*See also http://techrights.org/wiki/Apple%27s_Dark_Side.*
*"Think different: conform."*
Apple is a [terrorist](terrorism.md) organization and one of the biggest [American](usa.md) computer fashion [corporations](corporation.md), infamously founded by [Steve Job$](steve_jobs.md), it creates and sells overpriced, abusive, highly consumerist proprietary electronic devices.
Apple is a [terrorist](terrorism.md) organization and one of the biggest [American](usa.md) computer fashion [corporations](corporation.md), infamously founded by [Steve Job$](steve_jobs.md), it creates and sells overpriced, abusive, highly consumerist proprietary electronic devices.
See also http://techrights.org/wiki/Apple%27s_Dark_Side.
Assembly (also ASM) is, for any given hardware computing platform ([ISA](isa.md), basically a [CPU](cpu.md) architecture), the lowest level [programming language](programming_language.md) that expresses typically a linear, unstructured sequence of CPU instructions -- it maps (mostly) 1:1 to [machine code](machine_code.md) (the actual [binary](binary.md) CPU instructions) and basically only differs from the actual machine code by utilizing a more human readable form (it gives human friendly nicknames, or mnemonics, to different combinations of 1s and 0s). Assembly is converted by [assembler](assembler.md) into the the machine code. Assembly is similar to [bytecode](bytecode.md), but bytecode is meant to be [interpreted](interpreter.md) or used as an intermediate representation in [compilers](compiler.md) while assembly represents actual native code run by hardware. In ancient times when there were no higher level languages (like [C](c.md) or [Fortran](fortran.md)) assembly was used to write computer programs -- nowadays most programmers no longer write in assembly (majority of zoomer "[coders](coding.md)" probably never even touch anything close to it) because it's hard (takes a long time) and not [portable](portability.md), however programs written in assembly are known to be extremely fast as the programmer has absolute control over every single instruction (of course that is not to say you can't fuck up and write a slow program in assembly).
Assembly (also ASM) is, for any given hardware computing platform ([ISA](isa.md), basically a [CPU](cpu.md) architecture), the lowest level [programming language](programming_language.md) that expresses typically a linear, unstructured sequence of CPU instructions -- it maps (mostly) 1:1 to [machine code](machine_code.md) (the actual [binary](binary.md) CPU instructions) and basically only differs from the actual machine code by utilizing a more human readable form (it gives human friendly nicknames, or mnemonics, to different combinations of 1s and 0s). Assembly is converted by [assembler](assembler.md) into the the machine code, something akin a computer equivalent of the "[DNA](dna.md)", the lowest level instructions for the computer. Assembly is similar to [bytecode](bytecode.md), but bytecode is meant to be [interpreted](interpreter.md) or used as an intermediate representation in [compilers](compiler.md) while assembly represents actual native code run by hardware. In ancient times when there were no higher level languages (like [C](c.md) or [Fortran](fortran.md)) assembly was used to write computer programs -- nowadays most programmers no longer write in assembly (majority of zoomer "[coders](coding.md)" probably never even touch anything close to it) because it's hard (takes a long time) and not [portable](portability.md), however programs written in assembly are known to be extremely fast as the programmer has absolute control over every single instruction (of course that is not to say you can't fuck up and write a slow program in assembly).
**Assembly is NOT a single language**, it differs for every architecture, i.e. every model of CPU has potentially different architecture, understands a different machine code and hence has a different assembly (though there are some standardized families of assembly like x86 that work on wide range of CPUs); therefore **assembly is not [portable](portability.md)** (i.e. the program won't generally work on a different type of CPU or under a different [OS](os.md))! And even the same kind of assembly language may have several different [syntax](syntax.md) formats which may differ in comment style, order of writing arguments and even instruction abbreviations (e.g. x86 can be written in [Intel](intel.md) and [AT&T](at_and_t.md) syntax). For the reason of non-portability (and also for the fact that "assembly is hard") you shouldn't write your programs directly in assembly but rather in a bit higher level language such as [C](c.md) (which can be compiled to any CPU's assembly). However you should know at least the very basics of programming in assembly as a good programmer will come in contact with it sometimes, for example during hardcore [optimization](optimization.md) (many languages offer an option to embed inline assembly in specific places), debugging, reverse engineering, when writing a C compiler for a completely new platform or even when designing one's own new platform. **You should write at least one program in assembly** -- it gives you a great insight into how a computer actually works and you'll get a better idea of how your high level programs translate to machine code (which may help you write better [optimized](optimization.md) code) and WHY your high level language looks the way it does.
*See also http://techrights.org/2019/04/23/code-of-coercion/.*
*COC is like a tiny little guillotine during this "[open $ource](open_source.md) revolution".*
Code of conduct (COC), also *code of coercion* or *code of [censorship](censorship.md)*, is a [shitty](shit.md) invention of [SJW](sjw.md) [fascists](fascism.md) that's put up in projects (e.g. software) and which declares how developers of a specific project must behave socially (typically NOT just within the context of the development but also outside of it), generally pushing toxic woke concepts such as forced inclusivity, exclusivity of people with unapproved political opinions or use of [politically correct](political_correctness.md) language ([newspeak](newspeak.md)). Sometimes a toxic COC hides under a different name such as *social contract* or *mission statement*, though not necessarily. COC is typically placed in the project repository as a `CODE_OF_CONDUCT` file. In practice COCs are used to establish dictatorship and allow things such as kicking people out of development because of their political opinions expressed anywhere, inside or outside the project, and to push political opinions through software projects. COCs are an indication of [tranny software](tranny_software.md).
