<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. 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. >> i was always glad when people wrote descriptive names >> for their programs instead of "f" or "f(x)". > > This is something totally different. Call the function by > what it does, but -- again -- not by how. :) >> since my first major programs were written in Assembler >> Pascal and C whatever extensions needed for those were >> used, i didn't see it as any fault. > > It is your prerogative, of course. I'm happy that ls is ls > and git, git (not ls.i-was-implemented-in-c or something). sure. songbird
