songbird <songb...@anthive.com> wrote: > <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 01:28:20PM -0500, songbird wrote: > >> <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > > there is rarely a need to e-mail me directly. > > >> ... > >> > 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'm fine with that, but i'm also capable enough to know > how to search through a code base to find all the strings > i might need to change.
You make the anti-heroic assumption that your code is never used outside of your control (or specifically, outside of your code base). > i just scanned a few of my projects and noted i do not > use the .sh extension much at all for the binaries/executables, > but parts of the code may have that extension. That's a fine choice, as long as none of the internals will be exposed externally, IMHO. Though I confess I do often add a .pl extension to filenames :( PS I suspect tomas sent mail to you for the same reason I nearly did, namely that you or your mailer explicitly asked for it with a reply-to header. Certainly my claws MUA interprets that as meaning you want a copy too.
