Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: instability in Berkeley versus AT&T releases (absurdly long)
Message-ID: <5852@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 13:19:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5852
Posted: Thu Aug  1 13:19:37 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 13:19:37 EDT
References: <2067@ucf-cs.UUCP> <363@cuae2.UUCP> <2423@sun.uucp> <5819@utzoo.UUCP>, <349@phri.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 18
Keywords: cat -v, ls -C

> 	Why is "cat -v" a botch?  If you want to see if you have junk in a
> file it's a lot nicer than "od -c".  And what's so terrible about "ls -C"?

Nobody is arguing that the functionality isn't useful; it's just misplaced.
Funny-character expansion doesn't belong in cat any more than it belongs
in cp or tar; it should be a separate command.  Columnizing doesn't belong
in ls any more than it belongs in spell or grep; it should be a separate
command.  It is obviously useful to be able to invoke a columnizing ls
with one command, but that's a trivial shell file (or an alias, for those
who run shells that start up slowly and hence can't run small shell files
efficiently); there is no need to build it into ls.

For an explanation of why "one program, one function, done well" is a good
way to build a system, see almost any discussion of the "Unix philosophy".
Try Kernighan & Pike.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry