Peter via Dng said on 16 Oct 2025 06:53:05 -0700

>From:    Didier Kryn <kryn@???>
>Date:    Mon, 13 Oct 2025 17:25:49 +0200
>> There's no reason to put thouthands of files per directory, ...  

>
>Yes, when possible, work in memory rather than in a file system.
>Contemporary machines have GiBs of memory. The principal difficulty
>is just revision of old implementations designed to work in the file
>system.
>
>The two notations mentioned are isomorphic.
>/home/antony/taxes/income/2024
>/home/antony/taxes/income/2025
>/home/antony/taxes/property/2024
>/home/antony/taxes/property/2025
>
>/home/antony/TaxesIncome2024
>/home/antony/TaxesIncome2025
>/home/antony/TaxesProperty2024
>/home/antony/TaxesProperty2025
>
>Eg., to go from "s/income" to "sIncome" remove "/" and upcase "i".
>
>For "sIncome" to "s/income" change "sI" to "s/i".
>
>Programable. As usual, there are complications such as numerals not
>having case. As usual, complications are solvable.

I've been scratching my head asking "why doesn't Peter want to use the
ultra-convenient directory hierarchy bestowed by Linux?" Then I
remembered you're really an Oberon guy, and Neither ETH Oberon nor
Project Oberon has directories, just lots and lots of files, so you
probably want to think that way. Once upon a time I had CPM, which also
had no directory hierarchy.

I'll just say the following from my point of view: If you're *not*
going to port this to Oberon, but instead keep it in Linux, then I
think you're much better off using the subdirectories Linux gives you,
so that you can organize using C, Rust, Go, Python, or shellscripts,
with the OS doing 90% of the lookup.. If you're going to port it to the
early Oberons, with their very strict file naming conventions and lack
of subdirectories, then you've identified a great way to organize your
files.

SteveT

Steve Litt

http://444domains.com