On Tue, 31 Mar 2020, Karel Zak wrote:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 10:39:51AM -0400, J William Piggott wrote:
I still believe the year header is nonsense. IIRC, when I brought this
up last time nobody replied with any justification for it.
Backward compatibility?
I'm not going to waste time looking, but I'm very confident that there
are many instances when the output format of utilities have been changed
without regard to BC, including in cal(1). Essential BC for the -y option
is that it outputs months 1 through 12.
I personally have no problem with ...
Clearly; that has been my frustration with this project. Fiat
development without any functional justification. Relentless pushback
void of rational beyond some variation of 'because I say so.'
I don't think we can create output which will be esthetic enough
for everyone
That just it Karel, this isn't about aesthetics; it's about function. The
year header just scrolls off the screen. It serves no *function*. I see
so much of this in projects, choosing form over function. Tell me, how
specifically is a year header more functional then 'month year'? Give me
an example where the year header is of any benefit to you. Not just 'I
have no problem with it', in what way, under what conditions, in what
scenario, do you find it useful? Is aesthetics alone good justification?
It seems like this trend stems from Apple. Jobs was fanatical about
form; but what seems have been lost, is that he was equally fanatical
about function. He required that both be satisfied. I cannot find any
function in cal's year header. Can anyone offer any?
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
