[fargle]

> Yes one is sane and the other one isn't

Agreed! Clearly you mean UNIX/Linux is the sane one, right? Before you fly into a hissy fit and say the UNIX toolkit theory is insane please learn, read, and respect a little history. So all the famous papers, IEEE, ACM, written by folks like DMR and Thompson are "bogus" arguments, right???

These guys might have done things in ways you don't grok, ways you don't like, or ways you think you know how to do better. The UNIX approach, like all complex things, has pros and cons. But until anything you or microsoft has built has stood up for 50 years, been academically published and cited, maybe won a couple Turing awards and Presidential medals, don't try defend an argument with a simple "it's bogus" or "insane" or "nonsense".

[uk_programmer]

> Agreed! Clearly you mean UNIX/Linux is the sane one, right? Before you fly into a hissy fit and say the UNIX toolkit theory is insane please learn, read, and respect a little history. So all the famous papers, IEEE, ACM, written by folks like DMR and Thompson are "bogus" arguments, right???

Seems you are going into the hissy fit. I also don't care about your arguments from authority. Programming against a well defined abstraction will be better than piping things around and easier for people to understand.

> These guys might have done things in ways you don't grok, ways you don't like, or ways you think you know how to do better. The UNIX approach, like all complex things, has pros and cons. But until anything you or microsoft has built has stood up for 50 years, been academically published and cited, maybe won a couple Turing awards and Presidential medals, don't try defend an argument with a simple "it's bogus" or "insane" or "non

This is the Pavlovian response to any criticism of the great unix way. Again all of this is an argument from authority and people used Unix because it was good enough and available. Lets not pretend it was successful because it was so great.

[fargle]

You love the word Pavlovian don't you?

I'm not making an argument to authority. I'm saying you are dismissing, without any valid argument at all, years of reasoned academics and experienced and careful engineering.

So what's your argument? You're level abstract is "better" because it just clearly is. And you're tired of hearing another viewpoint?

I think you are very naive and I don't see you how will gain experience if you don't wish to listen to anything you don't already understand!

[uk_programmer]

> So what's your argument? You're level abstract is "better" because it just clearly is. And you're tired of hearing another viewpoint?

Maybe you are dense. I have heard all these talking points before, many, many, many times. I do not find them convincing. If you regurgitate copy-pasta from 4chan's /g board I am not going to be interested.

> I think you are very naive and I don't see you how will gain experience if you don't wish to listen to anything you don't already understand!

I've been mucking about with computers since the BBC Micro-computer. I have been developing professionally for 15 years. Don't patronise me. I am actually very very cynical.

[fargle]

> 4chan's /g board

No freaking clue what you are talking about.

> copy-pasta (sic)

That's just insulting I'm writing from my own personal experience and trying to explain my arguments.

> professionally for 15 years

So a relative newbie, eh? I might have expected as much.

> I am actually very very cynical.

Understatement. You are not however good at learning or listening. Or debate.

Maybe the reason you keep hearing the same arguments is that there is merit to them. Maybe your viewpoint isn't universal and a large number of other people see things a different way. Maybe the reason you aren't convinced is because you don't take the time to listen and understand what others are saying. I understood your points, I accept some of them, for example bash isn't any good for managing SQL databases. You've offered nothing but insults false assumptions and general negativity and that "you don't like it".

[uk_programmer]

> That's just insulting I'm writing from my own personal experience and trying to explain my arguments.

Your arguments are the same as the copy-pasta. It isn't anything new, it isn't anything convincing and it isn't even an argument really.

> So a relative newbie, eh? I might have expected as much.

Yeah yeah yeah yeah whatever. You conveniently missed out the fact I've been programming since the late 80s, just not as a Software Engineer.

> Understatement. You are not however good at learning or listening. Or debate.

Why should I listen to someone that does the same recycled arguments? I listen to a lot of people, just generally not people who recycle the same old nonsense. You haven't told me anything I haven't heard before.

> Maybe the reason you keep hearing the same arguments is that there is merit to them. Maybe your viewpoint isn't universal and a large number of other people see things a different way. Maybe the reason you aren't convinced is because you don't take the time to listen and understand what others are saying. I understood your points, I accept some of them, for example bash isn't any good for managing SQL databases. You've offered nothing but insults false assumptions and general negativity and that "you don't like it".

I don't think streaming text around between programs is in any way robust. I don't mind the whole "lego pieces" and single responsibility principle. But it is hardly unique to Unix. This tirade against me because I don't agree with your ideology and somehow I am a bad person is quite amusing though. The so called insults were extremely mild so don't pull that nonsense.

Goodbye.