81–90 of 160 posts
what kind of psychopath has a two line prompt?
I also can't understand the two-line prompt. I want my prompt to take as little space as possible.
I use that for starship information and the prompt is just the return code p[lus a character.
Am I the only one who is getting tired of "It's X in rust" type projects? It's making me dislike the community. Rust is not a user feature, it's an implementation detail.
Sure, but keep in mind that in the case of open source software plenty of people will choose software written in their favorite language so that they can potentially contribute to it. Or simply because they feel more connected to something that is written in their favorite language. So I don't think it's completely irrelevant.
Am I the only one who is getting tired of "It's X in rust" type projects? It's making me dislike the community. Rust is not a user feature, it's an implementation detail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that this happens should be food for thought for part of the rust community. Because the way I see it, if they keep this up, a few years from now, they could, other than some obscure linux kernel modules almost noone uses and a good grep-alternative, be well along what I lovingly call the "Haskell Route".
> "minimal" Here is what a minimal shell prompt looks like: $ Here is another one which only uses the shells own facilities: current-directory@hostname $ Running a complex piece of software every time the shell needs to display it's prompt, is not "minimal", regardless of how fast and well written said piece of software is.
what kind of psychopath has a two line prompt?
> "minimal" Here is what a minimal shell prompt looks like: $ Here is another one which only uses the shells own facilities: current-directory@hostname $ Running a complex piece of software every time the shell needs to display it's prompt, is not "minimal", regardless of how fast and well written said piece of software is.
I still think minimal is appropriate in this case as it shows only what’s relevant in the context.
Some things that you use regularly should be kept as minimal and as stable as possible. To me that includes the shell prompt, editor, browser for example.
I’m probably on the wrong side of history, but I just don’t like how much color there is in modern cli tools. It is distracting
I like some colour but some tools take it way too far. As for emoji, the appropriate amount of them in a CLI tool is zero.
Unless we are talking about unicode support. Indeed, the software should make a basic inquiry to see if the shell/terminal emulator supports unicode and fall back to ASCII if not. But there is a difference between "I don't support unicode" and "my unicode support is broken": the latter needs fixing, and emoji are actually a good test case to see if you really support unicode.
I’m probably on the wrong side of history, but I just don’t like how much color there is in modern cli tools. It is distracting