Do you guys know what javascript frameworks might be useful for?

Luis Hernandez
Luis Hernandez

Do you guys know what javascript frameworks might be useful for?

Attached: Angular-React-VueJS-logo.png (14 KB, 730x357)

Other urls found in this thread:

catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s04.html
people.fas.harvard.edu/~lib113/reference/unix/unix2.html

Cooper Gray
Cooper Gray

I don't know what you're trying to say but I do think you should hang yourself ASAP.

Hudson Morris
Hudson Morris

Hmmm, I know they are useful for keeping people who know better than to enable javascript from viewing their website. Let's face it, javascript is the modern day ActiveX.

Logan Gutierrez
Logan Gutierrez

Working in San Fransicko, but then the same could be said for selling your neghole to be pozed for a few dollars.

Caleb Ross
Caleb Ross

Imagine you are a shitty company, and can only afford shitty programmers. You don't want them all to write their own shit code that no one else can decipher, and you anticipate high turnover. Thusly, you force these low level interchangeable cogs barely deserving of the term 'coder' into using a constrained development model fashioned around a framework.

Landon Perry
Landon Perry

They're useful for making your website slow, bloated, and annoying to use

Hudson Jackson
Hudson Jackson

For code shitting!

Jonathan Cooper
Jonathan Cooper

Learn plain JS first, then use these tools to save time.

Luis Reed
Luis Reed

They might be useful for creating mobile applications, that do not respect users' freedom, quickly and easily. With React native you can create enterprise solutions that seem professional, without even knowing what are you doing. Perfect terminal to a botnet.

Robert Butler
Robert Butler

JavaScript frameworks are useful as an example of how much the UNIX philosophy sucks. First you need millions of lines for a kernel, millions more for a C compiler and "tools", then you need millions of lines of code for a GUI, tens of millions of lines of code for a browser, and finally you need massive "frameworks" (usually "minified") on top, reinventing the same wheels on every level, all of that just to give you an environment worse than what 80s Lisp machines did with 1 million lines (including useful applications) and worse error handling than 60s assembly programs that ran in 16KB (including the OS).

Once one strips away the cryptology, the issue is control.
UNIX is an operating system that offers the promise of
ultimate user control (ie: no OS engineer's going to take
<feature> away from ME!), which was a good thing in its
infancy, less good now, where the idiom has caused huge
redundancies between software packages. How many B*Tree
packages do we NEED? I think that I learned factoring in
high school; and that certain file idioms are agreed to in
the industry as Good Ideas. So why not support certain
common denominators in the OS?

Just because you CAN do something in user programs does not
mean it's a terribly good idea to enforce it as policy. 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...

Aiden Campbell
Aiden Campbell

JavaScript frameworks are useful as an example of how much the UNIX philosophy sucks

If you think Javascript frameworks are an example of the Unix philosophy, you need to reevaluate your life.

Parker Flores
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
Mason Lewis

Microsoft Windows and bloated web browsers as good examples of Unix
I've never seen him say this, but why would you even want to use something following the UNIX weenie philosophy anyways?

Noah Russell
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/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s04.html
But perhaps the most enduring objections to Unix are consequences of a feature of its philosophy first made explicit by the designers of the X windowing system. X strives to provide “mechanism, not policy”, supporting an extremely general set of graphics operations and deferring decisions about toolkits and interface look-and-feel (the policy) up to application level. Unix's other system-level services display similar tendencies; final choices about behavior are pushed as far toward the user as possible. Unix users can choose among multiple shells. Unix programs normally provide many behavior options and sport elaborate preference facilities.
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 tenet was firmly established at Bell Labs by Dick Hamming[5] who insisted in the 1950s when computers were rare and expensive, that open-shop computing, where customers wrote their own programs, was imperative, because “it is better to solve the right problem the wrong way than the wrong problem the right way”.
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 weenie
pod-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 towards
me, clutching hideous kludges that they claim are "Internet
Standards", that I must accept in order to be "compatable".
In vain, I throw copies of the actual Internet protocol
documents back at them in a futile attempt to demonstrate
the difference between the Internet and Unix. Copies of
RFC821 and RFC822 are simply trampled under their feet as
they close in around me. As I lose consciousness, I think
some of them have switched to chanting:

"you are number six"
"you are number six"
"you are number six"

Jason Sanchez
Jason Sanchez

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.
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
Nathaniel Morales

Fuck off, faggot.

