If you think Javascript frameworks are an example of the Unix philosophy, you need to reevaluate your life.
Do you guys know what javascript frameworks might be useful for?
Aiden Campbell
Parker Flores
His definition of the Unix philosophy is so fucking broad that he regularly cites Microsoft Windows and bloated web browsers as good examples of Unix. Most of his examples of Unix being shit are from ancient commercial implementations, gigantic webshit, or screeching about kernel sizes when most of that code is drivers.
Mason Lewis
I've never seen him say this, but why would you even want to use something following the UNIX weenie philosophy anyways?
Noah Russell
JavaScript frameworks are a perfect example of the UNIX philosophy. Web browsers need millions of lines of code just to implement a language that sucks and still need more megabytes of "framework" code to be halfway usable.
My definition of the UNIX philosophy is whatever UNIX does, just like the definition of C was whatever the PDP-11 compiler did. Windows does not follow the UNIX philosophy, but it's written in C, so C brain damage infected Windows (literally, due to viruses, spyware, and ransomware spread by exploiting bugs in C code). UNIX weenies always bring up hypothetical bullshit they "could" do with 15,600 people if they were able to throw everything away and start over again or pretend that "good parts" that only apply to 0.1% of the OS are a "philosophy" of UNIX. On the other hand, people who like Multics, Lisp machines, Ada, PL/I, and so on, are always talking about specific things that actually exist. Lisp machine users talk about actual facts like how all the code can be modified and the condition system and object system. UNIX weenies say things like "Rule of Economy: Programmer time is expensive; conserve it in preference to machine time" which is another way of saying their code is slow even though they don't check any errors.
In this case, the problem is that JavaScript sucks, so it needs another couple million lines of code (a framework) to actually do something useful. Even Eric S. Raymond says this is "What Unix Gets Wrong."
catb.org
Browsers are bloated because a browser "should be" just an empty shell for bookmarks, tabs, and GUI features like fonts, images, buttons and textboxes that other software on your computer already does. It needs 50 million lines of code just to turn HTML, CSS, and JavaScript into something your computer can already do. Eric S. Raymond is agreeing that "If society ran the same way UNIX does, everyone who owned a car would be forced to refine their own gasoline from barrels of crude..." but he says it's a good thing. I agree with "mechanism, not policy" in libraries because that increases code reuse, but for applications like browsers, it just means everyone has to repeat the same code and reinvent wheels over and over again.
This is like another planet where people believe that bad is good and broken code is better than working code. Solving the wrong problem the right way just means a different group of users will appreciate it. Lisp was made for AI, but became used for GUIs, 3D graphics, and all kinds of other applications. Solving the right problem the wrong way is how you end up with UNIX, C, C++, JavaScript, asm.js, WebAssembly, Linux, UEFI, GRUB, sendmail, awk, bash, 50 million line web browsers, and so on.
I'm having this nightmare in which a chorus of unix weeniepod-people chants: "sendmail is what the internet communty accepts as standard" "sendmail is what the internet communty accepts as standard" "sendmail is what the internet communty accepts as standard"over and over again, as they shuffle relentlessly towardsme, clutching hideous kludges that they claim are "InternetStandards", that I must accept in order to be "compatable".In vain, I throw copies of the actual Internet protocoldocuments back at them in a futile attempt to demonstratethe difference between the Internet and Unix. Copies ofRFC821 and RFC822 are simply trampled under their feet asthey close in around me. As I lose consciousness, I thinksome of them have switched to chanting: "you are number six" "you are number six" "you are number six"
Jason Sanchez
Existed*, briefly and miserably in PL/I's case someday I'd like to write a PL/I compiler for shits and giggles but don't expect anything to come from it. If Unixfags want something bad enough, they write it themselves. Sometimes the results are good, sometimes not. Unix Haters, on the other hand, sit around and twiddle their thumbs while moaning about the good old days and how no one writes software for them.
As someone interested in non-Unix OSdev, parrots like you are the worst. You've basically killed Zig Forums's Ada and Lisp discussions because no one wants to be associated with your boomer rants, usenet quotespam, and constant appeals to Windows/webshit/X11/shit everyone already hates when good Unix software already exists.
The Unix family is not incapable of producing good software and has some interesting ideas, even if some design quirks, language choices, and historical baggage like X11 make it more difficult than it should be.
Nathaniel Morales
Fuck off, faggot.
Dylan Gonzalez
do you people still read the unix haters' textwalls? I pretty much just scroll past them at this point. Thankfully they're very easy to identify visually.
Chase Watson
Because The truth sets you free.
Grayson Baker
They don't. Sometimes I write a block of text full of nothing in particular, sign it with a fake usenet quote for shits and giggles, and anons assume it's the Unix Haters fag through the formatting alone.
Ian Sanchez
...