[IshKebab]

> Libc implementations have a very clear scope, clear enough that you can point to the specification. That is their 'one thing' do what that spec says.

No you can't get out of it my just saying the "one thing" is to do what the spec says. Who decided what's in the spec?

Would Eclipse be fine if someone just wrote a spec for it?

[Lerc]

It doesn't matter who decided what's in the spec. What matters is that you decided to implement it to a high standard. It's usefulness to others will be related to what they think of the spec. Nobody has to use your tool, but it's good for everyone to know exactly what the tool is.

Eclipse would be fine if it had a spec, committing to implementing that might be a task to arduous for some. A full spec would also lay bare what its goal is. Which in turn might lead to people deciding the tool they need is not this one. But yes, if was clear what it should be doing and it did that well then everyone benefits.

[IshKebab]

So the Unix philosophy doesn't apply if you have a written specification for you program? That's a pretty out-there view. I don't see why having a spec is related to what the Unix philosophy is trying to achieve.