Re: "Section" in *.doc-base file.
On 08/14/2001 08:37:47 AM Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Michael Piefel wrote:
>> > Am 14.08.01 um 08:21:06 schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
>> > > > > Apps/
>> > > > > Programming
>> > > > > Devel/
>> > > Programming should be for language interpretors/compilers, and IDEs,
where
>> > > Devel should be for debuggers, profiling...
>> >
>> > This differentiation is not instantly obvious to me. In an IDE, you
can
>> > do debugging, can't you?
>>
>> Yes, but an IDE is an application (huge do-it-all thingie that reminds
one
>> of Microsoft OSes), while Devel should be used for typical unix
black-boxes
>> "do only one thing and do it well" utilities.
>>
>> Again, IMHO.
I don't agree with separating programming and devel because it seems to be
splitting hairs. Also, I don't think everyone has similar enough intuition
to categorize everything in a similar manner. In other words, newbies
would be more confused than helped, and old timers would have no change
other than having to type more.
I like a design of 36 subdirectories, A-Z 0-9. No playing games then,
emacs belongs in e/emacs, gdb belongs in g/gdb, etc. Or implement both
suggestions as "cat/apps/programming/emacs" and "alpha/e/emacs" using
symbolic links.
If categories were implemented anyway, I would intuitively expect the "root
directory" Devel to hold bigger things like IDEs and the "minor
subdirectory" Programming to hold little things like black boxes. Based on
the idea that stuff in "root" is bigger, or more important, or has more
features contained in it, than small stuff buried in a subdirectory.
I don't want to begin the holy war of where emacs truly belongs because I'm
sure the majority of people will be unhappy where ever it is placed. The
"solution" of symbolically linking emacs into nearly every subdirectory is
probably not a useful idea, because everyone else will want to do the same
(I use SED and TR to occasionally reformat tcpdumps and even emails, so SED
belongs in the same spot as ELM and PINE, include other silly examples
here)
Reply to: