I'm trying to show you can win without losing. And that sucks to hurt or disappoint someone we care about. I put off answering your e-mail until I had an even more tedious task that I wanted to avoid. It sounds like you need the output to be well defined probably because there's some other automated process that then takes the files? Although I view the apology as insincere, I like to preface my reply by apologizing for responding a month later. I think you're right that we're at diminishing returns here, and I'm sorry I've frustrated you. Bpipe gives you ways to query for inputs in a flexible manner to get the ones you want. And when you really get in trouble it's actually groovy code so you can write any programmatic logic you like to find and figure out the inputs if you really need to.
So far I see that this is very standard and doesn't differ in any way from what Drake or any other tool does. Think of it as imperative vs declarative if you like. Recognizing the impact of our mistakes and communicating that is powerful, and I thought you did that nicely. But then again, I'm repeating myself. Or is the only way to handle it is to copy-and-paste the code and create another rule? I would really love to hear your further thoughts. Do I need to reply? It's a good point and I, guess, I didn't mean it's a major issue. I left the office shortly after; and about one hour later she apologised by email.
A 2001 explored gender differences in e-mail. And neither is having any dependency graph which is not a linear step1, step2, step3. It doesn't matter if they're filenames or not, what matters is that once you started using identifiers, you can generate the dependency graph yourself, from identifiers. Well, Bpipe knows this too because it keeps a detailed manifest on all the files created. I can't argue with that - but that's sort of the idea: simple things easy, hard things possible. The pressure for an immediate response has gotten out of hand.
It was chivalrous of you to apologize to me: I certainly appreciate both the apology and the effort, and I admire you. I use it for fairly complicated things - 20 - 30 stages joined together with 3 or 4 levels of nested parallelism. There's absolutely nothing that you can't do in C++ better or at least as well as in C. Sometimes, yes; sometimes only for debugging; sometimes only for convenience. It does not matter if you calculate the dependency graph before you run the first command, or as you run the commands. What exactly are you losing? Your workflow contains the full definition of the dependency graph. It makes absolutely no difference.
Actually, I don't think there are any philosophical differences, and I'll try to make my case. Whatever the case may be, here are some sample letters and messages to apologize for replying late. Maybe some more examples would fix this. One day, drowning in electronic apologies, it hit me: I have the curse of the e-Good Girl. I hope you can accept my apologies and understand that I will try to respond to your notes at my earliest convenience. Now a weird amount of time has passed, so I'm going to loop Laura cc'd into this e-mail thread to see if she can handle this.
Again, it's not something to obsess over, just an observation. Brian Zinger Company Name Inc. It enforces a systematic naming convention for files, so that every file is named automatically according to the pipeline stages it passed through. After the apology , one has power to forgo,forgive or forget. You can't use numbers to resolve that. And for this limited subset, Drake can give you I think a syntax just as good if not better than Bpipe's.
We're sort of into the 20% of cases that need more advanced syntax eventually we'll explore all of Bpipes's functions this way :-. So there's no problem with file names stepping on each other, and it'll even be clear from the name that the file got processed 3 times. If in case a response from your end is delayed for any reason, you should apologize for it. I'd like to see the reverse to be true. But again, I am tying to show you don't even have to make sacrifices. All images, text, and content © 2018 Allison Niebes-Davis, PhD.
We just want it to be all better! I think this is too strong a statement as I try to show below. Therapy is an awesomely unique experience, one that typically calls for a both people to be in the therapy room, together. To me that sounds negative and uncaring. Secondly, I think this is pretty bad. There's nothing wrong with either one - right tool for the job always wins! It often leads us to all sorts of interpreting, guessing why, etc. This is one of those things that conventional tools solve which isn't actually that important in my uses but which occasionally is very annoying - I actually want to control the order of things sometimes.