A book about the command line for humans.
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
 
 
 
 
 
Brennen Bearnes 655d9413f5 fiddling with typography & web/ text 7 years ago
..
README.md make things more readable on github 7 years ago
index.md fiddling with typography & web/ text 7 years ago

README.md

  1. programmerthink ==================

In the preceding chapter, I worked through accumulating a big piece of text from some other, smaller texts. I started with a bunch of files and wound up with one big file called potential_poems_full.

Let's talk for a minute about how programmers approach problems like this one. What I've just done is sort of an old-school humanities take on things: Metaphorically speaking, I took a book off the shelf and hauled it down to the copy machine to xerox a bunch of pages, and now I'm going to start in on them with a highlighter and some Post-Its or something. A process like this will often trigger a cascade of questions in the programmer-mind:

  • What if, halfway through the project, I realize my selection criteria were all wrong and have to backtrack?
  • What if I discover corrections that also need to be made in the source documents?
  • What if I want to access metadata, like the original location of a file?
  • What if I want to quickly re-order the poems according to some new criteria?
  • Why am I storing the same text in two different places?

A unifying theme of these questions is that they could all be answered by involving a little more abstraction.

-> ★ <-

Some kinds of abstraction are so common in the physical world that we can forget they're part of a sophisticated technology. For example, a good deal of bicycle maintenance can be accomplished with a cheap multi-tool containing a few different sizes of hex wrench and a couple of screwdrivers.

A hex wrench or screwdriver doesn't really know anything about bicycles. All it really knows about is fitting into a space and allowing torque to be applied. Standardized fasteners and adjustment mechanisms on a bicycle ensure that the work can be done anywhere, by anyone with a certain set of tools. Standard tools mean that if you can work on a particular bike, you can work on most bikes, and even on things that aren't bikes at all, but were designed by people with the same abstractions in mind.

The relationship between a wrench, a bolt, and the purpose of a bolt is a lot like something we call indirection in software. Programs like grep or cat don't really know anything about poetry. All they really know about is finding lines of text in input, or sticking inputs together. Files, lines, and text are like standardized fasteners that allow a user who can work on one kind of data (be it poetry, a list of authors, the source code of a program) to use the same tools for other problems and other data.

-> ★ <-

When I first started writing stuff on the web, I edited a page --- a single HTML file --- by hand. When the entries on my nascent blog got old, I manually cut-and-pasted them to archive files with names like old_main97.html, which held all of the stuff I'd written in 1997.

I'm not holding this up as an example of youthful folly. In fact, it worked fine, and just having a single, static file that you can open in any text editor has turned out to be a lot more future-proof than the sophisticated blogging software people were starting to write at the time.

And yet. Something about this habit nagged at my developing programmer mind after a few years. It was just a little bit too manual and repetitive, a little bit silly to have to write things like a table of contents by hand, or move entries around by copy-and-pasting them to different files. Since I knew the date for each entry, and wanted to make them navigable on that basis, why not define a directory structure for the years and months, and then write a file to hold each day? That way, all I'd have to do is concatenate the files in one directory to display any given month:

$ cat ~/p1k3/archives/2014/1/* | head -10
<h1>Sunday, January 12</h1>

<h2>the one casey is waiting for</h2>

<freeverse>
after a while
the thing about drinking
is that it just feeds
what you drink to kill
and kills

I ultimately wound up writing a few thousand lines of Perl to do the actual work, but the essential idea of the thing is still little more than invoking cat on some stuff.

I didn't know the word for it at the time, but what I was reaching for was a kind of indirection. By putting blog posts in a specific directory layout, I was creating a simple model of the temporal structure that I considered their most important property. Now, if I want to write commands that ask questions about my blog posts or re-combine them in certain ways, I can address my concerns to this model. Maybe, for example, I want a rough idea how many words I've written in blog posts so far in 2014:

$ find ~/p1k3/archives/2014/ -type f | xargs cat | wc -w
6677

xargs is not the most intuitive command, but it's useful and common enough to explain here. At the end of last chapter, when I said:

$ cat `grep -ril '<freeverse>' ~/p1k3/archives` > ~/possible_poems_full

I could also have written this as:

$ grep -ril '<freeverse>' ~/p1k3/archives | xargs cat > ~/possible_poems_full

What this does is take its input, which starts like:

/home/brennen/p1k3/archives/2002/10/16
/home/brennen/p1k3/archives/2002/10/27
/home/brennen/p1k3/archives/2002/10/10

...and run cat on all the things in it:

cat /home/brennen/p1k3/archives/2002/10/16 /home/brennen/p1k3/archives/2002/10/27 /home/brennen/p1k3/archives/2002/10/10 ...

It can be a better idea to use xargs, because while backticks are incredibly useful, they have some limitations. If you're dealing with a very large list of files, for example, you might exceed the maximum allowed length for arguments to a command on your system. xargs is smart enough to know that limit and run cat more than once if needed.

xargs is actually sort of a pain to think about, and will make you jump through some irritating hoops if you have spaces or other weirdness in your filenames, but I wind up using it quite a bit.

