Parent: "Go to your room! How many times have I told you about memory safety? Now I find gcc on your computer and you are hanging out with the GPL crowd... You are grounded!"
Kid: "I AM NEVER USING RUST, I HATE MEMORY SAFETY AND I HATE YOU!" door slam
I think languages teaching people of any age that wasting enormous amounts of clock cycles for basic book keeping is much more detrimental. It causes one to have to buy a new machine every few years because the damned crap that people write is just getting slower without any end to this process in sight. I think it is time to realize the value of zero cost abstractions. Well, there actually are not zero cost abstractions, but what about extremely low cost abstractions? It might also be time to start watching some Johnathan Blow videos on YouTube. They might also give one some nudge in the right direction.
> 1972 - Dennis Ritchie invents a powerful gun that shoots both forward and backward simultaneously. Not satisfied with the number of deaths and permanent maimings from that invention he invents C and Unix.
I laughed out loud. Is this actually a common sentiment in some circles, or just someone blowing off steam?
The question occurs to me because I feel like I just spent 30 years on forums like HN reading nothing but effusive praise for the cleverness and elegance of C and Unix.
In the 70's and 80's C and Unix were incredible tools that were so close to useless that they could run on cheap computers, and so unappreciated that you could get them with a personal budget or for free.
They both were extremely important on the popularization of computers and on unlocking the huge amount of value they provide today. But not due to any quality that we value today.
As soon as a viable alternative pops up for nix which has all the advantages of current incarnations - of which 'open' and 'free' are but two of the more important ones - they'll take over the world. Until such a time we'll keep on using our nix-hammers just like carpenters have been using their hammers (nowadays often driven by electricity or air) because they work well enough for the intended purpose, the occasional blue thumb notwithstanding.
We hacked most of the advantages of anything newer back into them, in a haphazard way, and kept them because as a sibling pointed out, nowadays they are open. And openness is a very important feature. (It's just not why they were adopted, people cared so little about openness that Unix was born open and mostly closed up later.)
I think this is an important distinction and actually sort of a brave one.
That a technology stack can be the basis of an entire industry and still be unappealing and lacking for people that are obliged to interact with it directly/regularly.
I feel this way about SQL—it's amazing to me that we're still using that same basic interface after 50 years; it’s so goofy and unpredictable, and I’m sure nobody today would design it that way if we were starting from scratch.
What do you mean? Even when those were created there were better ideas. Rust, Java, Javascript, Windows, Android, etc all are better ideas than C and UNIX.
It seems every domain and human endeavor in existence has some form of disagreement between practitioners who desire progress/advancement and people who are content to never change or learn anything new, in spite of glaringly obvious benefits.
It's brave to say that no one has come up with better ideas than Unix and C because it's bound to rile up users of (your favorite platform + language here).
I also think that someone saying that there aren't any better ideas than Unix and C might just have different values/interests in computing.
You don't get to say for/anti progress when there isn't a consensus definition of progress.
All progress is change. All change is not progress.
A programmer or someone presuming to opine on programming, who overlooks a thing like that, exposes and advertizes that their opinions in such a domain are of questionable value.
The stupidity of this post keeps me coming back to see if I can get more humorous broken logic from you.
Because a rigorous operational definition of “progress” is not provided in this brief post, you assume it is missing, just to heckle someone making the uncontroversial claim that there will always be people on both sides of initiatives intended to foster progress in a given area. A hilarious thing to be triggered by.
How would “achieving an organization’s mission statement within budget” or “improving working conditions for knowledge workers by creating more accessible tools” or “using fewer labor hours on repetitive tasks” or “creating custom tools tailored to specific tasks and using less electricity”.
But maybe any of those non-technical goals can all be achieved using the same old tech, and it’s people complaining about their feelings of disconnection from ancient telecom vestiges that are really impeding progress. Maybe the it is the masses that don’t get it, and it is the select few that truly understand things that get to define progress, while insisting that the power is kept in their hands, and that the work is done in their preferred paradigms.
Or maybe I am projecting all of this onto you to return the favor lol
Seriously though, if it is your world view that a consensus definition is needed for an initiative to be considered truly progressive, has the world made any progress at all in any domain?
Fossil fuels are widely implicated in climate change, opponents want to see them phased out, but I doubt they would deny that their use has ushered progress for humanity.
Your reply suggests you might be feeling hurt that someone has picked on your favorite tech stack or that you're getting bullied at work by people who see you as closed minded. They might be on to something.
>You don't get to say for/anti progress when there isn't a consensus definition of progress.
You seem to think that a firm consensus definition is needed for something to be considered progress, which exposes and advertises that your opinion in the domain is highly combative and dysfunctional.
It is brave to call out C and Unix as outdated and technically inferior tools/solutions when so many users are excessively dogmatic in framing them as a pinnacle for the computer industry.
UNIX and C have truly ruined generations of programmers. Sure they may be practical, but having a world view that this hacky software from the 70s was the pinnacle of good design that should be continued to be emulated is a shame. For some people the way UNIX works is their mental model of how all computing works and they are not willing to accept change to it.
"It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to BASIC; as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration."
