philip.greenspun.com
>Ever since the advent of the programming language C, however, this is not how software is designed.
>Instead of asking "how can we fulfil user requirements?" C programmers ask "how many of the features that were commonly available in 1970 can I add to my program without it crashing (too often)?"
>We would have been paid back in convenience and automated systems doing our work for us. But the Web was doomed when the C programmers at CERN forgot to add any structure tags. They chose shame and got war.
In short: the Web sucks because of C programmers. Why should the browser understand all the HTML versions? Why should the browser understand all the file/encoding formats? Why can't we have universal (hackable, meta) standards? Why do we even NEED web standards - Why is nothing programmable in real time?
We Have Chosen Shame and Will Get War
Back to your containment thread.
I think the problem is more like the web is built strictly to a server Client model
and last time i bothered to check in 2008, this was still a problem, and probably still is for the 3 systems that use the Java sandbox today.
And this is still a problem in 2018.
Don't worry goy this problem has been solved by Cloudfare.
Software used to be designed like that in the 60s, and it still was outside the UNIX culture, like Ada and Lisp machines. If you replace documents with programs, that describes how PL/I was designed.
This is why so much software sucks today.
That's basically what Plan 9 is, right down to the "how many of the features that were commonly available in 1970" part. Dynamic linking is "too hard" to get right when you have to use C, so they don't do it.
Some Andrew weenie, writing of Unix buffer-length bugs, says:> The big ones are grep(1) and sort(1). Their "silent> truncation" have introduced the most heinous of subtle bugs> in shell script database programs. Bugs that don't show up> until the system has been working perfectly for a long time,> and when they do show up, their only clue might be that some> inverted index doesn't have as many matches as were expected.Unix encourages, by egregious example, the mostirresponsible programming style imaginable. No errorchecking. No error messages. No conscience. If a studenthere turned in code like that, I'd flunk his ass.Unix software comes as close to real software as TeenageMutant Ninja Turtles comes to the classic Three Musketeers:a childish, vulgar, totally unsatisfying imitation.
Show proof of (((lisp))) machines' superiority or fuck off.
Inferior.
Back to >>>Zig Forums
or >>>/cuckchan/ if you are a newfag
What does this even mean? You can have a novel in plaintext with no formatting at all.
Though, saying that, I despise that HTML can't tell paragraphs apart, that it needs to be told, which even nroff is smart enough to understand.
Maybe the web should be LaTeX-based instead of HTML-based?
Why don't you make a LaTeX based browser?
webassembly shill, fuck off pls.
I swear this is a religion at this point. You're like Jehova's Witnesses of software.
Use FrameMaker you CLI troglodytes
The thing I don't get about all of this Unix and C hate is: what, exactly, do you expect us to do about it? Surely you're not suggesting that Windows 10 is the spiritual successor of the Lisp machine? Am I supposed to take out a 2nd mortgage on my house (assuming that would even be enough) and buy an antique Lisp machine at auction? Then do what with it? Sit around and admire its internal coherence and consistency?
Ok, Unix sucks. What am I supposed to use instead? Ok, C sucks. Maybe I should use Python, instead. Whoops. The main implementation is in C. Fine, Ruby. Whoops. Main implementation also in C. Okay, the Web sucks. Unfortunately, there's a lot of useful stuff on the Web that's not available elsewhere.
So, again, what am I supposed to do with this information, Unix haters? And what are YOU doing with it?
You've lost the fucking plot m8.
Read the sentence that precedes it. It isn't unthinkable to have one universal/meta sandbox standard for all media formats; same for everything relating to text/formatting. But that would too hard for the mouth-breathers that use Facebook to understand.
There are (good) languages where both the compiler/interpreter is written in the language - FreePascal* and SBCL* for example. The SBCL compiler directly converts Lisp to assembly, which is very interesting.
See also:
wiki.freepascal.org
did you finish that lisp os yet?
sbcl.org
SBCL is available only on Unix, Unix-like OSs, and Windows, and it appears to be developed primarily on Linux. So even if SBCL Lisp is a nicer language/environment than C, you're still using it in the context of Unix (or Windows), and I suspect that most non-trivial programs would make significant use of the C FFI.
What non-trivial, useful programs that I can download and try are written using SBCL? Or FreePascal?
Have _you_ written your own OS? Writing a modern OS from scratch (TempleOS doesn't count, it isn't modern) is impossible without manpower, so no, I haven't.
I didn't say modern. Get to it! Chop chop!
Funny how both this article (from 1995) and the notorious poster here both references The Unix Haters handbook.
Now, C hater poster (I don't like using this term but is the best fit) the amount of energy you waste here criticizing *nix and C lang would be much used building a time machine to take you back to the 70's.
Why build a time machine? Because it's much easier than build a functional Lisp Machine.
...
That doesn't do a good job of telling me why I should use Pascal. Most of the points are weak or vague. If they want to convince anyone, they need to show something that's ugly or dangerous to do in C, and then the same thing in Pascal, and show why it's better.
A lisp OS for X86 already exists.
Pure Common Lisp too, so shitposters can't get away with their typical 'but it's actually C' line.
github.com
CL is going through something of a renaissance at the moment, there's a lot of community activity.
Bootloader isn't LISP.
The UNIX hater newsgroup was where we stored our autistic lolcows in the '90s. I don't know why it suddenly started getting referenced. It was literally the first containment thread.
Could we please have a lisp library that is as complete as the Python SciPy collection?
No, as lisp programmers don't actually program.
Kirby is right as always.