Re: simpler question about my script

[Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev]

On Sun, Feb 20, 2022, 23:28 Sysadmin Lists <sysadmin.lists@mailfence.com>
wrote:

> > ------------------------------
> > From: Dennis Williamson <dennistwilliamson@gmail.com>
> > To: Sysadmin Lists <sysadmin.lists@mailfence.com>
> > Cc: help-bash <help-bash@gnu.org>
> > Subject: Re: simpler question about my script
> >
> > There are differences (and sometimes overlap) among concise, verbose,
> > dense, gibberish, time- or space-constrained and "too clever by half"
> > pieces of code. Sometimes priorities have to be compromised, but
> > readability and maintainability have to be among the highest because
> > programmer time remains expensive while hardware cost per performance has
> > declined. In very small-scale (project life span, for example) or
> personal
> > environments sometimes expediency becomes the top priority, but -
> surprise!
> > - now your "quick-and-dirty" has become production and the technical debt
> > starts ballooning.
>
> Throughout my career I've been tasked with maintaining legacy sed, perl,
> and
> awk scripts. I've lost count how often I've read something written 10-15
> years ago and thought, "damn, that's clever!" But not modern scripts; their
> quality has deteriorated. On several occasions I've needed to modify a
> legacy
> script, written out 4 lines of code, thought about it for 5 minutes, and
> reduced
> it to a single-line change. The advice on simplicity is having an
> unintended
> effect on new coders|sysadmins: in practice we've turned "keep it simple,
> stupid"
> into "keep it stupid, simpleton."
>
> You're right about the benefits, but there are detrimental effects. We're
> destroying our industry. Have you seen some modern Python scripts?
> Goodness gracious, they'd make an old coder blanch.
>

there is, i met, two sides of coding comm ppl
the ones that do code and come up
and the ones that text their negativity rather

>
> There's something deeply rewarding about coming up with some clever
> construct
> or approach, then seeing it in one of O'Reilly's old books or the like.
> It's evidence of
> a deeper understanding of the language. And it makes scripting fun. We
> should
> encourage those high standards, not discourage them for the sake of
> time=money.
> That should be the compromise: raise code-documentation standards instead
> of
> lowering coding standards.
>

u mean my code in by any means ? :)
id be happy to write that proj rightly and post, including the linker

-- 
> Sent with https://mailfence.com
> Secure and private email
>
>