix that? IMO an executable name should indicate /what/ an executable does, not /how/. > i was always glad when people wrote descriptive names > for their programs instead of "f" or "f(x)". This is something totally different. Call the function by what it does, but -- again -- not by how. > since my first major programs were written in Assembler > Pascal and C whatever extensions needed for those were > used, i didn't see it as any fault. It is your prerogative, of course. I'm happy that ls is ls and git, git (not ls.i-was-implemented-in-c or something). Cheers -- t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
