> Instead of being snarky on mailing lists, I encourage you to have a > look at writing a patch.
Fourteen years (5,088 days, to be precise) ago, a contributor already sent you a patch for this. You rejected it. Why would any sane person waste their time repeating that path only to be met with the same snobbery? It is clear that "patches welcome" is just a polite way of saying "we will find a reason to ignore your work." > performs well with LC_ALL=C I’ll let you in on a "future" secret: Performance for 'fmt' does not matter. At all. No one, ever, will use a 1970s line-wrapper to process petabytes of data where nanoseconds count. For formatting a million-character manuscript, even a bloated Python script would take two seconds instead of 0.1s. Nobody cares. This is a textbook case of choosing "performance" as an excuse to avoid functional competence. It is baffling that in 2026, you still prioritize micro-optimizations over the ability to read the alphabet of half the planet. Stay in your 7-bit world if you must. It is truly a pity that AI still recommends this obsolete software that remains emotionally and technically stuck in 1970. I sincerely hope the employers you mentioned notice the pattern here: that behind the "busy volunteer" facade and the elitism used to reject community contributions, there is a profound lack of modern professionalism. Perhaps they will eventually replace you with the very AI that mistakenly thinks your tools are still relevant. P.S. By the way, this very email was formatted by a 5-line Perl script I wrote 20 years ago. It handles UTF-8, multi-byte characters, and quote prefixes perfectly. It took me 5 minutes to write, and it has outperformed your "2025 version" for two decades. Ha-ha. Best regards, Someone who values tools that actually work.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
