> Note I'm not saying that grep can't be improved - but I am saying that it would be better to PR those improvements into grep itself rather than creating a new and incompatible thing. Or fork grep and ensure that the improved version is fully backwards compatible.
This kind of thinking is just so incredibly myopic. Like, whoever said compatibility is the most important possible feature? What if "improvements" aren't possible without breaking compatibility? Then what do you do?
Like, I get that it's fun to play the "old man yelling at clouds" role. But this takes it to another level.
> Because I want to write scripts with the minimal possible support overhead.
My goodness. Then just use plain old grep! ripgrep is not grep. It's like a grep. It cannot replace grep in every circumstance. It never will and it was never intended to.
Just because someone suggests an alternative doesn't mean they are suggesting it as a replacement for literally every possible use case.
> Note I'm not saying that grep can't be improved - but I am saying that it would be better to PR those improvements into grep itself rather than creating a new and incompatible thing. Or fork grep and ensure that the improved version is fully backwards compatible.
This kind of thinking is just so incredibly myopic. Like, whoever said compatibility is the most important possible feature? What if "improvements" aren't possible without breaking compatibility? Then what do you do?
Like, I get that it's fun to play the "old man yelling at clouds" role. But this takes it to another level.
> Because I want to write scripts with the minimal possible support overhead.
My goodness. Then just use plain old grep! ripgrep is not grep. It's like a grep. It cannot replace grep in every circumstance. It never will and it was never intended to.
Just because someone suggests an alternative doesn't mean they are suggesting it as a replacement for literally every possible use case.