1. suitability of a tool to multiple tasks
    2. number of features a tool has

    1. simple but flexible tools
    2. complex and featureful tools
    3. specialized but simple tools,
    4. highly specialized and highly featureful tools

So the question that remains when one is asking for a tool that 'does one thing well' is, do you mean for it to be specialized, or simple, or both?

1 - The need for the web to be profitable in some way makes 'single tools' hard to build. You have to grow users, add features, etc, etc. So even if you have an API or something useful it likely won't scale economically. Unless it's government supported or behind a foundation of some sort. The Twitter API comes to mind here.

2 - This is tricky because for the web to meet the UNIX philosophy, everyone has to agree. You can't have the team that manages the equivalent of the `ls` website decide to change their output, or strike up a deal with the `diff` team to force `diff3` out.

Once again, capitalism ruins everything fun. That's hyperbole, kinda :-)

The first problem I see is that "One Thing" is really subjective. Some people might see Postgres as doing one thing really well (It is, after all, an incredible Relational Database). But others might look at Postgres entirely differently: It is a client and a server. It is a data protection and credential management system. It is an in memory caching layer. It is a NoSQL key value engine. It is a SQL database. It is a data retrieval operation optimization system. It is a storage format. Hell, it does a million SQL things that other SQL databases don't...databases that probably also qualify as doing "One Thing" in other people's eyes.

The second problem is that the world is really fucking complex, and sometimes doing one thing well is impossible unless you also do one other thing well. Rich's big example in this article is Evernote, and his claim was that Evernote did one thing well, which was note synchronization. But notes are almost always more than just text...which was why they added photos and tables and web clippings. Who would ever want just the text aspect of their notes synchronized across devices, but not their photos that they took of powerpoint slides, their data tables, their diagrams, their emails, etc.? If Evernote wanted to do "Note Taking" well, they couldn't just stop at text synchronization across devices. So they should have stopped trying to do "Note Taking" well, because someone only used them for the text synchronization that they already did? Evernote is dying, that's for sure...but its not because it did more than one thing, it is because it didn't do them well.

I get it. People like simplicity. But the world is complex, everybody's view of the world is different, and that means that sometimes you just end up not being the target market. And I also get that some things actually do do one thing and do it extremely well. But trying to extrapolate that out infinitely across all things (or even just across all software things) just doesn't pan out in reality. And what does that mean for the philosophy? It should probably just be extended to "Do things well". But that is no longer a distinctive philosophy, is it?

Cohesion is achieved when the degree of complexity is determined by both domain and audience, so Photoshop's relative complexity and Pixelmator's relative simplicity are both fine - in each case the domain is satisfactorily handled for the needs of the respective audience. They're both cohesive tools. Now if Photoshop decided to throw in a chat client (hello gmail), we'd be having a different conversation.

However, if the author is actually advocating breaking up Photoshop into a thousand pluggable little tools that everyone would have to piecemeal assemble into some sort of shared "workspace," that's where we (and most non-geeks) part company.

2. There was a different metaphor that had its merits: object composition through standard interfaces, e.g. OLE/COM and the likes. One might argue about its implementation (embedding a Visio object in a Word document still produces crashes, 25 years later), but as a UI metaphor it was very powerful.

3. The web's metaphor is coupling of disparate content through URLs and HTTP (and HTML). One of the most mind-boggling metaphors ever introduced to man (talk about doing one thing well). Today we use REST APIs as the atomic pieces (do one thing well) and Javascript/ObjectiveC/Java as glue. Same thing.

4. As for application it goes, "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp" (Greenspuns tenth rule). Slightly updated this means that as programs get more complex, they tend to become more integrated abd customizable, to the point where you use a high-level language to glue the different parts. If you're lucky they may have replaced a custom common lisp with a mature V8 engine, but the lore is still the same.

