|
|
|
|
|
by ziotom78
94 days ago
|
|
I too was perplexed, but the main use case seems to be when you want to share a particular configuration or need to be sure that you always use the same set of flags: > Flags are ephemeral – you have to share the command line or wrap it in a script. Scripts depend on environment, which can break portability. Filenames solve both: the program describes itself, requires zero setup, and any configuration can be shared by simply renaming the file. [Emphasis added] Although I find a script that wraps the command and calls it more versatile, there might be some value in this idea for some very simple cases, like example #4. |
|
That said, apparently there's cursed methods of having a universal shell/batch file of sorts, according to https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17510688/single-script-t....
Anyway, I'd argue for the vast majority of cases, a shell script that wraps the command and its flags is fine.