ls is tabular data, and you can format it (ls -1, ls -l, ls -w, plus sorting, field formatting, and more), and you can cut/parse/format in a standard way. Every field sans the filename is fixed length, can be handled with awk/cut/sed according your daily mood and requirements, etc. etc.
So, ls can be chained very nicely, which I do every day, even without thinking.
You don't need to have a "structured data with fields" to parse it. You just need to think it like a tabular data with line/column numbers (ls -l, etc.) or just line numbers (ls -1).
So, as long as ls does one thing well, it's alright.
Ah, some of the "enhanced" ls tools can't distinguish between pipe and a terminal, and always print color/format escape codes to pipe too, doubling the fun of using them. So, thanks, I'll stick with my standard ls. That one works.
> You don't need to have a "structured data with fields" to parse it.
You do if you want to have nice things like being able to format your output without having to worry about breaking the dumb tools down the pipe, which can't sort the numbers they don't see:
- 2.1K (this isn't the same as the second) - 2.1K - 2.1M
Also, why do I need to count columns like a cave man in 'sort -k 5' instead of doing the obvious "sort by size"?
> print color/format escape codes to pipe too
A problem that would disappear with... structured data!
> Ah, some of the "enhanced" ls tools
so use the other "some" that can?
> which can't sort the numbers they don't see
Then you sort at the point you can see the numbers and discard them later.
> Also, why do I need to count columns like a cave man in 'sort -k 5' instead of doing the obvious "sort by size"
awk can sort the columns for you. Plus, ls can already sort by size. Try "ls -lS " for biggest file first, or "ls -lSr" for smallest file first. Add "-h" to make human readable.
> A problem that would disappear with... structured data!
No. A problem that would disappear with "a small if block which asks which environment I'm in". If you're in a shell "-t" test in sh/bash will tell you that. If you're coding a tool, there are standard ways to do that (via termcap IIRC). Standard UNIX tools are doing this for decades now.
IOW, structured data is not a cure for laziness...
> so use the other "some" that can?
Yes, because their authors are not that lazy.
> Then you sort at the point you can see the numbers and discard them later
This sort of human overhead is only needed to compensate for the deficiencies of the data structures
> ls can already sort by size
That's the benefit of integration you're arguing against with your deficient piping suggestions
> IOW, structured data is not a cure for laziness...
It is precisely what good design is for - it reduces the need for various dumb workarounds that bad design requires, which means you can be more lazy and avoid said workaround
> Yes, because their authors are not that lazy.
This just ignores the argument, which was "some better new tools don't do that" isn't relevant when some better new tools also do that