5. Outside of academia, people (product managers in particular) tend to be focused on solutions, not abstractions. And for good reason: solutions are often shortcuts for common applications of abstractions, and therefore they provide lots of value. File.ReadAllLines() vs. doing the same with 3-4 Java classes in the old days is the best example.

6. In the end, we need people to think about abstractions: unix pipes, map-reduce, URLs. And we need other people who think about solutions: The IPhone, the Google world etc.

7. As for the OP: curl might be a good start of a pipe. Add a program that parses tables, and a program that posts to REST APIs...

The modern "web operating system" is Amazon's AWS, and I'd argue that the unix philosophy survived surprisingly well there. AWS has many services; each one does a specific job really well, and they interoperate very well together. That's the very embodiment of the unix philosophy.

My addendum is: "Every cloud app expands to the point where it can host group chat. Those apps which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can."

I think it's also possible that I may have to augment the addendum to "group chat and screen sharing."

So one always ends up massaging the data to make them be understood.

Piping concept was actually more powerfull in Xerox PARC systems by using the respective language REPL and do LINQ style data transformations.

However the problem of the article is that once you scale out of the CLI, you need a standard communications API to this type of stuff.

One that is able work in distributed systems, dealing with all types of failure issues.

If anything, native programming on the mobile offers some kind of piping thanks to intents, contracts and extensions.

As others have pointed out, there are great practical difficulties in integrating different web services. Unix has pipes built into the core of the OS - anything analogous would have to be "bolted on" to the Internet, and thus probably turn out to be not as powerful or simple to use. And how about the UI and user friendliness? On Unix, every program has more or less the same UI - a couple of lines of text on a black background. The Internet? Everybody has a different fancy graphic layout. If you can do everything within the same "walled garden", that reduces confusion on this count.

For these (and other reasons, such as the aforementioned capitalism), I do not think that the mainstream Internet is ever going to behave the way the author envisions. What I could imagine, however, is a sort of parallel Internet that displays this property to some extent - a range of services explicitly targeting technical users (who are more likely to value the "do one thing well" approach and less likely to care if the GUI isn't quite as snazzy). These services would never grow big, but they could build up a loyal following. Kind of like HN, really...

Without the ability to string multiple, focused tools together even tools that did one thing well(i.e., Evernote) will continue to add features until it does a bunch of things meh.

tar cvf - FILE-LIST | gzip -c > FILE.tar.gz

(https://xkcd.com/1168/)

In Plan 9, literally everything has a file abstraction. This also includes sockets. So, even shell programs can be network programs without external programs like curl or wget or anything like that. For anyone interested, look at webfs(4). You may say that this can be implemented with fuse. But having something first class, designed to operate well within the file abstraction, is very different from something that has been added as an afterthought. In some sense, the BSD folks who added sockets into Unix really screwed it up and missed the Unix philosophy altogether.

on the other hand there are plenty of services/applications that keep stable interfaces for many years at a time. they do not extend themselves too far beyond solving the problem they originally tried to solve. we can all imagine what craigslist would look like in the hands of short-term profiteers, endlessly tweaking the interface for more ad clicks and "user engagement".

the success of sites like the original google search, craigslist, and HN proves that the "do one thing, keep it simple" model is successful and can often be very profitable in the long term. sadly, it is very easy to forget about such ideals when people are constantly dangling fresh money in your face and/or you have salaries to pay. while page rank might be considered the key element to google's genesis and explosion, we also owe much respect to the people that decided and continually insisted that the UI stay clean and minimal.

After the communication channel is in place it needs a few standard interfaces, maybe there could be some video player interface with play/pause/seek functions. These dont have to be included in any w3 standard, its more of a de facto standard or agreement that if you make a video player and don't implement the IAwesomeVideoplayerInterface, websites will not allow embedding of your product.

What's sad is that it seems like vendors are trying to move away from this model, Facebook is the prime example of this with hosting of a copy of embedded videos and displaying linked news inline in their own format.

Sooner or later, you're bumping into the markets of other companies and it's impossible to compete against them b/c you're using your weaknesses against their strengths.

