An interesting tidbit from the TeXhax mailing list …
Context: an inquiry about TeX packages for writing chemistry papers that would work with plain TeX, without requiring LaTeX; a pointer to https://ctan.org/topic/chemistry was provided, with the note that unfortunately this didn't allow filtering LaTeX-only packages. Another user then suggested ,,using the source`` (of the HTML page, that is), to wit:
$ wget -O - https://ctan.org/topic/chemistry 2>/dev/null | tidy -n -i -asxml 2>/dev/null - | lxprintf -e 'a[contains(@href,"/pkg/")]' "https://ctan.org%s\n" @href - | while read uri; do wget -O - $uri 2>/dev/null | tidy -n -i -asxml 2>/dev/null - | lxprintf -e 'td[.="Sources"]' "%s\n" 'following-sibling::td/a/code' -; done | grep -v latex
And another user then replied, writing:
Sometimes I just want to weep. There can be no doubt, based even on just the evidence above, that the Unix operating system is a very powerful tool, and the simple fact that one can identify all packages that do not have the string "LaTeX" (presumably case-insensitive) in their CTAN path is a clear demonstration of that fact. And yet the entire thing is gibberish. It could be Mayan, for all I know. I could stare at it for the rest of my life and still not have the slightest idea how it works. Why oh why oh why does someone not come up with a command-line interpreter (or as I fear you would call it, "a shell") that uses English verbs as its commands and Enqlish nouns/adjective/adverbs/etc as its qualifiers ? How on earth is anyone expected to know what "-i -o" implies, especially as what it implies is almost certainly a function of the command to which it is applied ? And why can one not apply 2>/dev/null distributively, such that it applies to all commands in the sequence rather than having to be spelled out in full for each.
Algol-68 showed the world how programming languages should look, feel and behave; VAX/VMS did the same for operating systems. But the world was too stupid to see their strengths, and abandoned them in favour of C and Unix. As I wrote before, I weep.
I'm inclined to agree re: the ,,gibberish`` part – not necessarily that you couldn't learn it if you stared at it for the rest of your life –, but what I found most intriguing were the remarks re: Algol-68 and VMS. Not having used either, I'm curious how they did better than C and Unix, and what lessons we could have learned, but chose not to.
Disclaimer: I like Unix, and I think the problem here isn't just with obscure syntax but also the simple fact you need to extract links from an HTML document, rather than parse a plaintext file. I'm no friend of C, though, which I think is a bit dishonest — it masquerades as a high-level language, even though it's anything but. (And (modern) C compilers are actively looking for ways to stab you in the back at every opportunity, though that's the fault of those compilers' designers and programmers more than the language proper.)