Re: [dev] less(1) replacement?

From: Stéphane Aulery <>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 14:58:34 +0200

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:55:01AM +0000, wrote:
> 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
> components.
> 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.

Go and Oberon are better than this crazy ecosystem.
They solve the problem of compilation and object orientation.

Scripting languages are not bad but should not be used for low-level bricks.
It should be for a final software, a prototype, or non-redistributed
administration scripts. As long as they are much higher-level languages
they must also be used only in the highest layer of a system.

It is above all a problem of coherence of ideas and of will. A system can only
be coherent if it is directed by one (or two) people. Distributions are not
operating systems of this type (+ final softwares) and it's the mess.

Stéphane Aulery
Received on Sun Aug 27 2017 - 14:58:34 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Aug 27 2017 - 15:00:18 CEST