You can change anything you want on your system; but don't try to ram it down others' throats unless you can prove that you're approach is (a) correct (b) meets the collective sense elegance. Reasoned disagreement is not an attack.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Blake McBride <bl...@mcbride.name> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:07 AM, <a...@9srv.net> wrote: > >> // If you are working on a project, edit some files, and then >> // perform a mk, if files you haven't changed get built, I for >> // one would constantly question myself, about whether or >> // not I changed that file. It would make things confusing. >> >> It's confusing because it doesn't match your expectations, >> but that's just as much because you're misunderstanding >> the intent of the tool. mk is not a tool for checking for >> changes, it is a tool for ensuring things are up to date. It >> just isn't designed to provide what you're looking for. That >> isn't to say that what you're looking for is unreasonable, >> but mk is not the tool to provide it. >> >> As an aside, I'd suggest learning to simply not worry about >> it. Internalize the fact that mk will sometimes rebuild things >> that don't strictly need it, but will ensure that things are up >> to date, and you'll have an easier time of it. >> >> // I for one favor practical usefulness over theoretical >> // correctness. >> >> You have not demonstrated anything that significantly >> impacts mk's practical usefullness. The fact that mk will, in >> some cases, rebuild things which don't need it doesn't >> significantly impact its utility for its intended purpose. >> >> In Plan 9, the heirarchy of values is different from other >> systems. Correctness (theoretical or otherwise) and >> elegance come above utility. That's not to say there are >> no tradeoffs in the system, but if you're going to give up >> even a little bit of correctness or elegance (environment >> variables?!?), you'd best be prepared to demonstrate a >> rather substantial utility gain. Given how much use this >> community has gotten out of mk over the past ~27 >> years, I think it's safe to say we're not sold. >> >> Anthony >> >> >> > What I am beginning to understand from comments like this is that there is > a "club Plan-9". Everything ever done by the originators of "club Plan-9" > is correct, period. No mater what exceptions, special cases, or good new > ideas occur, they are wrong and we will find some way of rationalizing > "club Plan-9". Anyone can join "club Plan-9" if you buy into that > assumption. The main purpose of Plan-9 forks (with some exceptions) is to > port to new hardware. Messing with the premise of "club Plan-9" is > significantly frowned upon and attacked. > > Just a newbie's (with 35 years experience) perception. > > Blake > > > > >
