Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> 
>> So what you're really saying, is that we need a modern implementation 
>> of traditional Unix style tools, distributed as a package.  It 
>> wouldn't need a ton of that backwards-compatibility stuff, because all 
>> of the included tools are fresh implementations that we know work 
>> together.
> 
> What I'm saying is that "Unix" isn't a single coherant design. It's 
> 50,000 random people all doing their own seperate thing, and expecting 
> the result to actually function. Which, almost unbelievably, it does. 
> But *damn* is it messy...

When you're writing a single, simple tool, with well defined inputs and 
outputs, it's much easier to make it work *no matter what*.  When each 
tool is maintained by a separate group of people, they may not share the 
same design ideology, but they're much more likely to operate correctly 
under unexpected circumstances.

So the fact that it works as often as it does shouldn't really surprise 
anyone.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message