Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!sri-unix!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!ptsfa!nonvon!gilsys!mc68020
From: mc68020@gilsys.UUCP (Thomas J Keller)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Large programs
Message-ID: <1130@gilsys.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3-Oct-87 14:12:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: gilsys.1130
Posted: Sat Oct  3 14:12:40 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Oct-87 02:17:55 EDT
References: <1046@ius1.cs.cmu.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Consequently Computers, Santa Rosa, Ca
Lines: 56
Keywords: UNIX LS HUMOR
Summary: All this talk of using "existing tools" seems to be overlooking what to me is a fairly significant point.
Xref: mnetor comp.unix.wizards:4694 comp.arch:2515

In article <1046@ius1.cs.cmu.edu>, edw@ius1.cs.cmu.edu (Eddie Wyatt) writes:
> 
> "In the absence of the ability to redirect output and input, 
>	[ stuff about why ls shouldn't have lot's of options ]
> authors of commands such as 'ls' to provide such a wide variety of output
> options."
> 
>    Its seems very funny that they use 'ls' as an example since that
> command now is so burdened with options.  The functionality of which
> could be provided by piping the output of the command into other
> UNIX utilities. It seems that someone lost sight of the original plan.

   Okay, now I am the first to admit that I am a relative neophyte to UNIX and
its philosophy, but it seems to me that a crucial point is being missed here.

   I read quite frequently about how programs should be kept small, simple,
single-purpose, and then tied together with pipes to perform more complex
tasks.  This is all well and good from one perspective.  But it seems to me
that it ignores a perspective which is highly important (not altogether
surprising, as UNIX has a well established tradition of ignoring this aspect
of computing), specifically, the user interface.

   1)  entering a command which uses three to seven different small programs,
all piped together, is a *PAIN* in the arse!  In many cases, a single command
is much more desireable, certainly less prone to errors, and always eaiser and
faster to use.

   2)  speaking of speed, we all seem to have forgotten that each one of those
lovely small programs in the chain has to be loaded from disk.  Clearly, the
overhead necessary to fork & spawn multiple processes, which in turn load
multiple program text into memory, is **MUCH** greater than spawning and 
loading a single program!  Waiting time is important too, you know?

   I use the power of the I/O re-direction in UNIX whenever it makes sense to
do so, and I find it extremely useful  I would suggest, however, that mono-
maniacal adherence to a so-called "UNIX Philosophy" which for the most part
blatantly ignores the needs and convenience of the USERS is an error.  Sure,
it's FUN to be a wizard, and know how to invoke arcane sequences which 
accomplish what are really fairly simple tasks, and to have unsophisticated
users in awe of your prowess.  Fun and very satisfying.  But not very effective,
and for my money, highly counter-productive.  

   There is no reason that UNIX should remain a mysterious and arcane system
which typical users are fearful to approach, yet this is the case.  Continuing
promulgation of the "UNIX Philosophy", as it currently exists, can only ensure
that fewer people will learn and use UNIX.  It is time for us to get our egos
and our heads out of the clouds, and make UNIX a reasonable, effective
environment for everyone, not just the wizards.

   [stepping down off soapbox, donning asbestos suit (don't tell the EPA!)]


-- 
Tom Keller 
VOICE  : + 1 707 575 9493
UUCP   : {ihnp4,ames,sun,amdahl,lll-crg,pyramid}!ptsfa!gilsys!mc68020