There is only so much money and attention (time) in the world for people to spend on things. The low hanging fruit in developed countries has already been plucked clean so it's quite hard to 'grow' new markets. Your new tv series better be REALLY good if you're competing with game-of-thrones and breaking-bad.

Interestingly enough, the Chinese companies actually have many more features and are often better (for their users) than the american counterparts. The population is more homogenous and has more of a crowd mentality. Network effects are huge. Monopoly-like companies also prevent too much fragmentation meaning technology as a tool becomes standardized. Rather than 20 different things competing for the attention of everyone, there is one big company with apps that do everything that is trusted and reliable and thus the 'best'.

While american companies compete for slices of a certain size of pie, one chinese company owns the entire huge pie. As long as the users have pie, they are happy.

In allocation of limited resources, this usually fails as equal distribution of resources leaves everyone poor which creates huge incentive for corruption and hoarding. For abundant resources that can be duplicated infinitely and have network effects to boot this is perhaps a better strategy.

After all, it's all about everyone having an abundance of pie, not who has more or less pie.

Also software engineering sounds unglamorous today and research in the field seems to have stalled. And therefore the craving for the simplicity of the Unix philosophy. Not that the Unix way of working actually solves the problems posed by software complexity, it just asks us to avoid complexity.

Wait a minute. This is called the clipboard. Try it -- you can just copy and paste the table into a Google Doc and it Just Works. What's missing?

1983 was a while ago: http://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v/. That's a long time to lament something.

Pigshell.com

And creates everything fun.

I was just using an API the other day to validate addresses. It's an amazing thing, being able to hit an endpoint and not worry about the myriad of complex processes that must happen for that validation. If that's capitalism, I'd say it's pretty good.

In general I agree with your line of thinking, but I will nitpick on this particular sentence (or the way it's phrased) and say: the whole idea of doing only one thing is that if you try to do more than one thing, you will definitely not do them all well.

I do agree with you though. The "many things" that postgresql does are all actually just one thing: database system.

Yea some people could argue that under the cover it's many different things, but the whole idea is about focus, not about counting features. There are always multiple aspects to the "one thing" (whatever your one thing happens to be). Doing the one thing well means tackling all of these aspects.

The reason you can't do multiple things well is that each one of the multiple things you want to do will in itself have many aspects, and your focus will be fragmented trying to tackle too many things with very limited resources.

That's one thing I don't get. Dropbox could have made a decent markdown or (please, pretty please) org-mode editor and would have blown everyone out the water. Editor over Dropbox is a perfect thing - unlike every other butt solution out there, including Google Drive, it doesn't limit you to your butt provider. Files on Dropbox are still your files, in your own filesystem, and you can do whatever the fuck you want with them. A simple editor for people who don't like (or don't want to, on a particular device) playing with file juggling, and it would be a perfect note taking solution.

I also felt like there was a lack of imagination in some of the comments. Poo-pooing images in notes as related selfies is nice hyperbole, but I used it all of the time for System Diagrams and other bits that are so much easier to draw on a large white board than to transcribe or even draw on a digital canvas.

I DO wish there was a easier way to donors than just 1 thing with IFTT, though. Perhaps that is in the cards someday.

On the web, "|" (pipe) means integration with other services, and it comes with all the associated trials and tribulations. To make web pipes work, just to even get started, you first have to solve authentication and data format/transfer standards. Those things are a big pain, its not surprising that most services attempt to provide the service directly.

Unix pipes were designed for builders, technical people who understand the structure of the data they're piping around. Posix commands come in a minimum standardized set that work well together, and while there are some commands here and there to pipe structured and/or binary data, the core set and what most people use pipes on and love pipes for is plain text.

The internet just doesn't have the same foundation or purpose or user base, its usage is not centered around technical people building pipelines, so its not surprising that web services by and large haven't flocked to meet a unix analogy -- its technically much harder to do than writing unix, and its not even clear its even close to a useful thing to do, for most people.