Re: [dev] less(1) replacement?

From: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 10:55:01 +0000

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:56:49AM +0200, Hadrien Lacour wrote:
> The point of using a compiled language is to avoid useless dependencies, even
> if performances also count.
> To be honest, it'd be more acceptable if it didn't rely on the most bloated
> shell ever (baring fish, maybe). POSIX sh isn't that hard.

I add my 2c:

Moreover, if not blind, you can see that everybody wants its "interpreted"
language and wants to force it on all OSes out there.

From this perspective, the sickiest areas are: SDKs and server infrastucture

You will have: perl, python2 _and_ python3, ruby, javascript, lua, php, swift,
guile, bash not sh, etc. And for _each_ interpreted language, you add the
bazillions of different and independant frameworks.

Mecanically, that increases the 'technical' "cost" of reaching a "working OS".
And the little added comfort provided by those interpreted languages is
actually a big loss due to their unreasonable count and implementation "cost".

But, the "compiled" language realm is turning to a turd too. It seems there are
networks of insane/gangster people hard pushing with a lot of money (aka
economic comfort zone for _selected_ coders) "compiled" languages with highly
complex syntaxes: the main push is happening on c++ to phase out simple
C totally (C syntax is not perfect and way too rich already but by far the best
compromise). I don't even start on java/jee/sql, heresy againsty sanity.
The worst components I have seen so far:
 - llvm
 - harfbuzz
 - gcc turning to a c++ kludge (got into the c++ "turdification" of gcc/cpp, yes
   the guys doing that are broken brains).

Of course, you have file formats too. Look at PDF 2.0... 1/4 is "good" 3/4 is
trash. Overall this is a really bad piece of work and is _very_ dangerous... as
now it requires a huge and complex set of components to "make it work" (if I
recall well, PDF 2.0 crapping was done mainly by microsoft people, them again).

I can hear microsoft and apple laughting at us, and no, interpreted languages
are in no way suckless.

Received on Sun Aug 27 2017 - 12:55:01 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Aug 27 2017 - 13:00:17 CEST