You must log in or register to comment.
Passages like:
I firmly refuse to install non-free software or tolerate its installed presence on my computer or on computers set up for me. However, if I am visiting somewhere and the machines available nearby happen to contain non-free software, through no doing of mine, I don’t refuse to touch them. I will use them briefly for tasks such as browsing. This limited usage doesn’t give my assent to the software’s license, or make me responsible its being present in the computer, or make me the possessor of a copy of it, so I don’t see an ethical obligation to refrain from this. Of course, I explain to the local people why they should migrate the machines to free software, but I don’t push them hard, because annoying them is not the way to convince them.
read like a religious text.
The Church of Emacs, specifically.
When I saw the title, I was like “oh, someone’s linking to this old thing again”. I’m surprised he keeps it current! I mean, current-ish.
Glad he found something that works for him.
I would like to hear his thoughts on Forth. His love of Lisp seems to be from the god-programmer perspective. Lisp gives you about as much power as you can ask for, for better or worse. I think Forth goes even a step further, though, letting you redefine constants and things.
I don’t agree with him, but respect how he sticks to his principles. Also good to see more about his focus on work related stuff.
The world do need folk like him, even if you don’t necessarily like him, you know where he stands and why.
Not big on Forth but I wouldn’t see how any of that would be difficult on some Lisps depending on levels the macro system works on (e.g. Racket you can easily get into levels of code tokenization). I guess, is that type of manipulation typical on Forth? The whole reason one writes in Lisp is for “Code is Data” and extreme meta programming. Things you wouldn’t think would be used that often but Lisp programmers use it a lot.
In Forth, you can do things like, say, redefine the number 0 to be computed as a function, and all code that uses the number 0 will instantly change its behaviour at runtime. Why would you do that? I’ve never found a legitimate use for it, which is why I hate Forth (and Lisp, for similar reasons). I like static analysis and I like it when the language prevents me from doing something silly, but I can understand why some people like the elegance and power-rush from one of the god-like languages like Lisp.
Yeah I’ve seen some of that language manipulation. I guess my question is, does this happen in Forth regularly or not?
In JS you can manipulate the prototype for a data type but unless you’re making some sort of library for a new type of framework most developers never do that type of stuff. In Ruby duck typing is the idiomatic way to solve many problems. In Lisp the use of macros is fairly common that a good majority of larger projects use. Not sure if that type of lower level manipulation is something everyone does in Forth or just something possible.
I’ve always found his take too extreme. While I’m in agreement with things like being anti FB, and I’m 75% of the time living in a console with no X11, things like his issue with DRM for services like Netflix always baffled me. I’m paying a license fee for temporary access to media. If you don’t like “renting” then go buy the content but being anti DRM for things one doesn’t own seems odd.
I use the digital version of the local library which also uses DRM because they need a way to simulate the finite access of a resource like having a physical book provides. There is no “violation of my rights” in this situation as I can’t do anything with this digital copy with digital rules that I could do with a physical book. That is outside of destroying it or stealing it.
