this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
71 points (100.0% liked)
Open Source
31184 readers
177 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Noooooooo! One tool should do one thing and one thing only! Blasphemy! Heresy! Anthema! Systemd!" crying in unix design philosophy
yeahs systemd I know yada yada :)
But working with embedded stuff, sometimes MCU with like 8MB embedded flash, have a 512k uboot, 1.5MB kernel, you are left with 6MB of flash for the whole application and lib, and busybox is a savior here!
it was a joke xD i like busybox (and systemd) i don't particularly subscribe to the unix way, but to each their own ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
IMO, "One app/library/etc does one thing only" is a rather ignorant form of wisdom about encapsulation, anyways.
Encapsulation is important regardless of how many disparate tasks a library handles. Doing one thing with one thing is a pretty good rule of thumb to get close to good results, but it is FAR from a golden standard, and serves to drag people away from the finer nuances of encapsulation.
The ONLY time it is a hard and fast rule is at the individual function level. A single function ideally should have one task to accomplish, even if that task has side effects.
I'm sure there are cross-dependency issues on an OS level that makes it a bit wiser to do for widely used system tasks, but to make it an absolute rule smacks of wisdom gone awry. Like not eating shellfish in the bible.