Command Line Interface Toolkit

I have a great CLI library, /prog/, which I'm going to call CLIT. My question is whether to go ahead and actually release it as CLIT? I'm using my real name on the library.

Let people make the connection themselves.

>>1
no, if you want it to be taken seriously call it slit or something.

>>3
slit as in ... ?

>>4
slit(noun) - A long, narrow cut or opening.

or a gap...

Nobody uses command line on Windoughts

/polecat kebabs/

call it CLITkit

it will probably be more popular than it ought to with that name

>>9,1
Yeah, most people are terrible people, so they'd lap that shit right up and think it was hilarious.

Tot - Text oriented toolkit. It also means 'dead' in German, which is how these projects usually end up.

What's wrong with curses?

>>12
That is not a command-line interface.

what's wrong with ur anus?

>>13
What the fuck is a command line interface then? bash?

What the fuck is a textboard then? [aa]?

>>16
Fuck off, ``faggot''

This is interesting..

>>15
Command line: A line upon which you enter commands.
So yes, bash is an example. So are many language interpreters. See also: readline, ed.

When I log into my Xenix system with my 110 baud teletype, both vi
*and* Emacs are just too damn slow.  They print useless messages like,
'C-h for help' and '"foo" File is read only'.  So I use the editor
that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.

Ed, man!  !man ed

ED(1)               UNIX Programmer's Manual                ED(1)

NAME
     ed - text editor

SYNOPSIS
     ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ]
DESCRIPTION
     Ed is the standard text editor.
---

Computer Scientists love ed, not just because it comes first
alphabetically, but because it's the standard.  Everyone else loves ed
because it's ED!

"Ed is the standard text editor."

And ed doesn't waste space on my Timex Sinclair.  Just look:

-rwxr-xr-x  1 root          24 Oct 29  1929 /bin/ed
-rwxr-xr-t  4 root     1310720 Jan  1  1970 /usr/ucb/vi
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  5.89824e37 Oct 22  1990 /usr/bin/emacs

Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed.
Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog
message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K;
and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!

"Ed is the standard text editor."

Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed:

golem> ed

?
help
?
?
?
quit
?
exit
?
bye
?
hello?
?
eat flaming death
?
^C
?
^C
?
^D
?

---
Note the consistent user interface and error reportage.  Ed is
generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm
the novice with verbosity.

"Ed is the standard text editor."

Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.

ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA!  ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED
AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES!  ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS
BODILY FLUIDS!!  ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR!  ED MAKES THE SUN
SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!!

When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless
help screens and cursor positioning code!  I just want an EDitor!!
Not a "viitor".  Not a "emacsitor".  Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED!
ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!

TEXT EDITOR.

When IBM, in its ever-present omnipotence, needed to base their
"edlin" on a UNIX standard, did they mimic vi?  No.  Emacs?  Surely
you jest.  They chose the most karmic editor of all.  The standard.

Ed is for those who can *remember* what they are working on.  If you
are an idiot, you should use Emacs.  If you are an Emacs, you should
not be vi.  If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION.  THE
SO-CALLED "VISUAL" EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE
FAITHLESS.  DO NOT GIVE IN!!!  THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!

?

>>20
 U MENA CAT > ?

Sam is better

Ed implementation:
#!/bin/sh
while true;do read;echo '?';done

import Control.Monad
main = forever $ getLine >> putStrLn "?"

?

>>20
Where on earth do you find an ed implementation that's only 24k?

>>26
GNU/shit luser detected.

>>26
bytes

>>27
fuck you freedom-hating winblow$ luser

#include <stdio.h>
#include <signal.h>

void
interrupts_handler ( int whocares )
{

}

int
main ( void )
{
    static char BUFFA [ 1024*1024 ];

    signal ( SIGINT, interrupts_handler );

    while ( 1 )
    {
        /* MY SYSTEM WARMS THE USER IF I USE gets()
         * >:I >:I >:I IM SO MAD */
        fgets ( BUFFA,1024*1024,stdin );
        puts ( "?" );
    }

}

Reading ed's manual, it can do quite a lot. All of these implementations are insufficient.

>>31
It's almost as if you have no idea it's a joke.

>>30
You could get this a lot smaller with hand-coded assembler, but it'll probably still be bigger than, for example, this Perl script:

#!/usr/bin/perl
print"?\n"while<>

>>32
Unix script system is bloat. Just look at that shebang line! It's almost as long as the program itself!

>>31
Is there a point to writing a sufficient implementation when tools that are actually well tested are on literally every computer you will ever use?

>>33
dice nubs bruah