From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 6 10:14:27 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254AB1065673 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:14:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mail25@bzerk.org) Received: from ei.bzerk.org (tunnel490.ipv6.xs4all.nl [IPv6:2001:888:10:1ea::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EFE68FC08 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:14:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mail25@bzerk.org) Received: from ei.bzerk.org (BOFH@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ei.bzerk.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n56AEMuL011306; Sat, 6 Jun 2009 12:14:22 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mail25@bzerk.org) Received: (from bulk@localhost) by ei.bzerk.org (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id n56AEMUE011305; Sat, 6 Jun 2009 12:14:22 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mail25@bzerk.org) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 12:14:22 +0200 From: Ruben de Groot To: Wojciech Puchar Message-ID: <20090606101422.GB10672@ei.bzerk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ruben de Groot , Wojciech Puchar , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, utisoft@gmail.com References: <200906050924.23167.kirk@strauser.com> <200906051208.43135.kirk@strauser.com> <4A29EBB7.9090100@strauser.com> <20090606094648.GA10672@ei.bzerk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on ei.bzerk.org X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (ei.bzerk.org [127.0.0.1]); Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:14:25 +0200 (CEST) Cc: Ruben de Groot , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, utisoft@gmail.com Subject: Re: Date representation as YY/DDD or YYYY/DDD X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:14:27 -0000 On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 11:49:51AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar typed: > >>what some single-letter option meant. I pretty much never use them on > >>the command line, though. > > > >Agreed, the long options *as an alternative* can be descriptive in scripts, > >tutorials, howto's etc. > >The other reason often mentioned, there being not enough letters in the > >alphabet to cover all possible options, in my opinion advocates bloated > >software (one program can do it all), which goes against the Unix paradigm > >of making small programs that do one task exceptionally well and just > >chaining these together. > you exaggerate a bit. Maybe :) > for example rsync does have >26 options but most make sense for program > that is dedicated to one task, and it isn't against Unix paradigm. rsync isn't bloated and it's well written IMO. It still does only one job, and it does it well. As you say, most common tasks can still be done with only short options. This would change if some developer decided to add other, unrelated functionality. But that's harder if you want to maintain short options for the common tasks. Having only long options would place no such restrictions on bloating. Ruben