Re: [wmii] Inferno/Styx - why wmii is in C and is part of the Anti-Matrix

From: Stefan Tibus <>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:25:04 +0200

> On 5/16/06,
> <> wrote:
> >In this way they could write code in a sort of operational vacuum and would
> >not understand how their code would fit into a larger context and the
> >reality of how those objects would be related to other systems and
> >components Such a system would ensure that system architecture was only
> >known to a few and large groups of information and systems could be object
> >controlled on a mass scale. This was done to ensure that programmers would
> >all be eventually enslaves to corporations and hidden things in objects and
> >systems which as only abstractions with out global understanding of
> >interconnection of systems through global variables. In this way levels of
> >abstractions could be used to hide hidden pieces of software, spy ware and a
> >whole host of the other goodies that could permeate systems if they were to
> >be all object based a abstract in nature.
> >Thats the really agenda behind abstractions in object languages. If
> >programmers do not understand computers then they will be illiterate to
> >the systems which may be built and may actually build a system through
> >object abstractions that self enslaves them to a software model where so
> >called "object architects" only know the totality of the objects and what
> >they do in the object network. Thats what abstraction is about. Its about
> >hiding things. Real things. True things. And without that mappings
> >programmers and they types of information that they could control or create
> >could be limited as object hierarchies once totally in place could act as a
> >sort of control matrix only allow certain groups of instantiations to take
> >place and thus this would be the beginning of a real mind control and
> >information control matrix hidden inside a software methodology innocently
> >call the "object model". Its really the matrix to enslave us all. Take the
> >red pill Neo!
Well...did you ever use libraries when programming? Do you use some operating
system? Do you now any line of code of these? Both are very nice possibilities
of hiding a lot of stuff. Yet, nobody would want to do without them and have
to program any piece of hardware on his own. Every interface you attach to
within your programs is some abstraction layer. And it's good to have these.
If I want to draw a line or characters on the screen I don't want to have to
think about how I make this special machine (and there are lots of different
ones - almost any PC is unique) draw some pixels. Object orientation and
many other ideologies provide just a different sort of abstraction. How
good and useful they are is another thing. Many will be of good use to some
application, but probably none will fit all.

> >is a large amount of Psy Ops propaganda. Their are NO Unreliable C
> >programs. Their is unreliable code generators. And ILL conceived programs
This applies to any language...

> >in diverse deployment environments, NOTHING can Compare to C. Nothing. Every
> >operating system that went to read this message has some C code in it based
> >on a C program translator or compiler. C programs are the most reliable
I don't believe that ANY operating system has C code in it. There's no need
to do so. The only base of every code is the machine code for the processor
it was made for and that's its NATURAL language, not C. C already is an
abstraction. And there's no need to have C in some layer in between, one
may directly translate Pascal to machine code and write an OS. Or may even
write everything in appropriate assembler/machine code. The amount of
abstraction you may use will depend on your skills/knowledge and the needs
regarding optimization. Good asm/machine code will always be smaller and
faster than what any compiler may produce. However, it's not easy to
express any problem in asm. Actually the problem you have to solve is what
determines the language suitable for its solution. LISP, C++, ADA, COBOL,
FORTRAN, PERL, PYTHON, PASCAL, RUBY, JAVA, ... they all have applications
they are good for. (I don't like them all, btw)

> >So poorly operating programs are the result less of the language but the
> >poor awareness of the needs of the system, the way to express a solution,
> >and the ability to find a suitable machine translation mechanism to turn the
> >program code into binary execution code that will realize the programmers
> >desires.
That's true.

> >C is the only relevant programming language for large systems work that does
> >not contain the object mind control disability issue. Objects are PROPAGANDA
> >to try and kill C and systems built on those so that total enslavement of
> >information control by corporations sponsoring objects systems could control
> >all our computers and information systems.
> >Everything other than C is just government sponsored new world order mind
> >control trying to build a world of illiterate abstract unreal thinking
> >coders that can eventually be used to enslave themselves with objects..
Again I disagree. Objects are a different way of abstraction, but any
programming language provides abstraction of the CPU's machine code and
a lot of possibilities to hide code (be it good or evil). C is not the
only truth, and C is not the only and perfect programming language for
everything. Believing such is somewhat simple-minded. (Btw English is not
the perfect language either...probably none is.)

I think it's not good to follow every new mode, but one has to think
critically about the things we're told. However, I can't stand if people
believe to know what the only truth is, praise it everywhere and claim
any other opinion to be wrong.

Received on Wed May 17 2006 - 11:25:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:05:24 UTC