Comment by pdntspa

Comment by pdntspa 3 hours ago

As a fellow dev, command line shit is a pain in the ass sometimes. I grew up as a Windows kid, visual browsing for stuff is sometimes the only way to fly. I absolutely loathe the amount of brute-force memorization that is required to operate a command-line efficiently. It took YEARS to memorize simple linux shit

Everyone talks about how CLI is supposedly way more efficient. It is way more efficient to THEM. And now we are stuck in a hell where a good deal of functionality is only accessible if you want and are able to memorize the arcane nonsense that are command names, or the design-by-committee naming choices of moronic PMs who can't stop lapping up whatever bullshit marketing tells them to

flakes 2 hours ago

> I absolutely loathe the amount of brute-force memorization that is required to operate a command-line efficiently. It took YEARS to memorize simple linux shit

Not to invalidate your experience, but you shouldn’t need to memorize too much to use the common command line tools (although it does always help to have more experience using them).

I recommend always keeping a second terminal session open, purely for referencing man pages. You should be able to see most options easily, or be able to grep for the instructions you need.

The tight integration between documentation within the CLI, coupled to the exact software version you have installed, helps immensely when invoking CLI tools.

For the common linux tooling, found in most distros (e.g. coreutils or common busybox ops) the documentation in man pages is quite excellent.

Reply View 1 reply

pdntspa an hour ago

While I think man pages are perfectly fine as documentation, the terminal interface for accessing them is awful (more mysterious keypresses or incantations to memorize if you want to do anything more than scroll), and visually I have always found them very difficult to scan visually, particularly if I wasn't sure of the exact wording for the task I needed, or if I am thinking in a different vocabulary. Plus theres the whole wall-of-text thing that makes me kind of instinctively bounce out.
A lot of them also lack sufficient (or any) examples, which are the things I need to see to learn. Making sense of the their sometimes (and seemingly intentionally) obtuse wording when I'm trying to do something I'm not already familiar with makes them a lot harder to parse than they need to be.
And many of the commands are extremely arbitrary. `cd` (change directory) very well could have been `mf` (move folder). `del` in DOS is `rm` in Linux. `move` vs `mv`, `copy` vs `cp`, etc etc. There's no common orthodoxy. If you are not well versed in the history of this stuff its all gobbledygook.
LLMs have been great in this regard, as they can supply those missing examples and then explain to me exactly what it is doing, oftentimes worded more clearly than the original documentation. And they can help me string together whole sequences.

Reply View | 0 replies