3 ms·
I don't think that's fair to TempleOS. While portions of it reflect Davis' bouts of insanity, the core of it is a world that has passed us by, and all of the an
by seabird 6y ago
I don't think that's fair to TempleOS. While portions of it reflect Davis' bouts of insanity, the core of it is a world that has passed us by, and all of the anger that goes along with losing something that you can never get back. For all of the shortcomings, it's hard to not look back at what computers were like in the time of the Commodore 64 and not have at least a little contempt for how everything panned out afterwards.
Urbit is what happens when you have smoke blown up your ass for too long. It's everything that TempleOS didn't want to be; for all of its aspirations of being a Third Temple, the point was always that TempleOS was within your ability to understand. Urbit is postured in a way that implies it's never meant to be truly understood.
- duskwuff 6y agoTempleOS was practically straightforward by comparison. The language it's written in is almost (but not quite) C, and it generally follows the design patterns of an older (perhaps early-90s?) software application. It's certainly got its weird aspects, but they exist at a higher level -- in its self-imposed design constraints and naming conventions, for example.