squirt

> The whole point of scripts is for them to be dead simple.

To that end, would it not make more sense to always use `[[ ... ]]` for conditions, when I know my .bash scripts will always be invoked by bash?

Consistency is simple.

Easy.

  declare -A outer=(
    [inner]="_inner"
  )
  declare -A _inner=(
    [key]="value"
  )

Access inner elements via a nameref.

  declare -n inner="${outer[inner]}"
  echo "${inner[key]}"
  # value

Currently writing a compiler in Bash built largely on this premise.

> go back 2 minutes in time.

Honestly this is single-handed my favorite thing about vim.

Not the ability to fluently traverse through text (and apparently time).

But that you can use it for a almost decade, and still have a stranger on the internet blow your mind with simple features you didn't know existed. There's so many of those one-off commands that are so useful, yet you've somehow never heard of them?

Obvious disclaimer: not a historian. Though I can absolutely provide an simplified summary of both the development of present day cursive script.

European calligraphy was principally practiced as a means to produce and maintain religious texts[0].

From italic[1] calligraphic styles in the 1500's, we end up with Roundhand[2] in the 1600's. For reproductions/printing, it's often cut into a copper plate. Hence the common name for this family of scripts: Copperplate.

It makes its way to America, and eventually becomes Spencerian[3] script (mid/late 1800's).

Spencerian has an emphasis on a greater freedom of movement, and personal style. The script is designed to be highly legible, with a systematic approach to writing. There are a core set of fundamental strokes, from which you derive the alphabet. Instruction in this style is dominated by drills.

This evolves into business penmanship[4] (early 1900's). Most known by the Palmer method, though Palmer was a rather poor penman for the time. Business penmanship removes the variability in line thickness of Spencerian, and reduces the flourish particularly found in capitals. The cursive writing taught in most schools through the late 70's & 80's was the Palmer method.

Both scripts were designed for a quick, yet precise, flowing script. Principally for business (bookkeeping, accounting) and correspondence.

My contention, as expressed in another comment, lies in the failures of modern educators to understand and teach the script. Not script itself. I challenge anyone to find sloppiness in the instruction from Spencer[5] or Zaner[4]. I realize these are not necessarily the same contemporary examples of cursive you'd see, however the fundamentals of cursive education today is directly rooted in those same texts. Even my elementary school cursive instruction (late 1990's) featured the same drills as can be found in the Zaner book.

ref.

[0] https://digi.vatlib.it/view/bav_pal_lat_1811/0221

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Houghton...

[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Bickham-...

[3] https://www.iampeth.com/sites/default/files/artwork/Musselma...

[4] https://archive.org/details/armmovementmetho00zane

[5] https://archive.org/details/newspenceriancom00auth

I find it very hard to buy into the core premise of this article. Namely:

> Sassoon’s analysis of how we’re taught to hold pens makes a much stronger case for the role of the ballpoint in the decline of cursive. She explains that the type of pen grip taught in contemporary grade school is the same grip that’s been used for generations ... modern pens requires that they be placed at a greater, more upright angle to the paper—a position that’s generally uncomfortable with a traditional pen hold.

I was lucky enough in college to study calligraphy & penmanship through an independent study program. Most days I would be at my desk writing for six to ten hours. It was an obsession. After graduating, my practice continued at this pace for the next four years. I have experienced zero cramping or discomfort in my hand.

In that time, I've used an array of pens. From traditionally cured and cut quills, dip pens, to modern fountain pens. Ultimately, the vast majority of my practice was done with a ten cent Bic pen. They're cheap, reliable, and write quickly & consistently.

The actual difference between writing then vs. now has less to do with the pen itself, and more with how it's handled. Your poor, unpracticed, overly-tense grip on the pen is what causes discomfort. As does manipulating the pen with the fingers, rather than the larger muscles in your arm/shoulder.

