Jonathan Blow

I would say that most of the Unix tools make sense for *interactive* usage, where errors caused by text interface are more immediate and apparent. The things get hairy when people try to immortalize them in shell scripts without handling any edge cases.

That said not all Unix tools are made equal and many of them evolved in nearly pathological ways. I generally like the idea but I find the current set of tools to be far too large and most of them far too complex. I would say it all happened despite the Unix philosophy.

It's obviously flawed as a programming interface. But in my opinion extremely convenient as a user interface.

Unix Philosophy made lots of sense when it was invented. It just doesn't make sense today. Which -- I mean, come on, it's 50 years later, you would HOPE our ideas would have advanced by now.

Well the text interfaces didn’t age very well, but ability to compose simple, general commands to achieve more specific tasks is, in my opinion, as relevant as it was 50 ago.

I don't think so. Because that is what a program already is. I don't think there should be two totally different kinds of program, that do basically the same thing as each other.

I absolutely agree with the second sentence and I honestly don't see how it's supposed to be caused by "writing programs that do one thing and do it well".