Yeah, but those files are known as "hidden files". In other words, it is the creators of those files who purposefully prepend them with a . to hide them from ls and other tools.
One can argue whether this "starting with a . means hidden" is a hack or not, but I think it's manifestly different than not showing particular file types based on size or something like that.
I agree just not showing pdf files by default because they render slowly is a design mistake.
> One can argue whether this "starting with a . means hidden" is a hack or not
The story from Rob Pike is that this came about from a combination of (1) not wanting to show "." and "..", and (2) some sloppy programming in the implementation of that feature.
The thing I'm getting at is not whether one behaviour or another is 'right' - just that they are both inconsistent so in this case 'consistency' is probably not the right design criterion on which to base this criticism.
One can argue whether this "starting with a . means hidden" is a hack or not, but I think it's manifestly different than not showing particular file types based on size or something like that.
I agree just not showing pdf files by default because they render slowly is a design mistake.