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.