Penmanship education, I'd argue, has been non-existent in America for well over a full generation. The further you go from the so-called "Golden Age of Penmanship" (~1860-1920), the more distance there is from real, quality professors of penmanship. Institutional knowledge is lost, and present day teachers are merely parroting back things they were told to be true, rather than educating based on a deep-seated practical knowledge.

Penmanship, and thus cursive, was incrementally killed by ever-easier ways of putting text to paper. Typewriters -> word processors -> computers -> cellphones.

> Cursive is the sloppy form of latin characters that you use when you have to write by hand a lot, the reduced specification on word separation and form really help the letters get out quick.

This is a an incorrect view on the derivation of cursive, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding in the precise and systemic nature of script.

Source: professional penman & calligrapher.

> I think this is something of a debate on "is it good to get some exercise?" vs "is walking or swimming or weight lifting a better exercise?"

This is an astute comparison, and I think you're completely right. One who devotes time and effort into practice (nearly any practice) of handwriting will improve.

However I would liken it more to something such as: "will Olympic weightlifting make me a better soccer player than sprinting, ball control, and team coordination drills will?". It's not a generic A or B, as we're trying to achieve an intended result.

More aptly, "given I want to achieve C, is A or B a better approach".

It's a surprisingly big field. Largely divided into:

  1. More artistic, commissioned works
  2. Wedding calligraphy, envelope addressing
  3. Teaching

I principally taught. Was too much of a perfectionist, and would devote more time than was economically viable to commissioned works. Though my art is on a couple wine labels in Napa.

Calligraphers/penman show up in surprising places. The White House employs 3 calligraphers for writing menus, invitations to formal events, etc.

> Zaner-Bloser or D'Nealian, which both derive from Palmer.

This is not accurate. Zaner predates Palmer.

> Both of them are terrible. They have indistinct letter shapes that degrade horribly when written quickly.

I would more attribute this to...

  1. Unskilled modern penman
  2. An eye that's unaccustomed to reading old script

... rather than something intrinsic to the style. Business penmanship was, after all, created to be fast & legible. Historical pieces of penmanship are most often legible, particularly when written by skilled penmen.

Source: was professional penman, specifically studying 1860-1920 American penmanship.

Yes and yes!

It's due to the way penmanship was written. Consider the arm position [0] of proper penmanship. The page is at an angle to the left, such that it is similar to the angle of your forearm on the page. Pivoting at the elbow allows you to swing your arm from the left side of the page to the right. The forward slant allows you to always be moving "forwards" as you write across the page.

I hope that was clear. Please feel free to ask clarifying questions if not.

[0] https://archive.org/details/armmovementmetho00zane/page/12/m...

Qualifications: former professional penman, focusing specifically on American Penmanship from ~1860-1920. Spencerian script, and the Palmer method both fall into this time period.

> If you start doodling these figures when you're bored on zoom, your penmanship will magically improve

I find this sentiment common, particularly amongst people who learned penmanship "recently". It is incorrect.

A brief interlude--When I was in middle school I resisted learning cursive. My teachers would tell me that drawing little circles and lines would make my penmanship better. I asked why, but they didn't know. Their teachers told them it was true, so now they're telling me it's true.

Push pulls and oval drills will only improve your penmanship if:

  1. You practice them "correctly"

  2. Your write in a style that is applicable to the drills you've practiced

There's no magic. They are intended to specifically train a smoothness and control in arm movement writing. Those writing with their fingers will derive little benefit. In no way am I trying to discount progress you have made personally. My contention is that any person devoting sufficient time and intentionality to their handwriting practice will see some improvement, regardless of the methodology used. The crux of the issue is how much progress can/will you make.

Happy to answer any clarifying questions regarding cursive or penmanship.

Below are some of my favorite references in business penmanship.

[0] https://archive.org/details/ChampionMethodOfPracticalBusines...

[1] https://archive.org/details/armmovementmetho00zane

[2] https://archive.org/details/MillsModernBusinessPenmanship