Dylan Gonzalez
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
Chase Watson

Because The truth sets you free.

Grayson Baker
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.

Attached: 1457293772860.png (707.72 KB, 1280x720)

Ian Sanchez
Ian Sanchez

Lisp weenies whining about bloat when they need a garbage collector that will be extremely complex if you want multithreading and a good balance between memory usage, latency and throughput

Hunter Adams
Hunter Adams

nobody uses vanilla JS ever

Ryan Anderson
Ryan Anderson

Existed*, briefly and miserably in PL/I's case
That's a poor attempt at FUD. PL/I is still a main language for mainframes (along with Cobol), Multics was used until 2000, and IBM made PL/I for Windows and OS/2.

You've basically killed Zig Forums's Ada and Lisp discussions
I brought those discussions back.

The Unix family is not incapable of producing good software and has some interesting ideas
Maybe, but I haven't seen any. The good software is a ripoff or port from another OS. The interesting ideas came from Multics and other operating systems and were better in the original OSes. There were some OSes that improved things, but with UNIX, it's always worse, like they can't even understand what the other OS did and what they're trying to accomplish.

people.fas.harvard.edu/~lib113/reference/unix/unix2.html
Ritchie describes how Thompson's PDP-7 assembler was a model of simplicity. "There were no libraries, no loader or link editor," he writes, "the entire source of a program was presented to the assembler, and the output file -- with a fixed name -- that emerged was directly executable."(31) Once the assembler was completed, "the system was able to support itself. And thus the operating system we now call UNIX was born," notes Ritchie.(32)
The next time UNIX weenies mention simplicity, keep in mind that this is the kind of thing they mean. This explains the UNIX weenie's aversion to libraries. Even the shitty form of static linking using "ar" was a bolted on hack. The name of that file, by the way, was "a.out".

Ritchie explains how "the idea, explained one afternoon on a blackboard, intrigued us but failed to ignite any immediate action. There were several objections to the idea as put....What a failure of imagination," he admits.
Summarizing how pipes found their way into Unix, Vyssotsky notes that Thompson put them in, but "it was McIlroy who said, `look you ought to do it.' Pipes, like most things in Unix were not a radically new idea."(38) He describes how similar ideas had appeared in other languages like SIMULA as early as 1967.
Pipes weren't an original UNIX idea either, they just took the existing IPC method of streams or channels and limited them to sequences of bytes, just like UNIX limited files to sequences of bytes.

A high quality garbage collector is a couple thousand lines of code, which is nowhere near the size of all this C and UNIX bullshit.

If a vendor decides to do something about the crass
inadequacies of UNIX we should give them three cheers, not
start a flame war about how the DIRECTORY command *must*
forever and ever be called ls because that is what the great
tin pot Gods who wrote UNIX thought was a nice, clear name
for it.

The most threatening thing I see in computing today is the
"we have found the answer, all heretics will perish"
attitude. I have an awful lot of experience in computing, I
have used six or seven operating systems and I have even
written one. UNIX in my view is an abomination, it has
serious difficulties, these could have been fixed quite
easily, but I now realize nobody ever will.

At the moment I use a VMS box, I do so because I find that I
do not spend my time having to think in the "UNIX" mentality
that centers around kludges. I do not have to tolerate a
help system that begins its insults of the user by being
invoked with "man".

Parker Butler
Parker Butler

you people need to stop engage/encouraging him. Don't feed the trolls.

Isaac Ward
Isaac Ward

I bought those discussions back
Not remotely. For a couple years after the 2014 GG migration we had a lot of Lisp and Ada discussion, discussion which died after you showed up and one of the bigger /g/ migrations happened. Fucking no one discusses Ada here anymore outside brief namedrops in Rust threads and Lisp is relegated to a single thread of salty fags who can't even write a text editor.
UNIX limited files to sequences of bytes
...Which is still the fastest way to read files on most non-solid state storage mediums. The exceptions I've heard people bring up only apply to fucking massive files where jumping ahead is faster than reading sequentially, in which case you're doing something horribly wrong. Just because pipes aren't that great doesn't mean we should cripple overall file reading performance to satisfy someone's anti-Unix salt.

Asher Bennett
Asher Bennett

for putting in ur ass

Charles Allen
Charles Allen

Times of old, am I right?

Gavin Johnson
Gavin Johnson

Is this what mental illness looks like?

Sebastian Morgan
Sebastian Morgan

Their good if your a low effort person who wants things to just werk without using your brain.