|
|
|
|
|
by andrewla
2817 days ago
|
|
> This is considered more user-friendly than simply crashing (I'm going to assume the passive voice means "the article considers this more user-friendly" rather than some sort of commonly accepted fact). I disagree with this strongly and agree with the GP -- I would much rather have the command exit with a message saying that a required parameter is missing. For example, if I have a script using a command and the command becomes interactive, then my script is dead; but if it simply exits then my script has failed at a repeatable point. You could say that I should pass a "--noninteractive" flag into everything just in case, but sometimes these things aren't supported. I would much rather have an application support a "--interactive" flag to support those who want to be able to interact with the tool. I think the two sides of this are unlikely to be able to convince each other. At least the article presents a reasonable-ish middle ground of always offering help as to the way to circumvent the interaction at the point where interaction is required. |
|
ps. the verb "considered" is a good sign that this is an opinion, and would be even in a more "active" sentence.