The problem is that other operating systems do not even have a clear concept of an “application data directory”. This is usually a hidden subdirectory in the user's home directory with a common name, which may or may not be the name of the application.
Mechanical snail comments:
Not true. Linux has one (~ / .local by default), and I believe OS X also does.
Firstly, it is not ~/.local . This is ~/.local/share . (Or at least this is on my Linux machine).
Secondly, this is a new idea. It looks like this comes from the people of "freedesktop.org" using the XDG Base Directory Specification . It is not mentioned in other more widely accepted specifications of how Linux / UNIX file systems should be organized. And pay attention to what they say about their “standards” on this page: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/
Finally, this idea is not implemented by most Linux commands. This is pretty unscientific, but looking at hidden directories on my Linux box, I can see signs of at least 40 different applications using ~/ or a custom subdirectory. In contrast, in ~/.local/share there are signs of only 16 applications.
A naming convention, implemented by less than 1/3 of applications, is hardly a “well-defined concept” ... and, of course, not in such a way that an arbitrary catalog of application data can be found in a portable way.
Stephen C Jun 20 2018-12-12T00: 00Z
source share