Go binaries are statically linked by default if they do not call out to any C functions.
Go will automatically switch to dynamic linking if you need to call out to C functions. There are some parts of the standard library that do this internally, and so many folks assume that go is dynamically linked by default.
Sorry, my wording wasn't very clear. I wasn't trying to imply that ht is more geared towards scripting than `expect` (in fact I'd say `expect` is more scripting-oriented being an extension of a scripting language) but rather that ht is more geared towards scripting the terminal as a UI than `expect`.
Am I wrong about that? (I may very well be since I haven't used `expect` before)
Based on my understanding/recollection of `expect`, the concept is that you're scripting a command/process (or command sequence) via a "terminal connection" (or basic stdin/stdout), based on the (either complete or partial) "expected" dialogue response.
I guess that might in theory be possible to script a TUI with but I suspect it'd get pretty convoluted over an extended period of time.
(BTW I mentioned this in a comment elsewhere in this thread but check out https://crates.io/crates/termwiz to avoid re-inventing the wheel for a bunch of terminal-related functionality.)
I see what you're saying. When I was writing scripts in `expect`, I didn't really ever try to automate tui programs. So, this could absolutely be a better way to script the the terminal as a ui as you said.
At multiple points in my career I've been responsible for apis that accept PDFs. Many non-tech savvy people seeing this, will just change the extension of the file they're uploading to `.pdf`.
To make matters worse, there is some business software out there that will actually bastardize the PDF format and put garbage before the PDF file header. So for some things you end up writing custom validation and cleanup logic anyway.
This is false in every sense for https://www.darwinsys.com/file/ (probably the most used file version). It depends on the magic for a specific file, but it can check any part of your file. Many Linux distros are years out of date, you might be using a very old version.
FILE_45:
./src/file -m magic/magic.mgc ../../OpenCalc.v2.3.1.apk
../../OpenCalc.v2.3.1.apk: Android package (APK), with zipflinger virtual entry, with APK Signing Block
Interesting! I checked with file 5.44 from Ubuntu 23.10 and 5.45 on macOS using homebrew, and in both cases, I got “Zip archive data, at least v2.0 to extract” for the file here[1]. I don’t have an Android phone to check and I’m also not familiar with Android tooling, so is this a corrupt APK?
I also tried this with the sources of file from the homepage you linked above, and I still get the same results.
You could try this for yourself using the same APKPure file which I uploaded at the following alternative link[1]. Further, while this could be a corrupt APK, I can’t see any signs of that from a cursory inspection as both the `classes.dex` and `META-INF` directory are present, and this is APKPure’s own APK, instead of an APK contributed for an app contributed by a third-party.
https://moshen.net/posts/virtual_kvm/