alterae

agreed. and the setup for this tool in particular looks… complicated and annoying, at least at first glance

for myself, if i want a shell script to be _portable_ i just write it in POSIX sh and try to be smart about dependencies

and if i don't care about portability, i'd rather just use a nicer shell like bash or zsh or fish (i'd actually like to mess with ysh at some point)

i feel like i'm much more likely to encounter a system with one of those shells available than one with modernish installed, and the idea of introducing a bundling/build step into shell scripts is deeply unappealing to me.

i can see why this exists, i think, and i imagine there are people who find it useful. i simply am not among them.

i also find it disappointing that their most basic example shows the setup in bash instead of sh, but that might just be me.

yeah honestly looking at the (frustratingly small amount of) info i've been able to find it seems like the godot folks are behaving pretty reasonably, and this drama is like most drama—needlessly inflated.

> It calls the first Perfect Output; a feature designed to remove unwanted elements before printing and to optimize printouts.

I think "perfect output" would be to reproduce the input on paper as precisely as real-world hardware constraints permit. This here is no longer useful as a printer.

I can kinda see why they are doing this but it's still deeply annoying, when all I really want from the printer industry is a printer that prints.