| |||||||||||||
The Journal - a proposed syslog replacementThe Journal - a proposed syslog replacementPosted Nov 23, 2011 22:03 UTC (Wed) by cas (subscriber, #52554)In reply to: The Journal - a proposed syslog replacement by skissane Parent article: The Journal - a proposed syslog replacement
what is wrong with binary formats is that I have to use a *different* tool for every different binary format. i'll never use any of them often enough to truly master them and, worse, anything i learn about their usage is trapped within that single usage context.
with plain text formats I can use the *same* collection of tools for everything, and every new thing i learn about sh or sed or grep or awk or perl or whatever is automatically useful in hundreds of other contexts, not just the context in which i originally learnt it.
binary formats suck.
(Log in to post comments)
The Journal - a proposed syslog replacement Posted Nov 27, 2011 2:23 UTC (Sun) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
> with plain text formats I can use the *same* collection of tools for everything, and every new thing i learn about sh or sed or grep or awk or perl or whatever is automatically useful in hundreds of other contexts, not just the context in which i originally learnt it.
I found that in most cases, it is easier to learn a new tool that is specialized for the job at hand than to try to get "standard unix" tools to do what you want, especially if you want to do it in a robust and maintainable way. For example, people keep asking again and again how to handle some XML format with things like sed or awk, which is just a bad idea given the existence of specialized tools like xmlstarlet.
|
|||||||||||||