On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 11:26:19AM +0100, Jan Bessai wrote:
> You might add that keeping things small is crucial for the described way
> of operating. Otherwise things are impossible to understand for casual
> contributors. Suckless embodies this as a core value. In your analogy
> you can DIY fix bicycles, but DIY fixing airbags in cars is probably a
> bad idea (unless you are resourceful enough to do crash tests). With
> software, browser engines are a good example: surf currently uses
> Webkit, because writing browser engines is inherently complicated. Just
> as with cars, many things are complicated instead of complex, because of
> complicated standards.
+1
We all know that in the case of "the web", the pb comes from the html standards
which carefully do not _explicitely_ define small/light profiles that would
allow small web clients to "just work", or at least enlighten the "web devs" to
be carefull of the burden they put on the web clients.
The "html" specs is there:
https://www.w3.org/TR/html/
Ofc you would have to go through the barrage of some well-know corporations
which favor ultra-complex formats: Arron Eicholz (Microsoft), Travis Leithead
(Microsoft), Alex Danilo (Google), etc. Those ppl hates the "small is
beautiful", or at best will be hypocrits and will cleverly sabotage any work
which would go along this philosophy.
Another topic is "machine code generators/optimizers", aka compilers. We have
the same nasty ppl there.
Keep in mind that coding "proprietary programs" in the open source source world
means coding a huge kludge/bloat software (if possible with complex syntax
computer languages).
regards,
--
Sylvain
Received on Sat Dec 22 2018 - 17:26:17 CET