I’m talking about programs that can’t be improved no matter what. They do exactly what they’re supposed to and will never be changed.

It’ll probably have to be something small, like cd or pwd, but does such a program exist?

  • lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com
    4·
    16 hours ago

    Windows event viewer… You open it, go to the toilet, to the shower, take a coffee, … and only 2 more minutes later, it shows you the entries…

    It’s so perfect, they never had to improve it in decades.

    /s

  • VitoRobles@lemmy.todayEnglish
    18·
    1 day ago

    I wanted to say VLC because to me, it’s the gold standard of fully working open-source software that just destroys the commercial competitors.

    But it’s not perfect only because society changes. New video formats forces VLC and open-source devs to adapt. Bigger video and new tech specs require VLC to update. If it wasn’t for all those external needs, VLC would be perfect.

    Did I also mentioned the many times rich companies wanted to buy VLC and they laughed?

  • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
    5·
    20 hours ago

    TeX?

    Development is considered to be complete, and the version numbering is just adding a digit of pi. Last change was 5 years ago.

  • somegeek@programming.dev
    2·
    17 hours ago

    I would say git, tex, sqlite, Clojure, Steel banks common lisp are some of the candidates.

    Perfect doesn’t meen “not any bugs fixes or features needed” to me. I can’t really define what it means to me…

  • padreati@lemmy.zip
    1·
    15 hours ago

    Some time ago I used haproxy, a software load balancer. I remember that I found an issue which was that it could start with an empty configuration or something similar. When I reached the owner repo it was stated that there were found nu bugs for years of heavy use.

  • Kissaki@programming.devEnglish
    4·
    23 hours ago

    For software to be perfect, can not be improved no matter what, you’d have to define a very specific and narrow scope and evaluate against that.

    Environments change, text and data encoding and content changes, forms and protocol of input and output changes, opportunities and wishes to integrate or extend change.

    pwd seems simple enough. cd I would already say no, with opportunities to remember folders, support globbing, fuzzy matching, history, virtual filesystems. Many of those depend on the environment you’re in. Typically, shells handle globbing. There’s alternative cd tools that do fuzzy matching and history, and virtual filesystems are usually abstracted away. But things change. And I would certainly like an interactive and fuzzy cd.

    Now, if you define it’s scope, you can say: “All that other stuff is out of scope. It’s perfect within it’s defined target scope.” But I don’t know if that’s what you’re looking for? It certainly doesn’t mean it can’t be improved no matter what.

    • ne0phyte@feddit.org
      2·
      21 hours ago

      If you just need the functionality then fzf does (among other things) exactly that. Interactive fuzzy cd. If you use the shell bindings you can do cd foo/bar/**<tab> to get a recursive fuzzy matching or you can do alt+c to immediately find any subdirectory and directly cd into it upon pressing enter. You can also use Ctrl+T to find and insert a path into the prompt.

      • Kissaki@programming.devEnglish
        1·
        32 minutes ago

        Thanks for the suggestion. As a first step, I set it up in Nushell with a ctrl+t shortcut:

        $env.config.keybindings = (
    $env.config.keybindings | append {
        name: fzf_file_picker
        modifier: control
        keycode: char_t
        mode: [emacs, vi_insert, vi_normal]
        event: {
            send: ExecuteHostCommand
            cmd: "commandline edit --insert (fzf | str trim)"
        }
    }
)

        Maybe I will look into more. :) I’ve known about fzf but I guess never gotten around to fully evaluating and integrating it.

        Nushell supports fuzzy completions, globbing, and “menus” (TUI) natively. Still, the TUI aspect and possibly other forms of integrations seem like they could be worthwhile or useful as extensions.

    • Kissaki@programming.devEnglish
      4·
      24 hours ago

      …that supports Unicode? Which encodings? Or only ASCII? Unicode continues to change.

      I wouldn’t be very confident that it won’t change or offer reasonable opportunities for improvement.

    • Kissaki@programming.devEnglish
      3·
      24 hours ago

      Your sentence abruptly ends in a backtick - did you mean to include something more? Maybe “wc”?

  • IanTwenty@piefed.socialEnglish
    23·
    2 days ago

    There was a moment in time where maybe it was qmail:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qmail

    Ten years after the launch of qmail 1.0, and at a time when more than a million of the Internet’s SMTP servers ran either qmail or netqmail, only four known bugs had been found in the qmail 1.0 releases, and no security issues.

    More on how it was accomplished:

    https://blog.acolyer.org/2018/01/17/some-thoughts-on-security-after-ten-years-of-qmail-1-0/

    • kalpol@lemmy.ca
      2·
      23 hours ago

      Djbdns was excellent too, and ezmlm,.in fact all DJB’s software was quality for its single purpose. The world moved on though, and you had to have your basic Internet servers just…do more