***genr8eofl_ is now known as genr8eofl
<oriansj>I guess that is a change from when it was originally setup <muurkha>19:56 < unmatched-paren> makefiles are terrible, is scons good? <muurkha>I remember when I was a beginning programmer and thought I would find good software if I looked hard enough <nimaje>hey, true is good software (in some implementations) <muurkha>true returns 0, false returns 1. what the fuck kind of good software is that? <nimaje>it does exactly what it should, it is simple and well writen (in some implementations) and it is useful, what do you miss to call it good software? <muurkha>I agree with those three things, but the fact remains that there's a fatal inconsistency in the way Unix exit statuses are defined that prevents it from being good <nimaje>so your problem is with error codes? <muurkha>well, the conflation of success/failure codes with boolean values in the shell is reasonable. and the representation of success/failure with 0 for success and other numbers for different kinds of failure is reasonable. and the cultural convention of doing Boolean logic with 1 for true and 0 for false is reasonable. any two of them are reasonable together, too. but the combination of the three <muurkha>is inconsistent in a sort of self-parodying way <muurkha>it's kind of a microcosm of how all software is bad <muurkha>a reasonable alternative would be to use negative numbers for failure and positive numbers for success <muurkha>but of course that involves boiling the ocean <oriansj>or just changing the libc definitions of EXIT_SUCCESS and EXIT_FAILURE for while made software ***alMalsamo is now known as lumberjack123