Of course learning all of these languages is not needed. It's part of our insane work-a-holic, attention deficit society where everyone is expected to juggle an infinite amount of tasks such that no real concentration can take place. This is a massive socially engineered distraction, that is evident in other parts of our society too.
I definitely would say that it is a serious fallacy, the situation you have described. As a serious and steady user of various UNIX-type OSes for 15+ years, I have found myself continually going back to Bourne shell scripts for nearly every problem - it is very rare that I need functions that I cannot make happen in standard sh scripts and furthermore, said scripts are much easier to follow for future coders. Anyone with real UNIX experience can immediately understand much of most shell scripts.
my honest personal answer to your question: simplicity is the right direction, but simplicity lies in declarative languages, and there "we are" not yet. the systems are full of dumb imperatives.
I see what you are saying. The answer is "no" to providing simple commands. As technology and IT methodologies change/improve, so must the languages and administration skills to support these changes. Older languages have limitations that newer languages support. COBOL was good for it's time, but there are faster languages that can better exploit current technology.
I've been a UNIX admin for 15 years... I understand what you are asking.
Is what your asking "Can you just create a unix command to write lots of different codes for you?" I have no clue, great question thought. I would love to know... I am just now learning about Unix and Linux right now though...
Of course learning all of these languages is not needed. It's part of our insane work-a-holic, attention deficit society where everyone is expected to juggle an infinite amount of tasks such that no real concentration can take place. This is a massive socially engineered distraction, that is evident in other parts of our society too.
mcshadypies 9 months ago
I definitely would say that it is a serious fallacy, the situation you have described. As a serious and steady user of various UNIX-type OSes for 15+ years, I have found myself continually going back to Bourne shell scripts for nearly every problem - it is very rare that I need functions that I cannot make happen in standard sh scripts and furthermore, said scripts are much easier to follow for future coders. Anyone with real UNIX experience can immediately understand much of most shell scripts.
rockyriverrecluse 1 year ago
Thanks for commenting.
richardmullins44 1 year ago
we have not faith, founded on having no spring of confidence.
hapethere 2 years ago
the hoax does not lie in the langauges, the hoax lies in the system we live together.
hapethere 2 years ago
my honest personal answer to your question: simplicity is the right direction, but simplicity lies in declarative languages, and there "we are" not yet. the systems are full of dumb imperatives.
hapethere 2 years ago
I see what you are saying. The answer is "no" to providing simple commands. As technology and IT methodologies change/improve, so must the languages and administration skills to support these changes. Older languages have limitations that newer languages support. COBOL was good for it's time, but there are faster languages that can better exploit current technology.
I've been a UNIX admin for 15 years... I understand what you are asking.
N0JoC0 2 years ago
Is what your asking "Can you just create a unix command to write lots of different codes for you?" I have no clue, great question thought. I would love to know... I am just now learning about Unix and Linux right now though...
hostbooter13 2 years ago