Code of conduct (COC), also *code of coercion* or *code of [censorship](censorship.md)*, is a [shitty](shit.md) invention of [SJW](sjw.md) [fascists](fascism.md) that's put up in projects (e.g. software) and which declares how developers of a specific project must behave socially (typically NOT just within the context of the development but also outside of it), generally pushing toxic woke concepts such as forced inclusivity, exclusivity of people with unapproved political opinions or use of [politically correct](political_correctness.md) language ([newspeak](newspeak.md)). Sometimes a toxic COC hides under a different name such as *social contract* or *mission statement*, though not necessarily. COC is typically placed in the project repository as a `CODE_OF_CONDUCT` file. In practice COCs are used to establish dictatorship and allow things such as kicking people out of development because of their political opinions expressed anywhere, inside or outside the project, and to push political opinions through software projects. COCs are an indication of [tranny software](tranny_software.md). See also http://techrights.org/2019/04/23/code-of-coercion/.
**COCs are extremely controversial and opposed by many**, for example [Alexandre Oliva](alexandre_oliva.md), one of the top people at [Free Software Foundation](fsf.md), the maintainer of [Linux libre](linux_libre.md) who was a serious candidate of the FSF president, himself identifying as "neurodivergent" and being rather [politically correct](political_corretness.md), has expressed extreme criticism ([here](http://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/blogs/lxo/2023-09-28-objections-to-binutils-CoC.en.html)) of forcing a COC into GNU Binutils. He criticized not only forceful push of the decision to put a COC (they basically just announced it without asking if people agree with it), but also stated very true observations such as that "[the power of] enforcement and exclusion tends to attract people with authoritarian leanings" and that he himself feels "vulnerable and unsafe" -- again, someone who basically plays by the pseudoleftist rules. Expanding on the guillotine comparison, Oliva knows that the French revolution (and all other revolutions) devoured many of its children, and though he probably feels part of this revolution, he still criticized the guillotine.
**[LRS](lrs.md) must never employ any COC**, with possible exceptions of anti-COC (such as NO COC) or parody style COCs, not because we dislike genuine inclusivity, but because we believe COCs are bullshit and mostly harmful as they support bullying, censorship and exclusion of people.
Creative Commons (CC) is the forefront [non-profit](non_profit.md) organization promoting [free culture](free_culture.md), i.e. basically relaxation of ["intellectual property"](intellectual_property.md) (such as [copyright](copyright.md)) in [art](art.md). One of the most important contributions of the organization are the widely used Creative Commons [licenses](license.md) which artists may use to make their works more legally free and even put them to the [public domain](public_domain.md).
Generally speaking Creative Commons brought a lot of good -- not only did it bring attention to the issues of "[intellectual property](intellectual_property.md)", it made a huge number of people and organizations actually relax or completely waive their rights on works they create. We, [LRS](lrs.md), especially appreciate the [CC0](cc0.md) public domain waiver that we prefer for our own works, like did many others, and other licenses such as CC BY-SA are still popular and better than "all rights reserved". However Creative Commons is still a big, centralized organization prone to corruption, it will most definitely suffer the same degeneration as any other organization in history, so don't get attached to it.
*IQ follows the normal distribution, measure scales are usually centered at 100 with standard deviation 15, above we see the distribution along with approximate placement of certain groups and individuals. Notice how interesting people are either far to the right or far to the left. Also notice how the smartest you've never heard of while you've heard of all the dumbest.*
**IQ and [race](race.md) and [sex](sex.md)**: IQ is correlated with race and sex. The following is a comparison of groups with various combination of the two factors:
**IQ and [race](race.md) and [sex](sex.md)**: IQ is correlated with race and sex. The following is a comparison of average IQs of groups with various combination of the two factors:
*men (Jew) > men (Asian) > men (White) > men (Brown) > women (Jew) > women (Asian) > women (White) > women (Brown) > men (Black) > women (Black)*
@ -42,8 +42,9 @@ Also remember the worst thing you can do to a joke is put a [disclaimer](disclai
- How to install a package on [Debian](debian.md)? I don't know, but on my [Arch](arch.md) it's done with `pacman`.
- [green](greenwashing.md) [capitalism](capitalism.md) :'D my sides
- Difference between a beginner and pro programmer? Pro programmer fails in a much more sophisticated manner.
- What is a [computer](computer.md)? A device that can make a hundred million mistakes per second.
- What is a [computer](computer.md)? A device that can make a hundred million very precise mistakes per second.
- After all it may not take so long to establish our [utopia](less_retarded_society.md). By the time [Windows](windows.md) has updated we will have already done it ten times over.
- One of the great milestones yet left to be achieved by science is to find intelligent life in our Solar System.
- Cool statistics: 9 out of 10 people enjoy a gang [rape](rape.md).
- Basement hackers never die, they just smell that way. Musicians never die, they just decompose (and musicians working part time are [semiconductors](semicoductor.md)).
