Quit shilling this pile of shit

Vim has a terrible codebase (with more legacy code than OpenSSL). The scripting/plug-in system is awful and bloated, and the defaults are also garbage. I hate how Vim users always talk about how navigating with hjkl is the best (because it keeps your hands on the home row). This is only true if you're using QWERTY - in which case you're beyond saving. The speed "advantage" also happens to be patently false:

Suckless and cat-v are UNIX shill sites. Everything they shill makes programs more bloated and less usable. On UNIX, a board like Zig Forums requires C libraries, X, a window manager, a web browser with JavaScript, PHP, a web server, and a ton of other bullshit totaling tens of millions of lines of code. Shills say that you can replace any of these components, but you can't because everything depends on everything else. If you replace X, it has to have the same interface as X, which sucks. If you want to replace ls, it has to behave like ls, which sucks. Bugs become part of a standard, so they become impossible to fix even if you wanted to.

On a Lisp machine, Zig Forums would be a program with the same GUI objects used by everything else on the system and everything would be accessible by the user just as easily as it is on the browser. When there's an error, you can inspect and change objects and variables and resume after the problem is fixed. Lisp also needs much less code than C to do the same thing.

> What I can't figure out is why there isn't a giant market> for improved unix software. For example, it seems like it> would be straightforward to write a decent C macro> processor or garbage collector, and that you could make a> bundle of money selling them because everyone would want> them. But no one does this. Why not? Maybe it's because> weenies are so used to not fighting city hall that they> can't believe things could ever be better?> You really can't figure this out? It's because everytool depends for its operation on the bugs in every othertool, to exaggerate slightly. Thus anyone promoting animproved version of anything runs smack into insuperablecompatibility problems. You have to work as hard asStallman to make any headway at all.

>In another article WD writes:>|> [of VMS]>|> I sure hope so. Any o/s which puts file types in the o/s>|> instead of the program is really creating problems for the>|> user, and I find that more of a problem than the user>|> interface. If programs really want a "$ delimited left>|> handed nybble swapped hexadecimal" file type, let it be>|> done in the program or shared library, and not at a level>|> when all user-written file transfer and backup programs>|> have to deal with it. As my youngest says "yucky-poo!"Huh? Let's think about this.Tighter integration of file types to the OS are not aproblem. In my experience, UNIX offers the weakest filemaintenance offerings in the industry, save for MS-DOS. Inusing Tandem Guardian and VMS I've found that ultimately,one could:* Back up files.* Transfer files.* Convert files....much more easily and safely than with UNIX. Yes, it wasbetween Guardian or VMS systems but instead of going into an"open systems" (whatever THOSE are) snit, read on.As a result:* Each RDBMS has its own backup and restore facility of varying functionality, quality, and effectiveness, complicating support for sites adopting more than one RDBMS.* All existing UNIX backup and restore facilities are highly dysfunctional compared to similar facilities under the aforementioned operating systems. They can make only the grossest assumptions about file contents (back it up or not, bud?) and thus cause vast redundancy in backups; if you change a single byte in the file, you back up the whole thing instead of changed records.* Transferring files from system to system under UNIX requires that all layers of functionality be present on both sides to interpret files of arbitrary form and content. Embedded file systems ensure that file transfer is enhanced because the interpretation and manipulation facilities will be there even if the highest layers aren't (ie: you can at least decompose the file). Find me one person who guarantees they can decompose an Oracle or Ingres file (ie: someone who has a product that will always do it and guarantees it'll work for all successive releases of these packages).Once one strips away the cryptology, the issue is control.UNIX is an operating system that offers the promise ofultimate user control (ie: no OS engineer's going to take away from ME!), which was a good thing in itsinfancy, less good now, where the idiom has caused hugeredundancies between software packages. How many B*Treepackages do we NEED? I think that I learned factoring inhigh school; and that certain file idioms are agreed to inthe industry as Good Ideas. So why not support certaincommon denominators in the OS?Just because you CAN do something in user programs does notmean it's a terribly good idea to enforce it as policy. Ifsociety ran the same way UNIX does, everyone who owned a carwould be forced to refine their own gasoline from barrels ofcrude...

