If you look at the filename examples, there seems to be an implicit suggestion of naming a group of related files using a common prefix.
If one needs to distinguish groups of files, why not just put them in directories? That's the reason directories exist, no?
I can somewhat understand if some (bad) software is written to look for files only in a single directory and you have to put everything there. But otherwise, it seems pretty pointless to use a common prefix and make filenames longer.
yeah, thinking along these lines filenames themselves are the easiest way to display the contents of a file, and that data travels with each and every file no matter where they're mv'd to, uploaded, deployed, shared, etc.
It's like brand name packaging, all the information including nutrition packed neatly on the outside. You don't go to the store and buy 'bread' you buy '2017-08-18-00-natures-own-dbl-fiber-wheat'.
This whole pdf resonated with me because it made me realize I'd developed these almost identical practices without knowing it. Mostly over time, trial and error, and a kind of natural selection, when it comes to sake of ease.
Because you might want to group files in an order other than first element to last element. Putting them in directories bakes in a single specific organization, rather than letting them be organized as desired on the fly.
Isn't that simply solved by (hard)linking the files in whatever directory structures needed? There is nothing really in directories that bakes in a single specific organization.
You could, and then every time you wanted to organize things differently you'd hardlink a new set of directories, and then you'd have all these directories sitting around—some of which are useful, and some of which aren't.
Which is to say: yes, you could, but it seems like a worse idea than just not putting them in directories at all, and relying on the OS's (strong) search features to get you want you want.
> and then you'd have all these directories sitting around—some of which are useful, and some of which aren't.
Directories do not really cost anything, so carrying them around doesn't really matter that much. You can think them just as simple (hierarchical) tags. If you really cared, doing a (scheduled) GC pass to prune empty branches shouldn't be too difficult to do.
Of course the question if tags are actually good way of organizing things is still open, but that is distinctly different problem than "baking in a single specific organization"; I would even venture to say that it is almost opposite problem, simple tags generally being too freeform and unstructured.
If one needs to distinguish groups of files, why not just put them in directories? That's the reason directories exist, no?
I can somewhat understand if some (bad) software is written to look for files only in a single directory and you have to put everything there. But otherwise, it seems pretty pointless to use a common prefix and make filenames longer.