From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id c9430315 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 21:51:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id DE9709BC28; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 07:51:18 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C838A9B906; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 07:51:10 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8996E9B906; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 07:51:08 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20BAB947D6 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 07:51:08 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546) id B3BD035E122; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:51:07 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Steve Nickolas Message-ID: <20190919215107.GA27727@mcvoy.com> References: <1568919029.18595.for-standards-violators@oclsc.org> <20190919201833.GN2046@mcvoy.com> <19f9233f-6f54-46eb-116f-990660ca2a76@kilonet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Subject: Re: [TUHS] [OT] Re: earliest Unix roff X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 05:46:13PM -0400, Steve Nickolas wrote: > On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, Arthur Krewat wrote: > > >Serious question: > > > >Which is better, creating a whole new binary to put in /usr/bin to do a > >single task, or add a flag to cat? > > > >Which is better, a proliferation of binaries w/standalone source code, or > >a single code tree that can handle slightly different tasks and save > >space? > > > >:) > > > >art k. > > I would argue that the more "Unix" way to do it is have the multiple > binaries. One job, one tool, and chain them together to make bigger tools. That worked when we were running on 64K machines. Modern machines do a lot more and the problem space is not always a pipeline. You aren't going to write a web server by spawning cat | encrypt | http_servlet That doesn't scale. At all.