I came across that abomination when I needed something equivalent to "A Better Finder Renamer" that I used back in my Mac days. Pic related, dig the difference?
Maximalism
Levi Rivera
Noah Lee
That toothpaste looks like the French flag. Then again, it could just be white. A white flag is fine too.
Camden Ross
Are you playing dumb? The issue with your shell script is taht it doesn't do evrything that fuckugly GUI does out of the box, and the effort required to expand its functionality to parity is enormously larger than the effort required to understand the fuckugly GUI.
A simple example that shows perfectly why the FOSS community is in general unsuccesful, and why exceptions like VLC made it.
Kevin Foster
We don't exist to be "useful" though. But we've been brainwashed so hard by capitalism that that's what we expect.
Brody Rodriguez
Also, note that ABFR and its stablemates date back to the System 7 days, back when "Mac user" meant people who still cared about writing soundly designed GUIs instead of being vacuous hipsters.
Luke Wood
WISH WE COULD TURN BACK TIME...
Levi Cruz
There's software designed by code monkeys. There's software designed by physics guys. Then there's old ham radio software
Carter Hughes
Big design up front is not really what I meant when I started the thread - I thought it would become clearer after reading the OP. The term maximalism was more meant as an antagonist to minimalism how it seems to be commonly understood. You seem to just define maximalism different for the sake of your argument - but if it sparks discussion: good. That being said, basically all of your answers reference unix, not sure if that's a sensible approach. Don't get sidetracked every few seconds.
In the OP tried to distinguish between good and bad kinds "overengineering": where there's an admirable amount of effort and complexity that serves a purpose, the effort is directed and solves a problem that is worth being solved (the last point not necessarily in case of overengineering) and other possible examples.
Also: I'm aware that suckless and others advocate for static linking that still keeps results small, but I wouldn't necessarily call that common practice even among unix users. The common practice seems to be dynamic linking.
That being said, the line between good and bad specimen may not always be broad.
Looks like a military operating panel
David Edwards
That's the "ideal" UNIX philosophy, but even the biggest weenies realized that that wasn't usable back in the 70s. That's why UNIX is stuck with some shitty hack based on an obsolete predecessor of "tar" ("ar") that hasn't been used for anything else since the 70s.
What I'm saying is that most of the examples in this thread of "maximalist" software that sucks are UNIX bullshit, not maximalist at all. They started out minimalist (including C++) and gradually grew because the minimalist "designs" were inadequate. When I said maximalist is big design up front, I meant that being big is part of the intended philosophy, not something that happened because they didn't think about 90% of the purpose of their software.
That's because C and UNIX are the reasons computing sucks. The more you know about what was done in the 60s and 70s, the more you will hate C and UNIX too. It's not just the fact that UNIX and C are worse than 80s technology like Lisp machines and Xerox computers, it's that they're worse in 2019 than what we already had in the 60s. If these weenies went into plumbing in the 60s instead of programming and had the same level of "success", the entire Western world would be shitting in the street and spending billions of dollars to "research" whether to wipe with a leaf or their bare hand (with suckless advocating you shouldn't do it at all), all because they didn't know how to install a toilet (and still haven't learned 50 years later).
The multiple copies of Chromium and Electron come from the philosophy of UNIX static linking. There was nothing wrong with static linking for its time, in the 50s and early 60s. Most of those computers didn't have an OS and file system that we have today or that Multics and other 60s mainframes had. Dynamic linking was invented to reuse code by sharing code and it works. UNIX weenies use "dynamic linking" when they make system calls, and they're the same thing on the computers that ran Multics, but they don't understand this because that's not what the PDP-11 did.
Subject: who hates what... From: PD It's worth noting that the originators of UNIX, almost to a man, despise current UNIX implementations, and UNIX as it is being touted these days. UNIX-as-perceived is the product of people like Bill Joy, someone whose value can be judged from both the appearance and implementation of vi.It's probably also true that Gary Kildall (who wrote CP/M)hates MS-DOS. And I know a lot of old RSTS/E people whowouldn't wish VAX/VMS on their worst enemies. (actually, Iwouldn't wish Unix on my worst enemies either) Just becausethe original product was smaller (creating less totallossage) doesn't mean that it was any less horrendus on apercentage basis. And Unix is fertile ground for huntingfor lossage. I mean, how many {operating systems, softwarepackages, computers} are so horrible that they can support amailing list upon which people talk about how badly theysuck.
Blake Baker
Underrated post.