That's not a “discussion on the pros and cons of those two approaches”; that's a skewed story about just one part of a particular review of an exercise done in a particular historical context. (More on that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18699718)
Not that there isn't some merit to McIllroy's criticism (I know some of the frustration from trying to read Knuth's programs carefully), but at least link to the original context instead of a blog post that tells a partial story:
BTW, there's a wonderful book called “Exercises in Programming Style” (a review here: https://henrikwarne.com/2018/03/13/exercises-in-programming-...) that illustrates many different solutions to that problem (though as it happens it does not include Knuth's WEB program or McIllroy's Unix pipeline).
>BTW, there's a wonderful book called “Exercises in Programming Style” (a review here: https://henrikwarne.com/2018/03/13/exercises-in-programming-...) that illustrates many different solutions to that problem (though as it happens it does not include Knuth's WEB program or McIllroy's Unix pipeline).
I'm the same person who referred to my post with two solutions (in Python and shell) in that thread, here:
>Please consider all the viewpoints when linking to that blog post;
It should have been obvious to you, but maybe it wasn't: nobody always considers all viewpoints when making a comment, otherwise it would become a big essay. This is not a college debating forum. There is such a thing as "caveat lector", you know:
Let me put it this way: the last time the link was posted, I pointed out many serious problems with the impression it gives. Now, if the same link is posted again with no disclaimer, then either:
1. You don't think the mentioned problems are serious,
or
2. You agree there are serious problems but don't care and will just post it anyway.
Not sure which one it is, but it doesn't cost much to add a simple disclaimer (or at least link to the original articles). Else as long as I have the energy (and notice it) I'll keep trying to correct the misunderstandings it's likely to lead to.
Not that there isn't some merit to McIllroy's criticism (I know some of the frustration from trying to read Knuth's programs carefully), but at least link to the original context instead of a blog post that tells a partial story:
https://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/cs257/archive/don-knuth/pearls-...
https://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/cs257/archive/don-knuth/pearls-...
(One of the places where McIlroy admits his criticism was "a little unfair": https://www.princeton.edu/~hos/mike/transcripts/mcilroy.htm)
BTW, there's a wonderful book called “Exercises in Programming Style” (a review here: https://henrikwarne.com/2018/03/13/exercises-in-programming-...) that illustrates many different solutions to that problem (though as it happens it does not include Knuth's WEB program or McIllroy's Unix pipeline).