On Sun 10 Dec 2023 at 19:48:29 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > 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?
I've done that sort of thing, generally between bash and python. It's so simple to implement with a symlink, ring-the-bells, that points to the preferred version. But there's some topic drift here. Most people are emailing documents rather than executables most of the time. Should I assume this disapproval of metadata in the filename doesn't apply to them? > IMO an executable name should indicate /what/ an executable does, > not /how/. AIUI executables fall into a different class, as the kernel can recognise them by their magic number and take account of that. You can't do that with the metadata inside, say, a PDF. Cheers, David.
