29 Aug
2006
29 Aug
'06
12:28 p.m.
Sean Conner wrote:
It was thus said that the Great Don once stated:
It was offered "tongue-in-cheek" -- i.e. isn't this what modern GUI's
effectively are doing? And, also, to illustrate how ludicrous
distilling everything about a file "type" to an N-character
"extension" is, in practice. E.g., how do you link foo.o
vs. bar.o (since each may require different libraries, etc.)
I.e. type needs to be finer grained than silly N *character*
file "extensions"... *everyone* wants to be "DOC", or some
other pronounceable extension. So, the file types lose their
value (e.g., on my W2K box, Matlab and Mathematica both want
to use .m -- so, .m files are meaningless to me since I can't
recall FROM THE NAME OF THE FILE which application needs to
be opened to process the file). MacOS *seems* to have had the
right idea (though I have never used it "seriously" to know
for sure).
Imagine the (cough) elegance of being able to
type:
$ foo.c // to compile foo
$ foo.o // to link foo
$ foo // to run foo
(neglecting the means of actually *writing* foo! :< )
Nice for single file projects, but my current pet project consists of 47
source files and 38 object files. I don't think your scheme scales 8-P
-spc (But it's a nice idea ... )