Bullshit.

If only lisp machines did not suck

Attached: he's right you know.jpg (800x598, 71.76K)

Also lists D as harmful. Like it or not, D actually has a very easy to understand templates system.

cat-v's philosophy is basically consistent, and according to it, vim and zsh are certainly harmful. doc.cat-v.org/programming/worse_is_better is a decent first introduction.
I don't agree with them at all, but it sounds like you don't understand them well enough yet for informed disagreement.

Do cat-v guys even provide explanation why these programs are "harmful" and why their alternatives are better?

Yes, Uriel found out that there is more minimal state of being.

nope.

t.eri

no u

...

Richard Gabriel fell victim to wishful thinking. UNIX and C++ weren't good in 1995 or 2018. He thinks UNIX weenies want to make something good because he wants something good, so he thinks UNIX will one day be as good as a Lisp machine.

Software flaws should be fixed much more quickly than hardware flaws, but it doesn't happen on UNIX. UNIX software is bloated and we can't get rid of it. If it wasn't bloatware, it would be easy to replace, especially in a more productive language than C. What sucks about UNIX is that the bloat and complexity come from flaws and bugs, not from doing anything useful that needs to be complex.

C and UNIX condition users to accept worse than the right thing. They become convinced that better is impossible because they think UNIX is good. They see all the bloat and complexity that it takes to send a post or display an image on the screen and they become convinced that anything better would have to use more code. Part of UNIX doing things wrong is that it's many times more bloated than an OS that does things right.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUNMOS
This is a great example of how wasteful UNIX is. A more suitable OS used 250 KB memory and provided 170 MB/s network bandwidth but UNIX used "8-12 MB of the 16 MB available" and limited bandwidth to 35 MB/s.

I don't see how being "professional" can help anything;anybody with a vaguely professional (ie non-twinkie-addled)attitude to producing robust software knows the emperor hasno clothes. The problem is a generation of swine -- bothprogrammers and marketeers -- whose comparative view of unixcomes from the vale of MS-DOS and who are particularlysusceptible to the superficial dogma of the unix cult.(They actually rather remind me of typical hyper-reactionarySoviet emigres.)These people are seemingly -incapable- of even believingthat not only is better possible, but that better could haveonce existed in the world before driven out by worse. Well,perhaps they acknowledge that there might be room for someincidental clean-ups, but nothing that the boys at Bell Labsor Sun aren't about to deal with using C++ or Plan-9, or,alternately, that the sacred Founding Fathers hadn'texpressed more perfectly in the original V7 writ (if only wepaid more heed to the true, original strains of the unixcreed!) In particular, I would like to see such an article separate, as much as possible, the fundamental design flaws of Unix from the more incidental implementation bugs.My perspective on this matter, and my "reading" of thematerial which is the subject of this list, is that the twoare inseparable. The "fundamental design flaw" of unix isan -attitude-, and attitude that says that 70% is goodenough, that robustness is no virtue, that millions of usersand programmers should be hostage to the convenience orlaziness of a cadre of "systems programmers", that one'stime should be valued at nothing and that one's knowledgeshould be regarded as provisional at best and expendable ata moment's notice.My view is that flaming about some cretin using afixed-sized buffer in some program like "uniq" says just asmuch about unix as pointing out that this operating systemof the future has a process scheduler out of the dark agesor a least-common-denominator filesystem (or IPCs or systemcalls or anything else, it -doesn't matter-!)The incidental -is- fundamental in dissecting unix, much asit is in any close (say, literary or historical) reading.Patterns of improbity and venality and outright failure arerevealed to us through any examination of the minutiae ofany implementation, especially when we remember that onecornerstone of unix pietism is that any task is really nomore than the sum of its individual parts. (Puny tools forpuny users.)

If only lisp machines did not suck

How much have you coded for your LispOS revival project today?

I like with the general philosophy of cat-v and suckless, even though I don't agree with a lot of the specifics. Modern software is full of all sorts of unnecessary bullshit that most users don't want, need, and in many cases, even notice.

