6 ms·
"But no thank you Microsoft. No thank you spreadshi^Heets. No thank you Unix. No thank you C++. No thank you unmodifiable syntax. No thank you vo
by GhotiFish 14y ago
"But no thank you Microsoft. No thank you spreadshi^Heets. No thank you
Unix. No thank you C++. No thank you unmodifiable syntax. No thank you
von Neumann architectures. No thank you unrepentant snake oil industry
that has lured us into performing the same old menial tasks by mouse instead
of by lever and duped almost everyone involved into thinking of this as some
kind of progress."
Wow, did he ever go off the rails on that paragraph.
spreadsheets? Unix? C++? Unmodifiable syntax? The theory behind every single one of these concepts was to save time.
Faster calculations, an OS with a simple concept applied everywhere, a language implementing an interesting design pattern, a style designed to reduce bugs.
I don't think I follow this story.
- robmil 14y agoNot that I'd necessarily agree with it, but I think you're missing his overall point there: he's arguing that those things are time savers, but only for tasks within the domain they were designed to tackle, whereas macros allow more general and more automated solutions, saving time across all domains.
- brudgers 14y ago"I don't think I follow this story." The author's ultimate reference point is the Lisp Machine. Being Lisp "all the way down," the user could modify running code even at the OS level upon encountering an error or other undesirable result.
- Guvante 14y agoThe idea of someone updating the kernel due to an undesirable result makes me fear for my life. "That's odd, why is it failing when I deref 0, that is an odd check, I will just remove it"
- ScottBurson 14y agoThat's why Lisp Machines were single-user workstations :-)
- lispm 14y agoWith minor exceptions. The LMI Lambda 3x3 was kind of a three user machine.
- brudgers 14y agohttps://kernel.org/ https://kernel.org/ Be very afraid.
- victorh 14y agoUnder the assumption that Lisp is the best programming language that will ever be created and the x86 processor is a horribly flawed piece of garbage the author is correct.
- jff 14y agoHey, one out of two ain't bad.
- betterunix 14y agoBoth are pretty good, actually. Lisp is a great language, and its features have been highly influential (and Lisp-influenced features have generally been good things). x86 is a terrible architecture, and it has only survived because of the need for binary compatibility.
- victorh 14y agoI agree but still find the blog author to be a ridiculous caricature. There are also other interesting languages and x86 isn't preventing anyone from hot loading bug fixes.