I read the "only one correct way" to be a per-tool guideline. When looking a tool to do a specific task then (ideally) the tool should just process input with minimal futzing with configuration options. If you need to do something special then you should have a special tool.
That seems reasonable. Though in the context of packages etc, i would like to then introduce the term "toolset". Just because a piece of software is a single package doesn't mean it has to be a single tool. It is much more simple to have a bunch of tools for related tasks collected in a single toolset rather then making seperate apps for each one- never mind the overhead that the last approach would create.
Comments
Don't #2 and #3 contradict?
When you encourage creativity with combinations of simple tools, creative people will come up with multiple ways of doing things.
I read the "only one correct way" to be a per-tool guideline. When looking a tool to do a specific task then (ideally) the tool should just process input with minimal futzing with configuration options. If you need to do something special then you should have a special tool.
That seems reasonable. Though in the context of packages etc, i would like to then introduce the term "toolset". Just because a piece of software is a single package doesn't mean it has to be a single tool. It is much more simple to have a bunch of tools for related tasks collected in a single toolset rather then making seperate apps for each one- never mind the overhead that the last approach would create.
Yeah "encourages creativity" struck me as the hand-waviest part of that document. It sounds like a euphemism for "requires more work".