stupid unix questions

[Peter da Silva]

I think it's more a matter of there being three classes of programs. There are
interactive programs, which when well implemented are essentially editors,
and there are batch programs, which act on data (either as a filter, a source,
or a sink), and then there are shells, which act on programs.

Given fast enough hardware, or a slow enough input channel, you can always
discard all your interactive programs and run everything as batch programs
from your shell. This means that batch programs have a longer potential
lifespan, as the race between CPU and I/O makes the tradeoff point wash
backwards and forwards between running batch programs from the shell and
running interactive programs by themselves. You see, having a batch program
at the wrong point in the tide just costs you performance. Having an inter-
active program at the wrong time costs you functionality.

It's all a tradeoff. Use the best tool for the job, but make sure it *is* the
right tool. And if you're not sure... go batch. it's the conservative approach
for the long haul.

As for why programs like EMACS seem to be bucking the trend... they're not.
They're shells.
-- 
 _--_|\  `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180.      <peter at ficc.uu.net>
/      \  'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?  <peter at sugar.hackercorp.com>
\_.--._/       Disclaimer: commercial solicitation by email to this address
      v                    is acceptable.