821–826 of 826 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is you confusing yourself posted as a response to me? You can mutter random nonsense to yourself offline, I don't need to be involved.
I take it from your response that you are the few who cares enough to say "who cares"? You sound a bit sensitive...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to ask unless /home is mounted noexec. It seems rather absurd to assume a seldom used and rather massive ecosystem of language, libs, framework and package manager are installed, but that it is impossible to upload a copy of gsed to ~/bin. The number of shared hosting environments where you can't run your own code, and you already have node installed is miniscule. And although its getting a bit off-top…
"You don't need to ask unless /home is mounted noexec." You'd be surprised what is restricted in a lot of corps beyond the "approved" software list. It is amazing what big things get approved and what little things don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A snarky comment and a bad apology may be an instance of the second thing. But they don't imply the first. Sorry chief, I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there. The snarky comment can be forgiven. (although I've since read other tweets/posts from David Cramer and it appears as though he really is that abrasive all the time) By contrast, a bad apology is a clear indication of someone's true nature. If…
Luckily, Cramer wasn't giving an apology. That post was not apologetic because it was an explanation of a single tweet. If you keep shitting comments that don't reflect the reality of the situation, that makes you the asshole.
Holly Ass, Twitter, by essence is an assholy thing. What can you expect from someone who has "3500 friends" or "50 000 followers" ? Follow the Holy Shoe of Jerusalem :)
I wish the guys involved would submit pull requests to amend what they thought was so bad. It has a better educational and apologetic value. It also shows the kind of respect people should get; if you don't like the code you're seeing on Github, improve it and submit a pull request - why not?
Submitting pull requests is for code you actually consider worthwhile/useful. These guys didn't seem to think it even has a reason to exist, so why would they try to improve it? It'd be like saying, "Well, if you don't like my toothbrush for ducks, why don't you tell me how to improve it?"
Further, I think they shape of the code was referred to as 'eye bleeding'. Regardless of if you're building something worthwhile, they could have fixed the eye hurting code and explain why that is a more correct way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you care about simplicity, I would personally rather write a small shell script wrapping find/xargs/sed and hiding their arcane options, as opposed to writing 173 lines of js. I would rather use my language of choice to implement the above (mine wouldn't be JavaScript, but it clearly was Heather's) than to research all of those arcane command lines. Rather obviously YOUR language of choice for this kind of proble…
I believe that your complexity estimate in writing the wrapper indicates you are perhaps not a proficient shell scripter. However I sincerely believe it is possible to write such a wrapper in less than 15-20 lines. The trick is to do as little argument parsing as possible but enough to be safe (for example pass the ! -name "*.min.js" as is to find). PS: I will do it in 15-20 lines, if only to prove a point, if someon…
When I DO see non-trivial shell scripts, they are just this side of arcane gibberish. The command lines above are completely opaque to anyone but an expert in EACH of those tools (I know some of the tools, but not all well enough to know EXACTLY when I need to backslash a paren, or how many backslashes to use, or when I need quotes or not...).
When I see the JavaScript that spawned this conversation, despite not knowing JavaScript well at all (probably about the same level I "know" shell scripting) I was able to follow everything that was happening to the point where tweaking it to add features would have been easy.
The objective shouldn't be to write code in the fewest possible symbols. Everyone would use APL (or a more recent evolution of that language) if that were the case.
The fewest possible readable and modifiable lines of code is my objective. Shell scripting tends to have lots of obscure and unpleasant syntax to accomplish the most basic flow control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I take it from your response that you are the few who cares enough to say "who cares"? You sound a bit sensitive...
All you should take from my response is that I don't know why you replied with random nonsense.