- `int randomInt(void) { int x; return x; }`
@ -53,6 +54,7 @@ Also remember the worst thing you can do to a joke is put a [disclaimer](disclai
- Our new [app](app.md) partly adopts the [KISS](kiss.md) philosophy, specifically the "stupid" part.
- I just had sex with a German chick, for some reason she kept yelling her age. (Or maybe she just didn't consent.)
- I find it much more pleasant to browse the web on a 1 bit display, it can't display a [rainbow](lgbt.md).
- The term *military intelligence* is an oxymoron. The term *criminal lawyer* is a redundancy.
- Why are [noobs](noob.md) the most pacifist beings in existence? Because they never beat anyone.
- You scratch my [tape](tape.md), I scratch yours.
- There's a new version of Debian Bull's Eye that's compiled exclusively with [Rust](rust.md). Its code name is [Bull's Shit](bullshit.md).
@ -60,6 +62,8 @@ Also remember the worst thing you can do to a joke is put a [disclaimer](disclai
- Have you heard the [atheists](atheism.md) are starting their own non-prophet?
- Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach. Those who cannot teach, [do business](entrepreneur.md).
- An [Apple](apple.md) a day keeps [sanity](lrs.md) away.
- The goal of [computer science](compsci.md) is to create things that will last at
*"I invented the term 'object oriented' and [C++](cpp.md) was not what I had in mind"* --[Alan Kay](alan_kay.md), inventor of OOP
Object-oriented programming (OOP, also object-obsessed programming, objectfuscated programming or artificial inelegance) is a [programming paradigm](paradigm.md) that tries to model reality as a collection of abstract objects that communicate with each other and obey some specific rules. While the idea itself isn't bad and can be useful in certain cases, **OOP has become extremely overused, extremely badly implemented and downright forced in programming languages** which apply this [abstraction](abstraction.md) to every single program and concept, creating [anti-patterns](anti_pattern.md), unnecessary issues and of course [bloat](bloat.md). We therefore see OOP as a **[cancer](cancer.md) of software development**. Many others oppose it, e.g. [Bitreich](bitreich.md) voice criticism in their manifesto, saying we rather need a *subject oriented programming*; the idea of OOP being real bad is leaking even into the mainstream so it's becoming less and less controversial to shit on it.
Object-oriented programming (OOP, also object-obsessed programming, objectfuscated programming or artificial inelegance) is a [programming paradigm](paradigm.md) that tries to model reality as a collection of abstract objects that communicate with each other and obey some specific rules. While the idea itself isn't bad and can be useful in certain cases, **OOP has become extremely overused, extremely badly implemented and downright forced in programming languages** which apply this [abstraction](abstraction.md) to every single program and concept, creating [anti-patterns](anti_pattern.md), unnecessary issues and of course [bloat](bloat.md) We therefore see OOP as a **[cancer](cancer.md) of software development**. OOP is basically a fashion wave that scarred programming for decades. Many others oppose it, e.g. [Bitreich](bitreich.md) voice criticism in their manifesto, saying we rather need a *subject oriented programming*; the idea of OOP being real bad is leaking even into the mainstream so it's becoming less and less controversial to shit on it.
Ugly examples of OOP gone bad include [Java](java.md) and [C++](cpp.md) (which at least doesn't force it). Other languages such as [Python](python.md) and [Javascript](javascript.md) include OOP but have lightened it up a bit and at least allow you to avoid using it.
@ -39,6 +39,10 @@ OOP furthermore comes with some basic principles such as:
- If you want to program in object-oriented way and have a good justification for it, **you don't need an OOP language anyway**, you can emulate all aspects of OOP in simple languages like C. So instead of building the idea into the language itself and dragging it along forever and everywhere, it would be better to have optional OOP libraries.
- It generalizes and simplifies programming into a few rules of thumb such as encapsulation, again for the sake of inexperienced noobs. However there are no simple rules for how to program well, good programming requires a huge amount of experience and as in any art, good programmer knows when breaking the general rules is good. OOP doesn't let good programmers do this, it preaches things like "global variables bad" which is just too oversimplified and hurts good programming.
## The Pure OOP
TODO
## So Which Paradigm To Use Instead Of OOP?
After many people realized OOP is kind of shit, there has been a boom of "OOP alternatives" such as [functional](functional.md), [traits](traits.md), [agent oriented programming](agent_oriented_programming.md), all kinds of "lightweight"/optional OOP etc etc. Which one to use?
@ -16,11 +16,13 @@ Here is a list of people notable in technology or in other ways related to [LRS]
- **[Eric S. Raymond](esr.md)**: oldshool hacker turned capitalist, proponent of [open $ource](open_source.md), desperately trying to be popular, co-founder of [OSI](osi.md) and tech writer ([Jargon File](jargon_file.md), [CatB](catb.md), ...)
- **[Fabrice Bellard](fabrice_bellard.md)**: legendary programmer, made many famous programs such as [ffmpeg](ffmpeg.md), [tcc](tcc.md), [TinyGL](tinygl.md) etc.
