in reply to Re^2: RFC iEngine
in thread RFC iEngine

Not exactly what I am trying to say, but the point I make is why bother with filing systems when you can name everything that you use.

Um, isn't that the definition of a filing system?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: RFC iEngine
by muscipula (Novice) on Jan 26, 2012 at 19:05 UTC

    You do get the gist of what I am saying. What is the point in nit picking, just because I say names, you assume that entails everything that encapsulates a filing system which it does not.

    File systems rely on a hierarchal structure and do not really have any relation to the data and the way you work with it. What I am suggesting is a symbolic connection between what you do and the way that you want to do it.

    Andrew

[reply]

      You do get the gist of what I am saying. What is the point in nit picking, just because I say names, you assume that entails everything that encapsulates a filing system which it does not.

      Um, the point is clarity, both of thought, and expression.

      When you say : why bother with filing systems when you can name everything that you use.

      Its like saying : why bother naming stuff when you can name stuff that you name.

      Yeah, I like rambling too

[reply]

        OK, let me explain it another way... The reason why Pascal is superior to C++ is because it is a symbolic language and not a cryptic, complex mess.

        Filing systems, along with shells such as bash are like the Swiss army knife, does everything but yet does nothing.

        You like clarity, but then so do all junkies ;)

        Andrew
[reply]

In Section Meditations