A small primer on xargs

Re:A small primer on xargs by darklajid on Monday May 14, 2012 @04:04AM (#3969993)

If we're ripping this sample apart, I'd like to point out that

  rm *junk*

in this case would've done the same, without spawning lots of useless stuff.

xargs is cool. The example fails to show a decent use case. For me a line like that would indicate that someone is _not_ familiar with his tools. Similar to

  cat somefile | grep something

instead of

  grep something somefile

Pipes and processes aren't endangered or (in practice) limited, but we still don't need to be wasteful?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A small primer on xargs by babarock on Monday May 14, 2012 @04:41AM (#3970057)

Furthermore, parsing the output of `ls` is a terrible practice[1] that makes for an even poorer sample.

A little further in the article, the author even suggests running

    `ls | grep junk`

(instead of the much simpler `ls junk*`. Do I need to point that out?).

I also know some people are going to retort that wasting a process or a pipe is not that bad. This discussion has been had over and over again, probably ever since Unix was invented.

In any case, the poor example chosen, as well as the flaky commands used, seriously hinder the credibility of the article.

[1]: http://mywiki.wooledge.org/ParsingLs

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A small primer on xargs by emmelaich on Monday May 14, 2012 @07:06AM (#3970434)

They don't do the quite the same thing.

   ls | grep junk

is more similar to

   ls -d *junk*

You can argue the first is simpler. You can also argue more successfully that it is more general.

edit: I acknowledge the points in your link. Advocates for the unix "bunch of small tools" philosophy tend to overlook its weak spots.

[ Parent | on HN ]