- **[Geoffrey Knauth](geoffrey_knauth.md)**: very [shitty](shit.md) president of [Free Software Foundation](fsf.md) since 2020 who embraces [proprietary](proprietary.md) software lol
- **[Grigori Perelman](perelman.md)** based Russian mathematician who solved one of the biggest problems in math ([Poincare conjecture](poincare_conjecture.md)), then refused Fields medal and million dollar prize, refuses to talk to anyone and make [hero](hero_culture.md) of himself, just sent a huge fuck you to the system
- **[Grigori Perelman](perelman.md)** based Russian mathematician who solved one of the biggest problems in math ([Poincare conjecture](poincare_conjecture.md)), then refused Fields medal and million dollar prize, refuses to talk to anyone and make [hero](hero_culture.md) of himself, just sent a huge fuck you to the system
- **[Jason Scott](jason_scott.md)**: quite famous archivist and filmmaker (maintains e.g. textfiles.com), focused on old hacker/boomer tech like [BBSes](bbs.md)
- **[Jesus](jesus.md)**: probably the most famous guy in history, had a nice teaching of [nonviolence](nonviolence.md) and [love](love.md)
- **[Jimmy Wales](jimmy_wales.md)**: co-founder of [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md)
- **[John Carmack](john_carmack.md)**: legendary game ([Doom](doom.md), [Quake](quake.md), ...) and [graphics](graphics.md) developer, often called a programming god
- **[John Romero](romero.md)**: legendary oldschool game dev, co-creator of [Doom](doom.md)
- **[John von Neumann](von_neumann.md)**: early 20th century multidisciplinary genius, one of the greatest [computer scientists](compsci.md) of all time, also famous for huge [IQ](iq.md) and being a human calculator
- **[Ken Silverman](key_silverman.md)**: famous oldschool 3D engine programmer ([Duke Nukem 3D](duke_3d.md)'s [BUILD engine](build_engine.md), ...), sadly proprietaryfag
- **[Ken Thompson](ken_thompson.md)**: co-creator of [Unix](unix.md), [C](c.md) and [Go](go.md)
- **[Larry Sanger](larry_sanger.md)**: co-founder of [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md), also one of its biggest critics
@ -19,12 +19,12 @@ The whole idea is basically about declaring certain words, pictures, patterns of
While political correctness loves to boast about "diversity" and somehow "protecting it", it is doing the exact opposite -- **political correctness kills diversity in society**, it aims for **a unified, sterile society** that's afraid of even hinting on someone else's difference out of fear of punishment. People are different, [stereotypes](stereotype.md) are based on reality, acknowledging this -- and even [joking](jokes.md) about it -- doesn't at all mean we have to start to hate each other (in fact that requires some fucked up mental gymnastics and a shitty society that pushes [competitive](capitalism.md) thinking), diversity is good, keeps us aware of strength in unity: everyone is good at something and bad at something, and sometimes we just do things differently, a westener might approach problem differently than Asian or Arab, they look different, think and behave differently, and that's a good thing; political correctness forbids such thinking and only states "there is no such thing as differences in people or culture, don't even dare to hint on it", it will go on to censor anything showing the differences do actually exist and leave nothing but plain white sheet of paper without anything on it, a robotic member of society that's afraid to ask someone about his gender or even place where he comes from, someone unable of thinking or communicating on his own, only resorting to preapproved "safe" ways of communication. Indeed, reality yet again starts beating dystopian fiction horrors.
Political correctness goes strictly against [free speech](free_speech.md), it tries to force people "to behave" and be afraid of words and talking, it creates conflict, divides society (for dividing the working class it is criticized e.g. by [Marxists](marxism.md)) and also TEACHES people to be [offended](offended_culture.md) by language -- i.e. even if a specific word wouldn't normally be used or seen in a hostile way (e.g. the *master branch* in git repositories), political correctness establishes that NOW IT IS OFFENSIVE and specific minorities SHOULD take offense, even if they normally wouldn't, supporting [offended culture](offended_culture.md) and [fight culture](fight_culture.md). I.e. political correctness can be called a [cancer](cancer.md) of society. **[LRS](lrs.md) must never adhere to political correctness!**
**Political correctness goes strictly against [free speech](free_speech.md)**, it tries to force people "to behave" and be afraid of words and talking, it creates conflict, divides society (for dividing the working class it is criticized e.g. by [Marxists](marxism.md)) and also TEACHES people to be [offended](offended_culture.md) by language -- i.e. even if a specific word wouldn't normally be used or seen in a hostile way (e.g. the *master branch* in git repositories), political correctness establishes that NOW IT IS OFFENSIVE and specific minorities SHOULD take offense, even if they normally wouldn't, supporting [offended culture](offended_culture.md) and [fight culture](fight_culture.md). I.e. political correctness can be called a [cancer](cancer.md) of society. **[LRS](lrs.md) must never adhere to political correctness!**
Of course, political correctness doesn't stop at censoring simple words, don't get mistaken. Facts in textbooks and encyclopedias such as those regarding [race](race.md) and sex differences are censored and replaced with lies with the help of [soyence](soyence.md). Political correctness tries to forcefully dictate standards of a culture by an extremely rapidly changing fashion, e.g. the standard of beauty, politeness and so on -- last week we celebrated the international gender fluid day but THIS WEEK we celebrate fat disabled women with acne issues, all TV ads must have at least one crippled landwhale or else you're cancelled. If you can't keep up with their latest inventions you'll be executed -- on no, you used the term "mentally ill"! HOW DARE YOU THAT'S SO OFFENSIVELY AGGRESSIVE YOU HAVE TO SAY NEURODIVERGENT, you're basically [Hitler](hitler.md) now (but wait until next week when the word *neuro* itself becomes offensive).
