Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

13
  • 35
    Why would you clutter the system to add a command to do something that can be done a dozen ways with tools that already exist? Commented Apr 10, 2014 at 11:49
  • 4
    Why is there no command for reading files from/to streams/stdin/out? Everyone uses the command intended for concatenation! Commented Apr 10, 2014 at 12:07
  • 2
    @MichaelKohne, I see your point, with all due respect, I have a problem with it. With this approach there are many commands that are only cluttering the system. Why use more when less does more than what more do!? Or dir and ls. Albeit, I'm aware of compatibility issues. Commented Apr 10, 2014 at 12:08
  • 9
    more predates the creation of less. less has been created specifically to address shortcomings of more. more still exists for backward compatibility reasons. dir and ls are, for most intents and purposes, the same executable - they differ only in a handful of bytes. A new tool intended specifically for creating files would do less than existing tools, and as such it would be a regression, not an improvement like in the case of less vs more. Commented Apr 10, 2014 at 13:46
  • 1
    Plus we need to look at the legacy, Unix was created when each byte was counted. Why create a utility for a task that you can do with an already existing utility? Commented Apr 11, 2014 at 1:52