File Extensions, love 'em or hate 'em?

[jove]

Hello,

I had just recently heard that Apple shut down several developer forums because they turned into a religious debates on file extensions.

The folks here at MacOSX all seem to have level heads, so I decided to start a topic on file extensions :-) The following are my two cents.

1) File extensions should go away like the ~20 year old floppy drive (3.5").
2) The file's type should be stored in attributes like modification date, etc. Combining type and name in the same attribute is just a bad idea.
3) The file meta-data should include a creator code as well. In my workflow a Preview JPG has different meaning than a Graphic Converter JPG. A Codewarrior C++ file should not be opened in Project Builder.
4) The argument of easily changed types is moot. The vast majority of users don't. Creator codes can sometimes satisfy the variable type needs. There are plenty of third party utilities to automate the change.
5) End users getting the assortment of extension queries and hassles is horrible. My Mum is not going to know how to answer the “append vs. replace” question.

But...

The Mac is the only system I know of that, for some time, abandoned extensions. Living in a Windblows world means Mac files need them. And the “unix underpinnings” means that countless software and libraries from Next to new ports require the use of extensions.

Should Apple abandon type/creator codes to be more like the rest of the world?
Should Apple abandon file extensions, rewrite more of the OS, and ignore the world?
Should Apple continue to balance between the two?

[lethe]

i used to be really annoyed that apple is ditching the metadata. i even signed that petition on arstechnica. and it was a really neat thing about MacOS. it was an elegant solution. and look at [url=http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19386]poor stephen[/url. if his metadata had been in order, he would have had no problems.

these days i am thinking that apple wants a new filesystem that meshes better with OSX. did you know that when OSX runs on HFS+, it stores pathnames on the disk with colons, then the kernel translates colons into forward slashes, and then finder translates them back into colons, for the sake of legacy apps? pretty screwy

and HFS doesn t natively support users and groups and permissions on files, so thats done by the kernel too.

OSX is not really at home on HFS. but you need HFS if you want those metadata. i think that the future of filesystems is in journalled filesystems. apple has filesystem engineers from Be, and it is my theory that apple has a cool filesystem, tailored for OSX, with journalling, in the wings.

and it won t have resource forks. so while i like the old metadata, and the new system has its headaches, i do know that the old system had its headaches once the internet became widespread. so i m going to trust apple and hope that they ll take care of me.

*fingers crossed*

[dwater]

Originally posted by lethe

...
OSX is not really at home on HFS. but you need HFS if you want those metadata. i think that the future of filesystems is in journalled filesystems. apple has filesystem engineers from Be, and it is my theory that apple has a cool filesystem, tailored for OSX, with journalling, in the wings.

*fingers crossed*

I can't help but think that Apple coming up with their own filesystem would be reinventing the wheel. They leveraged OS X by basing it on BSD and I don't see why they don't do the same sort of thing for the filesystem There are some excellent filesystems for Linux which are Open Source. SGI's XFS comes to mind. Why don't they use that - works as well for single CPU desktop systems as it does for systems with 100s of CPUs, so they could use it on the Xserve - how many CPUs in that now? ...(looking on web)...ah, only two. Perhaps it would be overkill, but it certainly takes care of future requirements.

Anyway, not sure how this relates to the file type issue. I prefer not to have a filename with an embedded type and just name the file to reflect what is in the file rather than the format it is held in.

0.02p

Max.

[kenny]

Originally posted by jove
. . .


But...

The Mac is the only system I know of that, for some time, abandoned extensions. Living in a Windblows world means Mac files need them. And the “unix underpinnings” means that countless software and libraries from Next to new ports require the use of extensions.

Should Apple abandon type/creator codes to be more like the rest of the world?
Should Apple abandon file extensions, rewrite more of the OS, and ignore the world?
Should Apple continue to balance between the two? [/B]

Unfortunatly, I think you'll find this a bit of a religious topic wherever it's posted.

I think that Apple will continue to do both for some time yet, if for no other reason than to allow existing apps in Classic (and maybe even Carbon) to function correctly. A good percentage of those refuse to open files that don't have a type (metadata) that they can handle.

Ultimately, Apple will have to continue using extensions, if for no other reason but to interoperate with the Windows crowd. Whether that will be to the exclusion of metadata. Well, I'd tell you, but my crystal ball just went on the blink again...

Also, I think it's important to note that the Unix underpinnings has more to do with not supporting metadata than it has with requiring extensions. Unix/Linux does not, strictly speaking, require extensions at all. They're merely a long-standing convention. I can have scripts with any extension I'd like - .sh .bat .pl .script .go or nothing at all... it doesn't matter. Likewise, Programs generally don't have an extension, but if I wanted to (for some twisted reason), I could rename them with a .exe and they'd still work. Shared libraries have probably the strongest convention of all. I'd break a bunch of stuff if I renamed .so files, but only because the bindings in the executables call them that way. But none of these extensions are a requirement of the operating system.

It's only Windows that's so brain-dead as to require that exensions on filenames be a certain thing. But then, what would you expect from an OS that still uses drive letters?

[chemistry_geek]

I think that the file extensions should stay. I was initially against them, but they are rather useful. With a quick glance I know what type of file it is. The only problem with Apple's previous meta-data format was that I could not edit that data without a disk editor program.

With regard to the file system, Apple should just use some existing standard and bend and contort the hell out of Classic to make it work with it. HFS+ using colons to separate files and folders, and the kernel converting them to forward slashes is just absurd. It sounds and looks like a hack. Apple is in a transition period right now with Mac OS X, it has to bridge both worlds. 5 years from now when you read or hear about Classic, it will almost be as distant as ProDOS on the Apple II. It won't matter then. Apple needs to push Mac OS X into the UNIX world with full UNIX file system all while conforming to standards. One possible work around to the meta-data problem is to make every file a folder with the meta-data inside it. This is already done with many Mac OS X applications. Right-click or control-click on a Mac OS X application and select "Show Contents" A new window opens up showing the folder contents.

[evildan]

[Moderator's Note]

Sorry jove, had to move this thread it belongs in the "Opinions" form not the "Mac OSX System and Software" forum.