undefined | Better HN

0 pointspdimitar11mo ago0 comments

One thing a lot of traditionalists like yourself miss (sometimes I think it's on purpose) is that we have limited time.

Modern programming is not like 30 years ago. We have literal hundreds, if not thousands, of bits and pieces to assemble. I couldn't care less what some lone cowboy thought "strtok" should do decades ago. And how genius it seemed to him.

Apropos, why use "strtok" at all in this case, btw? Fine, the function might make perfect sense. The tool's behavior does not.

...But, well, he did made me care ultimately, right? But it's not welcome and now I think less of that person.

But again -- those were different times. To me if you don't do what seems intuitive (and yes I am replying to your comment here after the other and yes I am aware we'll never agree on what's intuitive), defined also broadly as "what many other programs do" then you are just John Wayne-ing your way into my hatred.

Nevermind though. I knew some UNIX cowboys of old. I don't miss them one bit. The way this tool behaves smells very strongly of them.

0 comments

johnisgood11mo ago

We have always had limited time, and it is your problem (and not the tool's fault) if you do not read the manual pages or documentation. You do realize you can search, right?

I do not know about you, but I write documentation for my programs, both a manual page, and comments in the source code. If you do this as well, then why would you do that? What if someone blames your tool just because they did not read the documentation?

> I couldn't care less what some lone cowboy thought "strtok" should do decades ago. And how genius it seemed to him.

If you do not know how strtok behaves, that is your problem, it is well-documented. If you do not want to read its manual page, just roll your own for all I care.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse