Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

You are the victim of shills

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-27 11:41

Shills exist. It's a real thing.

They aren't paid. There is no possible financial gain from posting on /prog/.

But there are ideological shills that are working hard to win every-possible mind to their side.

Guess who does that?

Did you guess "the side that is over-represented on the internet and wins twelve allies every time they get a stack overflow upvote," the way that pajeets do?

You guessed wrong.

The only shills on /prog/ are the ones wringing every stone until they find one that gives a drop of blood.

/prog/ is being manipulated by C programmers and Unix hackers, because the anonymous format provides a unique opportunity for their ideas to be presented without cross-examination. Because their ideas can't withstand cross-examination.

You ever seen those posts on /prog/ about Lisp being useless in the real world? Did you know that those claims got debunked, twenty years ago? They were flat-out proved wrong, when most of you were in diapers. But you saw a statistic.

Shills are here. They won. You believe them.

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-27 12:16

What programming language is this?

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-27 14:29


Name: Anonymous 2017-08-27 17:06

/prog/ stopped discussing programming a long time ago, it reflects the overall decline of the West and once the old Great Gen and Boomer programmers die out, it will be eternally full of Gen X and Millennial (Gen Y) shitposters. Maybe Gen Z will help to bring back some of that old fire, but I'm not gonna hold my breath. I can see why Xarn decided to say fuck it and become a carpenter instead.

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-27 18:32

/prog/ stopped discussing programming a long time ago
That doesn't mean I should help accelerate the decline.

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-27 18:32

/prog/ is being manipulated by C programmers and Unix hackers
They have been astroturfing for a very long time, not only on /prog/ but all over the Internet. They're not only anti-Lisp, they're anti-everything that isn't Unix-like or C-like. It doesn't matter if it's free or proprietary, or written in C or some other language.

Shills are here. They won. You believe them.
Linux shilling has been going on since the 1990s.
Project Trillian was an effort by an industry consortium to port the Linux kernel to the Itanium processor. The project started in May 1999 with the goal of releasing the distribution in time for the initial release of Itanium, then scheduled for early 2000.[1] By the end of 1999, the project included Caldera Systems, CERN, Cygnus Solutions, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Intel, Red Hat, SGI, SuSE, TurboLinux and VA Linux Systems.
I bet you thought Linux was a grassroots ``freedom'' movement. Corporations have been shilling it for at least 18 years. All of these companies also improved the code of Linux.

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-27 21:02


Name: Anonymous 2017-08-27 21:23

Just how much do three letter agencies pay lenart?

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-28 0:37

>Shills exist. It's a real thing.

>They aren't paid

Shills, by definition, are payed

If somebody believes something stupid and is trying to force it down your throat, they aren't a shill, they're just an asshole

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-28 4:36

What are "ironic unpaid shills" then?

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-28 5:12

I know C is a flawed language, but its much easier to stay with C.
Its going to be supported by everything for the next few decades.
It got many different compilers and companies backing it(unlike single-compiler ecosystems they force the code to be compatible with standards rather than compilers),
C has the simple characteristic that its "easy to learn, hard to master".
Like chess is very easy to grasp and play right away, but to be proficient requires real skill.
C code is also very easy(with exception of casting/pointers) to see-through: there is little separating C from the underlying machine instructions, making optimizations possible where high-level stuff provides complex, opaque constructs which cannot be simplified to their components.

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-28 5:20

Its going to be supported by everything for the next few decades.
Wouldn't it be better to force a better language now so it can be supported as much by then?

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-28 5:44

"Forcing" your language won't work, it has to be clearly superior to be competitive with C.
The switching cost must be somehow justified, not merely proposed as "superior choice".
C++ success was carrying old C code with minor changes, that created low "switching cost".
People asking "rewriting it in X" don't understand skills in C don't transfer to X.
Its not only "rewrite it in X" but "retrain all coders in X, develop new libraries in X, learn all new features of the week in X" etc. Its not an incremental process where you can add X, it requires major skills and mentality changes which won't occur unless X becomes clearly superior.
People didn't stop using horses with the advent of first cars, early cars were shit.

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-28 6:16

Unpaid shill is an oxymoron

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-28 6:30

Replacing C is a lot easier than you think. People replaced Perl with Python and Ruby with JavaScript in a few years. Back when CPAN was the biggest scripting language package repository, these Perl programmers said nobody would be able to rewrite all that code. They believed the Perl ecosystem was too valuable for anyone to switch to another scripting language.

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-28 6:40

People replaced Perl with Python and Ruby with JavaScript in a few years.
how is this exactly the same?
People don't write ENTERPRISE code in perl or python as much as with C.

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-28 6:44

the Perl ecosystem was too valuable
What major libraries and programs it produced?

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-28 7:02

PCRE and tablecat bbs

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-28 7:11

It's even easier to replace C because other languages can use the same calling conventions. It's a lot harder to call Perl from Ruby or Python.

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-28 7:14

from subprocess import call
call(["perl", "-v"])


Name: Anonymous 2017-08-28 22:58

The shills are liars, and liars get away with it because people don't learn anything. This is another effect of the dumbing down of computer science.
General-purpose programming languages had not existed before C; hardware proliferated and those making it tried to lock virgin customers in through the power of language.

C paved the way for object-oriented programming with C++ and went visual with Visual C and Visual C++ from Microsoft.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

As long as our education is crap, these liars will keep getting away with this. They are taught that the hierarchical file system came from UNIX. Some of them think files with open, close, read, and write came from UNIX.

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-29 0:19
In doing this Ritchie and Thompson unwittingly launched the academic discipline of computer science, because university departments were suddenly able to give their students software that was not only powerful (and malleable) but also free. The result was that virtually every computer science student in the world became a Unix geek in the course of his or her education. Unix was to computer science what the Bible is to divinity students.

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-29 6:39

History is written by the victors: we're in C/C++ era of computing.

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-29 20:35

These hackers care more about popularity than innovation and knowledge. They believe that their language and their OS should be the only one. Worse Is All You Get Forever.

One questioner at the HOPL II conference noted that only one language of those represented at the conference is alive: C. Looking at the last table, I would add assembly language to the list.
Right now the history of programming languages is at an end, and the last programming language is C.

From the mid-1970s until nearly the mid-1980s, UNIX was unknown outside the university setting. But around 1981 a group of grad students, graduates, and faculty from Stanford and Berkeley and some others founded Sun Microsystems (SUN was an acronym for Stanford University Network, which was the project for which the workstation later known as the Sun 1 was built) and chose to use “standard” or, at any rate, existing components: the Motorola 68010 processor, Berkeley UNIX, and the Stanford networking hardware.
Now UNIX is the default workstation operating system.
When UNIX first came out there was nothing inventive about it; in fact, in some ways, it was poorly engineered. A good example of this is the PC-losering problem we encountered in the essay “The End of History and the Last Programming Language.”

The path of acceptance is that the worse-is-better system is placed in a position in which it can act like a virus, spreading from one user to another, by providing a tangible value to the user with minimal acceptance cost. There is little question it can run everywhere, so there are no artificial barriers. The system can be improved by the end users because it is open or openly modifiable, and its implementation is simple and habitable enough that users can do this.

One of the more familiar examples of a right-thing system is the Macintosh and the Macintosh operating system. When the Mac was introduced in 1984 it was arguably the product of largely right-thing design though worse-is-better implementation. It used ideas and technology only 10 years old or so, and it was considerably ahead of its competition. One might say that Apple tried to run up the score on the competition by producing a product so far in advance as to be almost not in the same competitive milieu.

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-30 0:45

Whomst've are you quoting?

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-30 1:04


Name: Anonymous 2017-08-31 1:11

You just dont get it, do you? Without Ritchie, there is NO OSX. There is NO GUI. Hell, there is NO multiprocess envirnoment. There is nothing. Above plain ASM of the machine in hand, there is only C. Everything else was built on top of that and until a couple of years ago, IT STILL IS.

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-31 5:17

That's pretty silly.
So if Ritchie didn't exist, no one would make applications that are similar to those?

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-31 10:50

I'm not sure what op is trying to say, but I'm convinced he's at least schizophrenic.