Maybe I want to see a table of contents:

$ find ~/p1k3/archives/2014/ -type d | xargs ls -v | head -10
/home/brennen/p1k3/archives/2014/:
1
2
3
4

/home/brennen/p1k3/archives/2014/1:
5
12
14

Or find the subtitles I used in 2013:

$ find ~/p1k3/archives/2012/ -type f | xargs perl -ne 'print "$1\n" if m{<h2>(.*?)</h2>}'
pursuit
fragment
this poem again
i'll do better next time
timebinding animals
more observations on gear nerdery &amp; utility fetishism
thrift
A miracle, in fact, means work
<em>technical notes for late october</em>, or <em>it gets dork out earlier these days</em>
radio
light enough to travel
12:06am
"figures like Heinlein and Gingrich"

The crucial thing about this is that the filesystem itself is just like cat and grep: It doesn't know anything about blogs (or poetry), and it's basically indifferent to the actual structure of a file like ~/p1k3/archives/2014/1/12. What the filesystem knows is that there are files with certain names in certain places. It need not know anything about the meaning of those names in order to be useful; in fact, it's best if it stays agnostic about the question, for this enables us to assign our own meaning to a structure and manipulate that structure with standard tools.

-> ★ <-

Back to the problem at hand: I have this collection of files, and I know how to extract the ones that contain poems. My goal is to see all the poems and collect the subset of them that I still find worthwhile. Just knowing how to grep and then edit a big file solves my problem, in a basic sort of way. And yet: Something about this nags at my mind. I find that, just as I can already use standard tools and the filesystem to ask questions about all of my blog posts in a given year or month, I would like to be able to ask questions about the set of interesting poems.

If I want the freedom to execute many different sorts of commands against this set of poems, it begins to seem that I need a model.

When programmers talk about models, they often mean something that people in the sciences would recognize: We find ways to represent the arrangement of facts so that we can think about them. A structured representation of things often means that we can change those things, or at least derive new understanding of them.

-> ★ <-

At this point in the narrative, I could pretend that my next step is immediately obvious, but in fact it's not. I spend a couple of days thinking off and on about how to proceed, scribbling notes during bus rides and while drinking beers at the pizza joint down the street. I assess and discard ideas which fall into a handful of broad approaches:

  • Store blog entries in a relational database system which would allow me to associate them with data like "this entry is in a collection called 'ok poems'".
  • Selectively build up a file containing the list of files with ok poems, and use it to do other tasks.
  • Define a format for metadata that lives within entry files.
  • Turn each interesting file into a directory of its own which contains a file with the original text and another file with metadata.

I discard the relational database idea immediately: I like working with files, and I don't feel like abandoning a model that's served me well for my entire adult life.

Building up an index file to point at the other files I'm working with has a certain appeal. I'm already most of the way there with the grep output in potential_poems. It would be easy to write shell commands to add, remove, sort, and search entries. Still, it doesn't feel like a very satisfying solution unto itself. I'd like to know that an entry is part of the collection just by looking at the entry, without having to cross-reference it to a list somewhere else.

What about putting some meaningful text in the file itself? I thought about a bunch of different ways to do this, some of them really complicated, and eventually arrived at this:

<!-- collection: ok-poems -->

The <!-- --> bits are how you define a comment in HTML, which means that neither my blog code nor web browsers nor my text editor have to know anything about the format, but I can easily find files with certain values. Check it:

$ find ~/p1k3/archives -type f | xargs perl -ne 'print "$ARGV[0]: $1 -> $2\n" if m{<!-- ([a-z]+): (.*?) -->};'
/home/brennen/p1k3/archives/2014/2/9: collection -> ok-poems

That's an ugly one-liner, and I haven't explained half of what it does, but the comment format actually seems pretty workable for this. It's a little tacky to look at, but it's simple and searchable.

Before we settle, though, let's turn to the notion of making each entry into a directory that can contain some structured metadata in a separate file. Imagine something like:

$ ls ~/p1k3/archives/2013/2/9
index  Meta

Here I use the name "index" for the main part of the entry because it's a convention of web sites for the top-level page in a directory to be called something like index.html. As it happens, my blog software already supports this kind of file layout for entries which contain multiple parts, image files, and so forth.

$ head ~/p1k3/archives/2013/2/9/index
<h1>saturday, february 9</h1>

<freeverse>
midwinter midafternoon; depressed as hell
sitting in a huge cabin in the rich-people mountains
writing a sprawl, pages, of melancholic midlife bullshit

outside the snow gives way to broken clouds and the
clear unyielding light of the high country sun fills

$ cat ~/p1k3/archives/2013/2/9/Meta
collection: ok-poems

It would then be easy to find files called Meta and grep them for collection: ok-poems.

What if I put metadata right in the filename itself, and dispense with the grep altogether?

$ ls ~/p1k3/archives/2013/2/9
index  meta-ok-poem

$ find ~/p1k3/archives -name 'meta-ok-poem'
/home/brennen/archives/2013/2/9/meta-ok-poem

There's a lot to like about this. For one thing, it's immediately visible in a directory listing. For another, it doesn't require searching through thousands of lines of text to extract a specific string. If a directory has a meta-ok-poem in it, I can be pretty sure that it will contain an interesting index.

What are the downsides? Well, it requires transforming lots of text files into directories-containing-files. I might automate that process, but it's still a little tedious and it makes the layout of the entry archive more complicated overall. There's a cost to doing things this way. It lets me extend my existing model of a blog entry to include arbitrary metadata, but it also adds steps to writing or finding blog entries.

Abstractions usually cost you something. Is this one worth the hassle? Sometimes the best way to answer that question is to start writing code that handles a given abstraction.