The D Scripting Language

[sybrandy]

> That sounds good until you think of comparable situations. Python does this,
> Perl does this, heck, if allowing powerful things to start with an
> inadvertent click, why do we have batch files? Why do we have executables?
> Being able to run things by clicking on them is a feature, not a security
> hole. It only becomes a security hole when the user doesn't watch what they
> click. The tradeoff between convenience and protection there hasn't ever
> been considered because the protection definitely isn't worth the
> inconvenience of having to start everything from a command prompt.
>
> Andrew Wiley
>

I fully understand and agree with your point.  It's all about how much 
power does a user really need so that they don't shoot themselves in the 
foot and does the user know what is on their system.  The scenario that 
concerns me is the user double-clicking on some unknown file (E.g. one 
that ends with .d in this case) and it doing something unexpected.  In 
other words, they may expect it to open in a viewer or editor vs. 
performing some operation to a set of files.

However, this isn't the fault of the installer, though the installer can 
help by making the association optional.  For example, if I'm sharing a 
computer with someone who's not technical, it may be better that I do 
not have that association in place as I'm comfortable with running files 
from the command line and I don't trust the other user to not 
double-click on a file that they shouldn't.

Of course, I prefer to use double-click to open the file in Vim vs. 
executing it.  Having the option to not set the association would keep 
me from executing files when I want to edit them.

Casey