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-31 11:48

The only thing there that had anything to do with C, UNIX, or Ritchie at all was OS X because it's UNIX. Multitasking and multiprocessor OSes and systems languages were around before C. Xerox PARC didn't use any C. The Lisa and Mac didn't use any C. The IBM PC didn't use any C. The only new concepts in C were the null-terminated string (a convention from assembly) and the C-style for loop. They knew PL/I, BCPL, Algol 68, and Fortran, and worked on Multics. ANSI also fixed up C by adding features from Pascal and other languages.

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-31 17:42

Concept of portable code didn't exist either

Name: Anonymous 2017-08-31 18:44

Fortran and Cobol had ANSI standards and programs could be migrated to different hardware. They could run on more kinds of hardware than C too because of how C treats pointers and data structures. BCPL was designed to be portable and used O-code. PL/I ran on different computers with different word sizes and character sets. Pascal is also older than C and they ported compilers to different kinds of hardware.
The O-code machine is a virtual machine that was developed by Martin Richards in the late 1960s to give machine independence to BCPL, the low-level forerunner to C and C++. The concept behind the O-Code machine was to create O-code output (O stands for Object) through the BCPL compiler. The O-code was then either interpreted or, more normally, compiled to machine specific code. This idea was used in later compilers, such as p-code for some Pascal compilers and bytecode generated for the JVM by Java compilers. O-code allowed Richards to separate general compilation issues from machine specific implementation issues when writing the BCPL compiler. Its use in the BCPL compiler made the compiler easy to port and as a result BCPL quickly became available for many machines.
The second attempt was implemented in a C-like language (Scallop by Max Engeli) and then translated by hand (by R. Schild) to Pascal itself for boot-strapping.[7] It was operational by mid-1970. Many Pascal compilers since have been similarly self-hosting, that is, the compiler is itself written in Pascal, and the compiler is usually capable of recompiling itself when new features are added to the language, or when the compiler is to be ported to a new environment.
In an alternate universe, Wikipedia might read ``UNIX was implemented in a Scallop-like language (C by Dennis Ritchie)''.
The first successful port of the CDC Pascal compiler to another mainframe was completed by Welsh and Quinn at the Queen's University of Belfast (QUB) in 1972. The target was the ICL 1900 series. This compiler, in turn, was the parent of the Pascal compiler for the Information Computer Systems (ICS) Multum minicomputer. The Multum port was developed – with a view to using Pascal as a systems programming language – by Findlay, Cupples, Cavouras and Davis, working at the Department of Computing Science in Glasgow University. It is thought that Multum Pascal, which was completed in the summer of 1973, may have been the first 16-bit implementation.

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-01 4:34

It's not known as a portable assembler for nothing.

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-01 6:32

C was portable but its portability was not unique. I think (although maybe someone with a better knowledge of programming history can prove me wrong) what was unique at time was Unix portability, e.g. its stdin/stdout model as opposed to programs talking directly with devices.

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-02 3:24

Fortran and Cobol had ANSI standards and programs could be migrated to different hardware.
Were they suitable to implement Unix?

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-02 17:36

Not long after Unix first ran on the PDP-7, in 1969, Doug McIlroy created the new system's first higher-level language: an implementation of McClure's TMG [McClure 65]. TMG is a language for writing compilers (more generally, TransMoGrifiers) in a top-down, recursive-descent style that combines context-free syntax notation with procedural elements. McIlroy and Bob Morris had used TMG to write the early PL/I compiler for Multics.

Challenged by McIlroy's feat in reproducing TMG, Thompson decided that Unix—possibly it had not even been named yet—needed a system programming language. After a rapidly scuttled attempt at Fortran, he created instead a language of his own, which he called B. B can be thought of as C without types; more accurately, it is BCPL squeezed into 8K bytes of memory and filtered through Thompson's brain. Its name most probably represents a contraction of BCPL, though an alternate theory holds that it derives from Bon [Thompson 69], an unrelated language created by Thompson during the Multics days. Bon in turn was named either after his wife Bonnie, or (according to an encyclopedia quotation in its manual), after a religion whose rituals involve the murmuring of magic formulas.

Although we entertained occasional thoughts about implementing one of the major languages of the time like Fortran, PL/I, or Algol 68, such a project seemed hopelessly large for our resources: much simpler and smaller tools were called for. All these languages influenced our work, but it was more fun to do things on our own.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List