Here's an example: the entirety of Amiga OS is significantly smaller than GNOME's fucking file manager

Don't forget that Amiga OS is limited to Amiga computers and it doesn't have any kind of configurability to fit in a huge range of modern computer devices.

The irony of this thread is that most of the people don't have the mental capacity necessary to analyze the list and realize the similarity between the items listed. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not your opinion is irrelevant if you can't even see why someone who thinks Y is harmful might also thing Z is harmful.

There is a problem which is relying on implications as the main point of argument. This is not a wise thing to do. It is wise to ensure that your conclusions are good by explicitly connecting the logic that leads to the conclusion.

Well it does list templates. And I don't know when this was written but I'm guessing they're refering to C++'s (Like the code for llvm).

Those who tried to warn us about the evils of modern C, POSIX, OOP, UNIX, GNU, Vim, X, etc and promoted/worked on a simple, UTF-8 only operating system that idiots could use and geniuses could hack:
Rob Pike
Dennis Ritchie
Ken Thompson
Brian Kernighan
People who listened: Some fag called uriel
People who didn't listen: Everyone that matters
People who killed themselves because of this: uriel

Only an idiot would base a text editor around mouse usage.
A complete and utter retard. Did he kill himself, too?
He should.

Maybe he can't because he has terminal RSI, or something.
Like all the idiots who don't see the holiness of vim.
It literally means energy, vigor.

Of which these faggots have zero.

Vim is a terrible hack. It's a gigantic monster that implements its own (terrible) scripting language; and the defaults suck so people use the broken plug-in system. It has more legacy code than OpenSSL, is designed for QWERTY, and is used by ricer faggots who love to fellate superficial minimalism (because if it has a TUI, it must be minimal, right? Never mind that a Vim binary is almost the size of an Emacs binary).

Vim is thousands and thousands lines of C with API bindings for every other programming language. Vim is hard to extend and improve as itself, so users resort to limited hacks with its language bindings. Vim is the definition of harmful software. A bunch of amateurs on github are trying to clean it up, but it is a monolithic hack by design. The so-called "superiority" of model editing is also patently false, because:
a) It is designed around the worst keyboard layout
b) Text editing with the mouse is faster.*
c) If you're really besotted with modal editing, you can emulate it using Emacs.

The editor part of Emacs is temacs - which is just a few lines of C. Everything else is elisp. What do I recommend? ed, mg, sam and acme. Barring those, use Emacs.
*9p.io/wiki/plan9/mouse_vs._keyboard/index.html

When you start Emacs, the extensions (written in elisp, much better than vimscript) are loaded into temacs (which is very small, search it up) and then the core is dumped as the Emacs executable.
The binary size of Vim used to be much smaller, which was something Vim users loved to bring up, but now they're getting close - proving that Vim is just hacks upon hacks.
Do you know how much trouble people are having trying to make neovim good? A lot, because the Vim codebase is dogshit.
geoff.greer.fm/2015/01/15/why-neovim-is-better-than-vim/
geoff.greer.fm/vim/#realwaitforchar

The people who use it *love* superficially minimal software (i.e. software that appears minimal but has a terrible codebase). Things like i3, cmus (ncurses is bloat), Arch Linux, Firefox (wahhh I need to do online shopping - use Lynx idiot). I'm also not wrong, how many people use the Vim defaults? Almost none, that's how many.
I stand by that statement - ncurses is not minimal but most ricers think it is. Also, these days Emacs comes with a GUI. Emacs has a decent codebase, and it is (relatively) modular unlike Vim (It does have a lot of legacy cruft, not going to deny that). Emacs is a Lisp engine/interpreter with an editor-like interface. Parts of the buffer can be interpreted as Lisp, the session is a dynamic Lisp runtime, Lisp is its configuration language. Vim is all the code bloat of Emacs with the magic of ifdef hell, and people use tons of plug-ins/thousand line .vimrc config files making it even more adipose, because the defaults are egregious.

What's so great about it?

Not only is modal editing a meme, but you can do it in Emacs via the Evil package anyway.

Hi, can you add something about the begging on behalf of niggers to your pasta? Thanks.

