lproven

36 ms·

721.
by lproven 1y ago
I didn't know about that! :-o Thanks! > personally I think it's a bit too close to just emulating the whole thing Yes, I do know what you mean. Although it's functionally more limited, there is also Emu68, which removes th
722.
by lproven 1y ago
Can someone with a bit more chip-level knowledge explain to me why nobody has put a PiStorm into a classic Mac yet? https://github.com/captain-amygdala/pistorm If there are problems with the ISA or something, they&#x27
723.
by lproven 1y ago
And there's an Atari ST compatible based on them. https://firebee.org/fb-bin/index
724.
by lproven 1y ago
This is not a bad commentary. I tried to add some more of my own including who is going to try to recover it and how they're going to do it. https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/07/unix_fourth_edition_t...
725.
by lproven 1y ago
Anyway, since nobody much seems to realise this is quite a big deal, I will share the explainer I wrote yesterday: https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/07/unix_fourth_edition_t... Unix V4 is otherwise lost. It
726.
by lproven 1y ago
Other posts on this subject, none with discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45846438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45844876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45842643
727.
by lproven 1y ago
Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45840321
728.
by lproven 1y ago
Also here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45840321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45846438
729.
by lproven 1y ago
Excellent -- thanks for replying!
730.
by lproven 1y ago
Really happy to see a new version. I wrote about 3.1, 18 months ago: https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/07/dillo_browser_v3_1/ I don't know if you saw that, but I asked a question in there I am sti
731.
by lproven 1y ago
Er. They both can render HTML? That's about it...
732.
by lproven 1y ago
I think you might be thinking of something else. I've successfully run Dillo on machines with 40-64 MB of RAM before now, and it hasn't changed that much...
733.
by lproven 1y ago
I think the core argument was wrong and it was surrounded by a whole list of other errors which demonstrate flawed thinking and lack of knowledge and understanding. I further think that pointing out errors is absolutely vital and core to in
734.
by lproven 1y ago
> It's a full generation. This is wrong. It is 4 generations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation « the average period, generally considered to be about 20–30 years, during which children are born and grow
735.
by lproven 1y ago
He established his proposition in the opening paragraphs -- the ones that most HN commentators have seized up and not even noticed the actual argument and discussion. AFAICS you don't seem to have even noticed the initial example.
736.
by lproven 1y ago
I see what you did there, and I approve.
737.
by lproven 1y ago
The only conclusion I can draw from your comment is that you wanted to provide an example of the sort of flawed reasoning that the article is in fact discussing.
738.
by lproven 1y ago
> Maybe the Perl CTO That's an example . It is not the subject under discussion.
739.
by lproven 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism Hardly, no. The entire point of the article is pointing out an entirely different cognitive fallacy.
740.
by lproven 1y ago
> certainly not specific to tooling ("I'm a DeWalt carpenter!") I think you have it totally backwards for >90% of people, and I counter your argument with a very famous quote: "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor , not
741.
by lproven 1y ago
This is true, but the article is not about rewriting.
742.
by lproven 1y ago
No? The point of the article is that if you delegate this choice, the people to whom you delegate it will get it wrong .
743.
by lproven 1y ago
The point of the article is that if you attempt to find > "the framework that best supports the business case and problem you are working on" by asking the people who will be using it, then the answer will almost certainly be w
744.
by lproven 1y ago
Yes, we do, but that is not the subject the article is talking about. From the way so many commentators are refusing to engage with the point expressed in the title I think there is collective denial of the core point, so instead, people
745.
by lproven 1y ago
That is not what the article is about. The subject is right there in the title: Engineers Can't Be Rational About Programming Languages
746.
by lproven 1y ago
> a problem with the people choosing it than the technology itself. Which is, I think, the key point of the OP's article. And my response to this is: We need objective, scientific, real-world measurements of PL efficiency, so that
747.
by lproven 1y ago
> I would say, though, that for most programs any one of the most popular languages would do the trick Which of course ignores and contradicts the primary lesson of the chap who founded this company and pays for this website. https:&#x2
748.
by lproven 1y ago
> There are definitely incorrect language choices for certain projects. There is an entire book about it which documents the problems in lavish detail, and it's generally hailed as a classic and a must-read. https://www
749.
by lproven 1y ago
This article bears directly on my point: Why Engineers Can't Be Rational About Programming Languages Steve Francia 3 Nov 2025 The Leadership Blindspot: How Identity Drives Multi-Million Dollar Technical Debt https://spf13.co
750.
by lproven 1y ago
Very nicely put. Thanks for that. I'd offer solutions, except for the trivial implementation detail that I don't have any. But then, if I did, I'd have a Nobel and possibly be the first president of the united planet.

More ›