Reinventing Lisp slowly: https://blog.scottlowe.org/2023/12/15/conditional-git-configuration/ -- why not just use a proper programming language for configuration files from the start? The so called Unix philosophy is nonsense.
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@amszmidt i'm not sure this has anything to do with unix philosophy. the older tools or plan9 as an extension of unix philosophy are well at lending themselves to being programmtically configured. it's all in the interfaces, and "ini" style (or yaml, json, ...) formats are bad interfaces as they all require much code for parsing and generating.
this doesn't mean that other ideas like the emacs way lisp is wrong, it's just different. imo it gets bad when different concepts are combined or reinvented haphazardly. which unfortunately is often the case.
@amszmidt with the plan9 file interfaces one can use any language capabke of file operations to configure things. that's what i meant. can be shell, can be whatever. it's much harder if the format is some serialization format or something homebrewed.
@bonifartius File interfaces, which means incompatible user interfaces. Better just have a decent programming language and do configuration via that.
@bonifartius Plan9 is a great example of how terrible one can make things. I disagree (strongly!) that older tools or Plan9 lend themselves to being configurable, in any sense of the word.
This also is unrelated to Emacs -- which is just an editor.
Lisp lends it self freely to being configurable without having to do anything. There are other languages that also lend to that ...