1 Aug
2021
1 Aug
'21
3:32 a.m.
Richard Salz writes:
On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 3:21 PM Jon Steinhart
<jon(a)fourwinds.com> wrote:
Well, in my opinion that's not really an accurate representation of using getopt.
I would of course write the #include line, and the table of options, which would
end up being >= the number of lines that it takes me to do this...
while (--argc > 0) {
if (*(++argv)[0] == '-') {
for (p = *argv + 1; *p != '\0'; p++) {
switch (*p) {
Even if it took a few more lines to do it my way, I'm a believer that good coding
style keeps "meatspace locality of reference" in mind. As programmers, we put
in
a lot of effort to ensure locality of reference for computers, but then completely
toss it for people who aren't as good as it. So given a choice of a few lines of
code versus having to look something up somewhere else, I choose the few lines of
code.
Being a geezer, I have lots of code lying around from which I can extract working
fragments such as the one above. Writing those few lines of code provides insulation
from supply-side attack vectors bugs in libraries, versioning issues, having to load
debug libraries, and so on.
I realize that this isn't a huge deal by itself; it's a philosophical point.
When
I strace any random program that I didn't write I'm astonished by the amount of
library loading that takes place. So any issues are multiplied by n.
Don't get me wrong; I use plenty of libraries. But I tend to use those for stuff
that is so common that there is a benefit from shared libraries (or at least there
was before everything got containerized) and for libraries that do actual hard stuff.
But I don't use libraries for small snippets of code that I could easily write
myself yielding better code clarity for others reading my code.
Jon
opinion, it doesn't add value to do
something that's already been done
but differently; it detracts from value because now there's yet another
competing way to do something.
You mean like not using getopt and rolling your own? Shrug.
while ((i = getopt(argc, argv, "xxxxx:xxxx")) != -1)
switch (i) {
case ....
}
argc -= optind;
argv += optind;
So I never got getopt(). One of my rules is that I don't use a library
in cases where the number of lines of gunk that
that it takes to use a
library function is >= the number of lines to just write it myself.
I don't know, what lines in the above are extra beyond what you write? The
last two if being generous I suppose.