Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As I've noted elsewhere, you can't even safely use `char ` for file names in Windows; it should be `wchar_t ` in order to avoid any encoding problem. Yes, this is true. But I think the overhead of writing that kind of code would not be as enormous as 30k lines or anything in that order. > At the very least it should have checked for TTY in advance. I'm not even interested in terminfo (which should go die). Maybe. I…
> It's an explicit option you must pass. It's often useful to be able to override isatty decisions when you want to embed terminal escapes in output to something like less. But for clear it's debatable. In terms of UX it's just moving the burden to the user, who may not be aware of that problem or even the existence of `-c`. The default matters. > I treat any amount of color as spamming when alternative options exist…
The default is no clear.
It could be the default is to clear and then I would agree that an isatty check would be necessary. But an isatty check for an explicit option here would be as weird as an isatty check for --color=always for something like ls.
> The bare terminal is too bad for UX
I think it depends on the task and the person. You wouldn't see me doing image editing, 3d modelling, audio mastering, or web browsing in a terminal. But for things which do not suffer for it (a surprising number of tasks) it's strictly better UX than a GUI equivalent.
> emojis
Yes, I dislike these. I especially remember when suddenly my terminal would colour emojis because someone felt it was a good idea to add that to some library as a default. :(
> I think you have been sidetracked then, as the very starting point was about cargo-watch being apparently too large. It's too large partly because of bloated dependencies but also because dependencies are composed instead of being inlined. Your point shifted from no dependencies (or no compositions as an extension) to minimal compositions, at least I feel so. If that's your true point I have no real objection.
Well no, I think you can build a cargo-watch equivalent (with a bit of jank) from disparate utilities running in a shell script and still have fewer total lines.
And sure, the line count is a bit inflated with a lot of things not being compiled into the final binary. But the problem we're discussing here is if it's worth to depend on a bunch of things when all you're using is one or two functions.
As I understand it, whenever doing anything with windows, you pull in hideous quantities of code for wrapping entire swathes of windows. Why can't this be split up more so that if all I want is e.g. file watching that I get just file watching. I know windows has some basic things you inevitably always need, but surely this isn't enough to make up 2M SLOC. I've written C code for windows and yes it's painful but it's not 2M SLOC of boilerplate painful.
Large complex dependency graphs are obviously not a problem for the compiler, it can chug away, remove unnecessary shit, and get you a binary. They're usually not a big problem for binary size (although they can still lead to some inflation). But they are a massive issue for being able to work on the codebase (long compilation times) or review the codebase (huge amounts of complexity, even when code isn't called, you need to rule out that it's not called).
And huge complex dependency graphs where you're doing something relatively trivial (and honestly file watching isn't re-implementing cat but it's not a web browser or an OS) should just be discouraged.
We both agree that you can get this done in under 50k lines. That's much easier to manage from an auditing point of view than 4M lines of code, even if 3.9M lines end up compiled out.