Abigail wrote:
> Now, go write a useful, non-trivial, Makefile that doesn't use extensions.
Pointing at a system designed on a system steeped in the idea of file
extensions as type identifiers as proof its difficult to work without them is
design hate of the highest magnitude. Its the anthropic principle run wild.
It poo-poos any idea which doesn't fit into the existing architecture.
Thinking "isn't it amazing that file extensions are so easy to use" while
ignoring that the whole ecosystem is designed to support it. Like saying you
can't imagine any other way the nose might be shaped, how would we wear glasses?
Having used an operating system with file metadata, Mac OS. For all its flaws
(and I know I just opened up a carton of hate by even mentioning Mac OS and
associating the idea of metadata with it) it was wonderful to know that THIS
file as of THAT type and should be opened by THAT application. And the
potential to shove any other metadata I needed into the file without mangling
the content. Imagine a text file with FORMATTING that's still just a text
file. Wow!
Its not too hard to imagine a build tool without extensions:
%.type(C object): %.type(C source)
...
And then everyone will go "but %.o is so much more concise!" Nevermind that
its UNPORTABLE. I'm sure I can come up with something.
%.t(obj): %.t(C)
...
But I'm sure it took make a few years to come up with the %.ext syntax so
you'll forgive me if I can't make it perfect in a single email.
Could be worse, could be Ant.
--
184. When operating a military vehicle I may *not* attempt something
"I saw in a cartoon".
-- The 213 Things Skippy Is No Longer Allowed To Do In The U.S. Army
http://skippyslist.com/list/