OK, let's get back to a bit more serious. Just for the autistic neuroretarded people persons that might misunderstand our stance on social equality: [LRS](lrs.md) is for complete social equality of all people and eventually all living beings, however political correctness has nothing to do with achieving this goal, in fact it mostly goes against it, it creates huge amount of collateral damage, it divides people and fuels social conflict rather than calm it. We try to not cure symptoms of a shit society by harmful means but rather address the root cause by transitioning to a [good society](less_retaded_society.md) without conflict where there is no need for censorship, fact distortion and brainwashing to prevent discrimination. In the society we envision accepting facts about physical inequality does not imply an attack or discrimination at all as humans don't compete by their abilities, in such society the idea of political correctness is as ridiculous as e.g. arguing we should be creating numerically more inclusive datasets with higher leading digits as by [Benford's law](benfords_law.md) smaller digits are are a statistical majority that oppresses higher digits.
Political correctness comes with a funny little phenomenon in a form of constant [bullshit](bullshit.md) cycle of banning old words that gained negative connotation and forcing newly invented clean-slate words -- in the past when official medical terms such as *idiot*, *imbecile*, *moron*, *cretin* and *mongoloid* started to be seen as "offensive", a new, politically correct term *mental retardation* was invented to replace them -- of course, the term *retardation* later became seen as offensive too so they had to invent new terms, one of the newest ones seem to be *neurodivergency* -- this term will itself become highly offensive in about 10 to 20 years. At that time it will be extremely funny to browse the web archive and seeing people proudly proclaiming they are "neurodivergent" when at the time it will be seen as if they nowadays proclaimed they are a retarded idiot :D The term [autism](autism.md) currently seems to be going through the transition from politically correct to "offensive", the Internet already made the word "autistic" largely synonymous to "stupid".
Political correctness comes with a funny little phenomenon in a form of constant [bullshit](bullshit.md) cycle of **banning old words that gained negative connotation and forcing newly invented clean-slate words** -- in the past when official medical terms such as *idiot*, *imbecile*, *moron*, *cretin* and *mongoloid* started to be seen as "offensive", a new, politically correct term *mental retardation* was invented to replace them -- of course, the term *retardation* later became seen as offensive too so they had to invent new terms, one of the newest ones seem to be *neurodivergency* -- this term will itself become highly offensive in about 10 to 20 years. At that time it will be extremely funny to browse the web archive and seeing people proudly proclaiming they are "neurodivergent" when at the time it will be seen as if they nowadays proclaimed they are a retarded idiot :D The term [autism](autism.md) currently seems to be going through the transition from politically correct to "offensive", the Internet already made the word "autistic" largely synonymous to "stupid". Giving in to these trends is not just harmful by giving approval to the idea of language control, it's also just plain stupid, just as following any kind of [fashion](fashion.md).
Latest trend on social media seems to be the **pseudo political incorrectness**, i.e. pretending to be politically incorrect by just using for example rude words, which of course aren't politically incorrect by themselves, for the sake of improving one's image. It goes along the lines of "IN TIMES OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, this SUPER HERO CELEBRITY IS A COOL NONCONFORMING REBEL who is not afraid of saying the word *fuck* in a youtube video". Of course this is retarded as fuck, political incorrectness isn't at all about being rude, it is only about opposing the gospel of pseudoleftists, you may be politically incorrect without being rude simply by saying "white women are less intelligent than white men but more intelligent than black men", and you may be rude without being politically incorrect, e.g. by saying "we should murder this white guy because he is white so fuck him".
@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ What really IS a programming language -- is it software? Is it a standard? Can a
Strictly speaking programming language is a [formal language](formal_language.md) with [semantics](semantics.md), i.e. just something akin a "mathematical idea" -- as such it cannot be directly "owned", at least not on the grounds of [copyright](copyright.md), as seems to have been quite strongly established by a few court cases now. However things related to a language can sadly be owned, for example their specifications (official standards describing the language), [trademarks](trademark.md) (the name or logo of the language), implementations (specific software such as the language's compiler), [patents](patent.md) on some ideas used in the implementation etc. Also if a language is very complex, it can be owned practically; typically a corporation will make an extremely complicated language which only 1000 paid programmers can maintain, giving the corporation complete control over the language -- see [bloat monopoly](bloat_monopoly.md) and [capitalist software](capitalist_software.md).
At this point we should start to distinguish between the pure language and its **[implementation](implementation.md)**. As has been said, the pure language is just an idea -- this idea is explained in detail in so called **language specification**, a document that's kind of a standard that precisely describes the language. Specification is a technical document, it is NOT a tutorial or promotional material or anything like that, its purpose is just to DEFINE the language for those who will be implementing it. Theoretically specification is the first thing, however in practice we usually have someone e.g. program a small language for internal use in a company, then that language becomes more popular and widespread and only then someone decides to standardize it and make the official specification. Specification describes things like syntax, semantics, conformance criteria etc., often using precise formal tools such as [grammars](grammar.md). It's hugely difficult to make good specification because one has to decide what depth to go to and even what to purposefully leave unspecified! One would thought that it's always better to define as many things as possible, but that's naive -- leaving some things up to the choice of those who will be implementing the language gives them freedom to implement it in a way that's fastest, most elegant or convenient in any other way.
