Re: Too fine design granularity leads to numerous macro/function/command existed in Emacs.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 16:42:20 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com>
> >> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 11:26:39 +0200
> >> Cc: help-gnu-emacs <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> >> 
> >> Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> >  It's well known that Emacs has already implemented numerous
> >> > macro/function/command in its current version. But it seems that this
> >> > is caused by, to a certain degree, the too fine granularity, i.e.,
> >> > there are many functionally similar macro/function/command are
> >> > designed separately, for example, `directory-files' and
> >> > `directory-files-recursively'. The traditional Unix tool, `find', can
> >> I wouldn't say that these are "very" similar. Sure they both list files,
> >> but a recursive lister vs. plain lister is a big difference.
> >
> > The comparison of 'find' with the two Emacs APIs is basically invalid:
> > 'find' is an _application_, whereas the 2 APIs are just that: APIs
> > that could be used to build such an application.  See find-lisp.el for
> > what the application would look like.
> 
> In a *shell world* one could logically think of cli utlities
> as "apis" and options as function arguments, and I guess pipe would be
> functional composition.

But there were no pipes in the original comparison.  It just compared
these Lisp APIs with 'find' the command.