Re: Structured (XML-like) input/output for shell apps?
On 6/13/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <email@example.com> wrote:
> There are a lot of scripts today in production use that use the
> output of ls, ps, in a text-way. If you want to put another command,
> or another switch to "ls", ok, but the fact that you *can* do it
> does not mean that you *should* do it. (see below)
Didn't you say (or someone else) say the output of these commands was
(only) for human consumption?
> > > Obviously, some Monad clone can be done with its entire
> > > toolchain (monad-ls, monad-tableout) ...
> > Why not ls --monad?
> If you want to fork and maintain forever util-linux, I have nothing
> to say about that.
Why fork and not just change the 'real' util-linux? ;->
> But I *will* leave you (I'm going home from work now) with Occam's
> Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitem.
> (Things shouldn't be multiplied without necessity)
> IOW: if it's not broken, don't fix it.
If only it wasn't broken.
Netstat for example suffers from truncation.