At this point we should start to distinguish between the pure language and its **[implementation](implementation.md)**. As has been said, the pure language is just an idea -- this idea is explained in detail in so called **language specification**, a document that's kind of a standard that precisely describes the language. Specification is a technical document, it is NOT a tutorial or promotional material or anything like that, its purpose is just to DEFINE the language for those who will be implementing it -- sometimes specification can be a very official standard made by some standardizing organization (as e.g. with C), other times it may be just a collaborative online document that at the same time serves as the language reference (as e.g. with Lua). In any case it's important to [version](version_numbering.md) the specification just as we version programs, because when specification changes, the specified languages usually changes too (unless it's a minor change such as fixing some typos), so we have to have a way to exactly identify WHICH version of the language we are referring to. Theoretically specification is the first thing, however in practice we usually have someone e.g. program a small language for internal use in a company, then that language becomes more popular and widespread and only then someone decides to standardize it and make the official specification. Specification describes things like syntax, semantics, conformance criteria etc., often using precise formal tools such as [grammars](grammar.md). It's hugely difficult to make good specification because one has to decide what depth to go to and even what to purposefully leave unspecified! One would thought that it's always better to define as many things as possible, but that's naive -- leaving some things up to the choice of those who will be implementing the language gives them freedom to implement it in a way that's fastest, most elegant or convenient in any other way.
It is possible for a language to exist without official specification -- the language is then basically specified by some of its implementations, i.e. we say the language is "what this program accepts as valid input". Many languages go through this phase before receiving their specification. Language specified purely by one implementation is not a very good idea because firstly such specification is not very readable and secondly, as said, here EVERYTHING is specified by this one program (the language EQUALS that one specific compiler), we don't know where the freedom of implementation is. Do other implementations have to produce exactly the same compiled binary as this one (without being able to e.g. optimize it better or produce binaries for other platforms)? If not, how much can they differ? Can they e.g. use different representation of numbers (may be important for compatibility)? Do they have to reproduce even the same bugs as the original compiler? Do they have to have the same technical limitations? Do they have to implement the same command line interface (without potentially adding improvements)? Etc.
@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ Here is a table of notable programming languages in chronological order (keep in
| [Pascal](pascal.md) | **kind of** | 1970 | | | like "educational C", compiled, not so bad actually |
Some things exist solely to give a really bad example of how it shouldn't be done -- indeed, at least at this Rust succeeded.
It should be made clear that **rust is [shit](shit.md)** AND **CANNOT BE FIXED**, it is awful from the ground up and the only way to deal with it is to delete it. To mention just a few issues:
- **Rust is [bloated](bloat.md) as hell**, it violates the most important philosophy in programming: the [Unix philosophy](unix_philosophy.md), and tries to do everything at once (i.e. follow the [Windows philosophy](windows_philosophy.md)), following the spirit of latest cancer such as [systemd](systemd.md). As such it sports **TONS of [dependencies](dependency.md) even for trivial programs**, its toolchains is huge, complex and complicated. The repo has FKN OVER 200 MB OF SOURCE CODE??? It probably doesn't have to be said it includes such unnecessary trash as [generics](generics.md), twisted [object obsession](oop.md) ("[traits](trait.md)"), [package manager](package_management.md), pushed [memory safety](memory_safety.md) and whatnot. It itself depends on extreme bloat like [Python](python.md), [ninja](ninja.md), [cmake](cmake.md) etc. Apparently compiling rust even requires [Internet](internet.md) connection to download some bootstrap shit? Even SJW littered places like [permacomputing wiki](permacomputing_wiki.md) are just forced to admit it's not a minimalist language by any stretch.
{ I did my own peer review of this article and give it 10/10. ~drummyfish }
Soyence is [business](business.md), [propaganda](propaganda.md) and [politics](politics.md) trying to pass as [science](science.md), nowadays promoted typically by [pseudoleftists](pseudoleft.md), [pseudoskeptics](pseudoskepticism.md), [capitalists](capitalism.md) and [corporations](corporation.md). It is what in the [21st century](21st_century.md) has taken on the role that's historically been played by the church: that of establishing and maintaining orthodoxy for the control of mass population -- this time it is so called "science" or "rationality" that's used as the tool instead of [God](god.md) and religion, however the results are the same. Soyence is not about listening to what science says, it is about listetning to what *"reputable scientists"* say, and of course not questioning them; soyence is what the typical reddit [atheist](atheism.md) or [tiktok](tiktok.md) [feminist](feminism.md) believes science is or what Neil De Grass Tyson tells you science is. While science is about collecting facts and drawing conclusions, soyence is about setting conclusions and finding or fabricating facts that support them. One red flag about soyence is a great weight put on **reputation** -- in true science reputation plays no role, only results do; reputation and its great value for one's acceptance is rather part of politics. Soyence calls itself the one and only science^TM and [gatekeeps](gatekeeping.md) the term by calling unpopular science (such as that regarding human [race](race.md), questioning official versions of [historical](history.md) events or safety of big pharma [vaccines](vaccine.md)) "[pseudoscience](pseudoscience.md)" and "[conspiracy theories](conspiracy_theory.md)". Soyence itself is pseudoscience but it has an official status, approval of [state](state.md), strong connection to [politics](politics.md), it is mainstream, popular, controlled by those in power, [censored](censorship.md) ("moderated") and intentionally misleading. Soyence can be encountered in much of [academia](academia.md), on [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) and in other popular/mainstream media such as TV "documentaries" and [YouTube](youtube.md). A soyence supporter wrongfully believes that reason wouldn't allow such a large scale mass population manipulation (despite this happening over and over throughout history) -- people at large aren't reasonable and reason [cannot](yes_they_can.md) beat [propaganda](propaganda.md).
