For a very long time I thought that .txt or .exe extensions are Windows world heresy and have no real use in GNU/Linux or Unix-like world. But then relativelly recently, I know it's stupid - but I realized that it does provide some value, for example if you want to move all text files from a mixed file directory, you'd just "mv *.txt", while without an extension it would take more actions, piping from file or something like that - more typing, more complexity. What do you think? Do you create all your text files with .txt?
Another one are shell scripts. Most of us are probably using .sh in the name, but you know that in GNU/Linux /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash in 99% of distros. So we are not using Bourne shell, or something strictly POSIX compliant, we are using BASH, I thought, why not using .bash for bash scripts, and .sh for posix compliant ones. What do you think? Am I missing something which would make it dumb, or incompatable somewhere? It should be even better for Unix/Linux cross usage. Why isn't it a standard?
Most interesting are binaries, .exe or .exec could also be useful in some ways, but I don't think that renaming all your system binaries would be very smart idea :)
So names and extensions can provide valuable info, or ease of use, on top of what we already have in form of extensions. Your thoughts?