They hate on people who write useful things because they'll never be able to write something that does more than basic pajeet tier code.

Hey Jimmy! Keep eating those Tide Pods, and enjoy the summer!

I read your pasta you mongoloid. Thats how I noticed you missed one of vims many shitty features.

I have no idea what "the begging on behalf of niggers" pertains to, could you tell me? Thanks.

have you never used vim, ever?
vim.org/about.php
no, you've surely used vim. you're just insensate most of the time.
help children in Uganda
not any of those white children. Just black ones. There aren't enough black men on the planet who are capable of begging for money for black children, so this white guy has to take this job of theirs. fucking caretaking-appropriator.

Some years ago I completely destroyed a faggot on reddit with pretty similar arguments to yours.
Do they clone faggots like you?

Mouse is all the way over there.
Keyboard is right here.
Going all the way over there when you could just have stayed right here is objectively, scientifically, reproduceably, physically, biologically proven inferior, if we assume that doing as little movement as possible yields the best outlook for preventing repetitive stress injuries.

But enjoy playing virtual DJ by sliding your arm and shoulder around every five seconds because you're too much of a goldfish to remember simple model editing sequences.

Enjoy your wrecked ligaments.

How could I forget about that. But, I'm more partial to autoadmit and mypostingcareer than Zig Forums, so you can add a line about that if you want - I was mainly focusing on the technical reasons why you'd avoid Vim. But, it being for cuckolds is an important point, I guess.

You are just plain wrong.

No, you. Your editor is DESIGNED around the least ergonomic keyboard layout - and all the so called "benefits" of its keybinds disappear when you switch to superior Dvorak/Workman/whatever (*anything* is better than QWERTY). If you're spending most of your time in a TEXT EDITOR (it is a pure text editor, unlike Emacs) in normal mode, you're an idiot. I spend most of my time in a text editor typing, and I can type at a constant 110WPM with zero pain for a very long time, because I'm not a knuckle dragger that uses QWERTY. Note: even if you can do the same, using QWERTY is destroying your fingers. But what else can I expect from a retard who uses reddit.

this is an amazing level of ThinkPad bait, but, your DJ-slide example is also not true when you use the touchpad.
not that 'text editing with a mouse' isn't an absurd idea. Why not a joystick? How about text editing exclusively with foot pedals and eyebrow gestures?

Eh, vi lets you move around in a lot more ways that just one character cell at a time. If he's "waiting for the cursor to move" then he's doing it wrong.

Then fix the other programs.

QWERTY is not that bad - it was designed to avoid typewriter bars jamming by spreading characters commonly used together in English far away from each other. As a side effect, it spreads load between different fingers quite well, which aids fast typing. Sure, it's not Dvorak, but it's much better than an average random layout would be.

Also, while the vi command layout was designed around the most widespread keyboard layout, Vim allows you to use a different layout in Insert mode than in command modes. You can keep the QWERTY command layout while typing in text in Dvorak, for example.

Underrated post.

When you git gud at vim movement it's a lot faster than swapping between keyboard and mouse, but it's a fuckload of git gud before you cross that threshold. Some people never do. I work with a 45 year old guy that still primarily uses hjkl for movement. You really have to deliberately focus on mastering it to succeed with it.

True. But, I doubt I'd be able to maintain my top speed for very long, the constant moving of your fingers (particularly if you type 110WPM+, as any programmer should) would tire anyone out. I'm guessing you've used alternate keyboard layouts, so you know that switching back to QWERTY highlights just how much that layout makes your fingers move (inducing RSI).

no, you need to have the impatience that God gave every animal more mobile than a tree. wtf.
70% of my vi navigation is through ? and /

Nope.

it could be fuckerty for all I care, the keys are still all around the fingers and the mouse is at the far side of the keyboard, especially with a numpad.

And even without that, even with a clitmouse, you still lose something compared to modal editing.

macroable, reproducable, deterministic text navigation.

using the mouse for text editing is fucking ass backwards retarded, even speech input is better than that.

youtube.com/watch?v=TEBMlXRjhZY

Despite being a billion times slower than a mouse, if the speech input is a connection to the modal interface then it will still be superior to the mouse.