Soyence is [business](business.md), [propaganda](propaganda.md) and [politics](politics.md) trying to pass as [science](science.md), nowadays promoted typically by [pseudoleftists](pseudoleft.md), [pseudoskeptics](pseudoskepticism.md), [capitalists](capitalism.md) and [corporations](corporation.md). It is what in the [21st century](21st_century.md) has taken on the role that's historically been played by the church: that of establishing and maintaining orthodoxy for the control of mass population -- this time it is so called "science" or "rationality" that's used as the tool instead of [God](god.md) and religion, however the results are the same. Soyence is not about listening to what science says, it is about listetning to what *"reputable scientists"* say, and of course not questioning them; soyence is what the typical reddit [atheist](atheism.md) or [tiktok](tiktok.md) [feminist](feminism.md) believes science is or what Neil De Grass Tyson tells you science is. While science is about collecting facts and drawing conclusions, soyence is about setting conclusions and finding or fabricating facts that support them. One red flag to watch out in relation to soyence is a great weight put on **reputation** -- in true science reputation plays no role, only results do; reputation and its great value for one's acceptance is rather part of [politics](politics.md) (and maybe show business). Notice for example how in the past it was more common to hear "science has found X" (as in "logic itself shows this fact") rather than "scientists have found X", which is more common nowadays -- mentally we have shifted to separate people to "scientists", those who "know" and dictate what's true, and non-scientists, those who don't know and must just listen. Soyence calls itself the one and only science^TM and [gatekeeps](gatekeeping.md) the term by calling unpopular science (such as that regarding human [race](race.md), questioning official versions of [historical](history.md) events or safety of big pharma [vaccines](vaccine.md)) "[pseudoscience](pseudoscience.md)" and "[conspiracy theories](conspiracy_theory.md)". Soyence itself is pseudoscience but it has an official status, approval of [state](state.md), strong connection to [politics](politics.md), it is mainstream, popular, controlled by those in power, [censored](censorship.md) ("moderated") and intentionally misleading. Soyence can be encountered in much of [academia](academia.md), on [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) and in other popular/mainstream media such as TV "documentaries" and [YouTube](youtube.md). A soyence supporter wrongfully believes that reason wouldn't allow such a large scale mass population manipulation (despite this happening over and over throughout history) -- people at large aren't reasonable and reason [cannot](yes_they_can.md) beat [propaganda](propaganda.md).
Compared to good old [fun](fun.mf) pseudosciences such as [astrology](astrology.md) and [flat Earth](flat_earth.md), soyence is extra sneaky by purposefully trying to blend in with real science, i.e. within a certain truly scientific field, such as biology, there is a soyentific [cancer](cancer.md) mixed in by activists, corporations and state, that may be hard to separate for common folk and many times even for pros. This is extremely [harmful](harmful.md) as in the eyes of retarded people (basically everyone) the neighboring legit science gives credibility to propaganda bullshit. There is a tendency to think we somehow magically live in a time that's fundamentally different from other times in history in which it is now a pretty clear and uncontroversial fact that the name of science was abused hard by propaganda, almost everyone easily accepts that historically politically constructed lies were presented as confirmed by science, but somehow people refuse to believe it could be the case nowadays. In times of Nazism there was no doubt about race being a completely scientific term and that Jews were scientifically confirmed to be the inferior race -- nowadays in times when anti Nazis have won and politics is based on denying existence of race somehow scientists start to magically find evidence that no such thing as race has ever existed -- how convenient! And just in case you wanted to check if it's actually true, you'll be labeled a racist and you won't find job ever again.
@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ The main highlights of Unix are possibly these:
Unix is greatly connected to software [minimalism](minimalism.md), however most unices are still not minimalist to absolute extreme and many unix forks (e.g. [GNU](gnu.md)/[Linux](linux.md)) just abandon minimalism as a priority. So the question stands: **is Unix [LRS](lrs.md) or is it too [bloated](bloat.md)?** The answer to this will be similar to our stance towards the [C](c.md) language (which itself was developed alongside Unix); from our point of view Unix -- i.e. its concepts and some of their existing implementations -- is relatively good, there is a lot of wisdom to take away (e.g. "do one thing well", modularity, "use text interfaces", ...), however these are intermixed with things which under more strict minimalism we may want to abandon (e.g. "everything is a file" requires we buy into the file [abstraction](abstraction.md) and will often also imply existence of a file system etc., which may be unnecessary), so in some ways we see Unix as a temporary "[least evil](least_evil.md)" tool on our way to truly good, extremely minimalist technology. [DuskOS](duskos.md) is an example of operating system more close to the final idea of LRS. But for now Unix is very cool, some Unix-like systems are definitely a good choice nowadays.
