> On Jun 15, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Bryan Drewery <bdrew...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 6/14/15 3:17 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> On Jun 14, 2015, at 3:00, Slawa Olhovchenkov <s...@zxy.spb.ru> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 05:13:31PM -0700, Craig Rodrigues wrote: >>> >>>> The people I talk to use scripting languages like Python or >>>> Ruby, and devops frameworks like Ansible, Saltstack, Puppet, >>>> and Chef. They may do some quick prototyping and UI work with >>>> Javascript and HTML/CSS. Being able to generate JSON directly >>>> from system-level tools, and then analyze that in a Python >>>> script, >>> >>> You need JSON from system-level tools for analyze that in a >>> Python script? Realy? Not plain text? or tab/space separated? >> >> Having written a bunch of tools that parse plaintext, it’s a pain >> in the rear. It’s far easier to have JSON and a schema for working >> with that JSON when developing tools to parse things out. >> >> Programmers are inherently lazy — the more we have to make them >> work, the more pushback we’re going to get from them as far as >> integrating FreeBSD’s concerned. >> >> Thanks! >> > > For 'w' it makes sense, for 'ls' why? Most, all?, scripting languages > have globbing and file listing functions already so there's no need to > run /bin/ls and parse it.
I’ve yet to see why ls —libxo is better than a separate program articulated anywhere other than "libxo all the things.” Having a clear statement about why it is needed, why changing it vs having a separate program, etc would help. But is seems overly gratuitous with little benefit. Warner
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