Acme users are literally, unironically mentally retarded.
They are corn fed fucknut fools.
It is not without reason that vim got ported to plan 9.

The few people that can pass as an approximation of sentient in that ass backwards community.

A vimgolf demo of it.
youtube.com/watch?v=qy84TYvXJbk

Vim users are literal gods that can edit text at almost the speed of thought if they want to
.
Acme users get snarfed in the ass instead.

mouse is always faster and the time to move your arm to the mouse is not slow.
t.anyone who has ever engaged in physical activity

i.e. not anyone on this cave painting board

...

vim is bloat, use vis like a true man of culture

..and I'll stop reading there.

I'll go for a short -option over a dirty|great|long|pipe

LOL

Attached: 1526750202358.jpg (1015x807, 201.23K)

explanations are bloat

Modes remain an enabler of superior macro capabilities.

Not true.
Also, it's not repeatable.
I have also included an extremely slow interface to vim (Speech) on purpose and it is still superior to the mouse, simply due to the extreme macroability.

You're both half right.
You have mouse and keyboard for a reason.
* going through a huge list with a keyboards takes fucking long and with a mouse you can just move and click directly which is faster. You can measure it. Because of the delays before repeating keyfire or your physically limited keyspam interval mouse IS faster
* opening an often used program bound to a macro is instantaneous with a keyboard
* typing with a mouse is horrible
* with a mouse you can just use element in other windows without switching to the window first which is one of the core reasons the window system became so popular because it allows the user to actively do multiple things at once resulting in "active" becoming more of a "last used"

can you really argue with any of this?

Attached: shit.png (946x882, 153.23K)

just noticed at the bottom

No the mouse is faster. Even vim a program spefically designed around how slow keyboard navigation is still requires years of time you spent to train so you could exactly jump down X lines and across Y words. And is only slightly faster than some total novice moving a mouse. And it only gets worse with touch screens.
The only a thing a keyboard is "fast" at is entering text and this is almost certainly BTFO by some kind of smart auto-complete system.

I really hate license-posting, but since this thread is essentially a throwaway shitpost I'll bite.
A more permissive license makes a project more aligned with its users' interests, whether hobbyist or corporate, than a copyleft license. Copyleft licenses are only concerned with keeping a project's code free, even if it hinders the users' experience, or the project's prospects.
If you *force* people to contribute back their otherwise proprietary code, you'd be surprised to find out that what they contribute is a bunch of sloppy hacks, and nonsense that's completely irrelevant to most users of the software, thus adding a bunch of unnecessary bloat (which they still accept).
Meanwhile, even if you don't force people to contribute back with a permissive license, many will still have the incentive to do so if they want to keep everything up to date. This is a lot less work than trying to keep a bunch of hacks around that you need to apply and hope don't break anything every release. Integrating code into the upstream project makes it easier for contributors to unload a lot of unnecessary burden, providing them incentive to give back; since they aren't *forced* to, they don't need to bother sending every trivial little thing under the sun that would add needless bloat, and the upstream project could always reject such "contributions" anyway if they don't provide any value for most users.
The Intel thing is irrelevant, because they could've easily just made their own small, buggy *nix OS (they are made of money, after all). Minix didn't enable them to create their ME (they were going to do it anyway) and the GPL wouldn't have stopped them from making their ME, so it's a non-argument for anything having to do with licenses.
The irony is that GPL promoters assume that *all* proprietary companies will not listen to reason - Theo has gotten documentation for wifi drivers simply by asking companies, Stallman would probably continue to call them "enemies of your freedom" without even doing anything (and he literally _can't_ do anything about the chink companies violating the GPL, except plaintively whine). If they don't give documentation to the OpenBSD project, then they reverse engineer them. The OpenBSD philosophy is just writing good code which in turn improves the entire ecosystem (OpenSSH being the best example). The irony is that all these people calling OpenBSD users cuckolds don't know that Theo had DARPA funding pulled for criticizing the war on terror, and that people on the mailing lists continue to excoriate companies like Microsoft (even though Microsoft has been donating thousands to their project). This is the exact opposite of cuckold behavior.