There is a semi humorous group called the *UNIX HATERS* that has a mailing list and a whole book that criticizes Unix, arguing that the systems that came before it were much better -- though it's mostly just [joking](jokes.md), they give some good points sometimes. It's like they are the biggest boomers for whom the Unix is what [Windows](windows.md) is to the Unix people.
## History
In the 1960s, Bell Labs along with other groups were developing [Multics](multics.md), a kind of [operating system](os.md) -- however the project failed and was abandoned for its complexity and expensiveness of development. In 1969 two Multics developers, [Ken Thompson](key_thompson.md) and [Dennis Ritchie](dennis_ritchie.md), then started to create their own system, this time with a different philosophy; that of [simplicity](minimalism.md) (see [Unix philosophy](unix_philosophy.md)). They weren't alone in developing the system, a number of other hackers helped program such things as a file system, [shell](shell.md) and simple utility programs. At VCF East 2019 Thompson said that they developed Unix as a working system in three weeks. At this point Unix was written in [assembly](assembly.md).
United States of America (also United Shitholes of America, burgerland, USA, US or just "murika") is a [dystopian](dystopia.md) imperialist country of fat, stupid dumbasses enslaved by [capitalism](capitalism.md), either rightist or [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) [fascists](fascism.md) endlessly obsessed with [money](money.md), [wars](war.md), [fighting](fight_culture.md), shooting their presidents and shooting up their schools. USA consists of 50 states located in North America, a continent that ancestors of Americans invaded and have stolen from Indians, the natives whom Americans mass murdered. Americans are stupid idiots with guns who above all value constant societal conflict and make the world so that all people are dragged into such conflict.
{ Sorry to some of my US frens :D I love you <3~drummyfish}
USA is very similar to [North Korea](north_korea.md): in both countries the people are successfully led to believe their country is the best and have strong propaganda based on [cults of personality](cult_of_personality.md), which to outsiders seem very ridiculous but which is nevertheless very effective: for example North Korea officially proclaims their supreme leader Kim Jong-il was born atop a sacred mountain and a new star came to existence on the day of his birth, while Americans on the other hand believe one of their retarded leaders named George Washington was a divine god who was PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO TELL A LIE, which was actually taught at their schools. North Korea is ruled by a single political party, US is ruled by two practically same militant capitalist imperialist parties (democrats and republicans), i.e. de-facto one party as well. Both countries are obsessed with weapons (especially nuclear ones) and their military, both are highly and openly [fascist](fascism.md) (nationalist). Both countries are full of extreme [propaganda](propaganda.md), [censorship](censorship.md) and [hero culture](hero_culture.md), people worship dictators such as Kim Jong-un or [Steve Jobs](steve_jobs.md). US is even worse than North Korea because it exports its toxic [culture](culture.md) all over the whole world and constantly invades other countries, it is destroying all other cultures and leads the whole world to doom and destruction of all life, while North Korea basically only destroys itself.
In US mainstream [politics](politics.md) there exists no true left, only [right](left_right.md) and [pseudoleft](pseudoleft.md). It is only in extreme underground, out of the sight of most people, where occasionally something good comes into existence as an exception to a general rule that nothing good comes from the US. One of these exceptions is [free software](free_software.md) (established by [Richard Stallman](rms.md)) which was however quickly smothered by the capitalist [open source](open_source.md) counter movement.
*See also a nice big list at http://texteditors.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ViFamily.*
Of course there are alternatives to Vim that are based on different paradigms, such as [Emacs](emacs.md), its biggest rival, or plan9 editors such as [acme](acme.md). In this regard any [text editor](text_editor.md) is a potential alternative. Nevertheless people looking for Vim alternatives are usually looking for other vi-like editors. These are for example:
Of course there are alternatives to Vim that are based on different paradigms, such as [Emacs](emacs.md), its biggest rival, or plan9 editors such as [acme](acme.md) (or maybe even [ed](ed.md)). In this regard any [text editor](text_editor.md) is a potential alternative. Nevertheless people looking for Vim alternatives are usually looking for other vi-like editors. These are for example:
- **[vi](vi.md)**: While you probably won't use the original ancient vi program but rather something like [nvi](nvi.md), vi is a [POSIX](posix.md) standard for a text editor that's much simpler and universal than Vim. It lacks many features one may be used to from Vim such as tabs, [autocompletion](autocomplete.md), [syntax highligh](syntax_highlight.md) or multiple [undos](undo.mf). But limiting yourself to only using the features specified by the standard makes you more likely to be able to operate any vi-like text editor you encounter. (List of features added by Vim to vi can be found in `runtime/doc/vi_diff.txt` in Vim source tree.)
- **[neovim](neovim.md)**: Tries to be the "[modernized](modern.md)" ([refactored](refactoring.md)) fork of Vim, it removes some code, adds a new plugin system but also [bloat](bloat.md) like [CMake](cmake.md). One of its self-stated goals is to be more "community driven". It is also written in C99 (while Vim is in C89, more portable). { At least I think. ~drummyfish }
