"File types"

[Chuck Guzis]

On 8/28/2006 at 8:04 PM Don wrote:

>Yes, I *know* this has been done other ways in the past.
>What I am trying to figure out is the rationale behind
>why it has (apparently) migrated into the file *name*.

Unix, ISIS, CP/M MS-DOS...all have been more popular than the other
alternatives, and they strongly influence thinking.  As far as I can tell,
we're still in a state of devolution.

I can go you one better and ask why is there no system record management
facility that standardizes file structure?  Heaven knows, mainframes had
such a notion.  But "modern" (read:  microcomputer) operating systems tread
files as amorphous blobs.  You want to structure a file some way, it's up
to you and no business of the operating system--that, aside from certain
program file structures doesn't care.   A binary file displays garbage in a
text editor?  Who cares?  The operating system certainly didn't tell you
that "you don't want to do that".

One sees this in data conversion frequently.  You have a file, generated by
some long-forgotten application with no obvious structure--just lots of
bits.  Now, figure out what it means....

Cheers,
Chuck