I grew up on Commodore PET and MS Basic. When I write a program on FreeBSD I prefer to use an extension on my executable. Call me brainwashed but example.com and example.exe were self evident.
My point is many Unix programs use no extension for the executable. Why? Scripts seem to be well labeled with .sh but executables are unlabeled. Of course this is by choice as I use the .app extension personally. I choke up when I see Unix using .ini for configs(php.ini).
Where it really comes to play is looking at a directory with
My point is many Unix programs use no extension for the executable. Why? Scripts seem to be well labeled with .sh but executables are unlabeled. Of course this is by choice as I use the .app extension personally. I choke up when I see Unix using .ini for configs(php.ini).
Where it really comes to play is looking at a directory with
ls
and you can't tell the difference between a directory and executable if named the same. With expanded ls-flags you can tell but my point is why not use extensions? Especially with command prompt history feature.