Not for text editing.

Bullshit.
If the list is really that long and you have a specific thing you are looking for then you are better off /searchingforit
instead of manually scrolling though the list and parsing the text with your eyes when the program with omniscience of the text file can do it for you.

Stop being retards you dumb mouse fucks.

Nope.

just lol

Your CSS is harmful to my eyes

Unplug your keyboard and let's see how fast you are. Mouse is mostly useful for stuff involving graphics, but even there a drawing tablet with stylus is probably better.

how else do you go somewhere on a line instantly? you can jump to a line if you know what it is but not to a specific symbol on that line

MACROSHIT CUCKED

Attached: radiant smugness.jpg (1375x749, 103.47K)

My guess is whoever wrote that is a webdev webdevving.

Please Lennart, no more!

Very much the opposite. Please educate yourself.

Jumping to a certain part in in a text consisting of more than 4 lines is faster with a mouse too.
Move and click is faster then entering 40 times down and 70 times right or holding the keys which comes with a delay before the key repeats.
That means you have to open the search too which still takes longer than using a mouse.
Look, you can measure it. Your pride doesn't help you being efficient.

You need it too type efficiently.
Just NO

that's literally a few keystrokes in Vim

get a load of this nigger

s-sure

Looking in the mirror, aren't you?

How about this? firefox 2.0, which was available basically fucking everything required 64 megs of ram. Meanwhile, firefox 60.01 requires 512, which is eight times as much

It's not Firefox, it's the websites it is supposed to run.

Reaching for the mouse and then back to keyboard takes as much time as entering a few dozen characters if you're touch-typing. A few keystrokes take fraction of this time.
it should be

On my machine it uses over 100 MB to view about:blank in a fresh process and session.

You already have your hand on it.
Hell no.

Hell no.
Hell yes.

Nope, it's the fucking forward slash key ///////////////////////////////////////////

I don't even have to read the rest.

Yeah, I know, that's why I know that you're full of shit.
I need to find the webms I recorded on halfchan /g/ in response to faggots like you.

Well I found one.
Right this about reselecting text, for example.
gv, bitch.

I wanna see you drag your ball and chain around the text file.
Go on, record something like this too.
I want to see you drag your faggot pointer around like bitches, mousefags.

Attached: shiftyreselecty.webm (400x338, 110.48K)

And remember, just putting your mouse pointer somewhere means NOTHING without a follow up action.
And my follow up actions are 1488% macroable because they work with actual text information.

Unlike your x,y coordinate bullshit.
I'll be waiting here, laughing.

so ur tellin me that emacs and org-mode actually suck?

No, he just has head too far up ugandan nigger asses. I used to be a vi-brainlet, and in most cases still am, but it doesn't take much to see that emacs org-mode is for the truly enlightened.

Brain is matter, user, not void, you are happy about an increase in the wrong thing.

can you expand on this? additionally, having given remind and roaring penguin but a cursory glance, I dismissed it rather quickly - org-mode is much, much more than an alarm clock and calendar.

why are lisp machines not in mass production? even a SOC/SBC lisp machine would be great, with some sort of emacs++ OS

Will there be a change? Why don't we see Lisp machine's today? what's stopping someone from producing some?

Yeah, of course you did. You're retarded, after all.

Nobody is willing to risk the investment. Who would invest $100000 to design a CPU and computer then run a production batch only to not make use of all the products?

FPGA

you still need to design the core, even if it's not implemented in hard silicon

Perl was inspired by God. Only Satan would consider it harmful.

Yeah someone has to do the work, but it's possible. That's why boards like Minimig, MiST, and so on exist. Actually those represent a lot more work since much reverse-engineering needed to be done for the Amiga and other platforms they reproduce. You don't have to RE an Lisp machine, you can just design from scratch.

God of suffering, maybe.

Given that you've provided no further reasons to look into it, I'm assuming I was right. I'm not going to waste my time experimenting with unconvincing software, I'd rather git gud at what I know is exceptional for my use cases.