>>1 bloated
You mean "featureful." spec-deviant
Translation: ``Wahhhh someone in the open source community didn't solve my problem for me'' bloody useless
Back to England, please.
>>17
In that case bloat cannot be objective for as long as someone uses those features and is satisfied by it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-12 19:35
>>18 someone uses those features
There is always this jewish minority that complicates life for everyone else. Jews will always be unhappy and request more features, even if you give them whole country of features, greedy bitches will complain and demand more!
>>18
A good metric is whether it does what it's supposed to.
For instance, emacs is a text editor. Does it edit text? Yes. Does it need games, a Web browser, a Lisp interpreter, and god knows what else? No. Therefore, it is bloated.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-12 19:45
>>20
The problem with Emacs is that it is written in C/C++ (a crappy inflexible bloated language, worst of its kind). If Emacs was written in Lisp, there would be no need for standalone interpreter - just expose a simple API for everyone to customize.
>>22
Your image is of bad quality. Use GIF next time!
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-12 20:31
>>22`
>JIDF
>implying all jews are pro-Israel
whatthefuckamireading.jpg.base64
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-12 20:33
implying all jews are pro-Israel
That is exactly what we are talking about: give jews Israel, they'll still be unhappy. You cant make everyone happy, so just cut the fucking bloat out.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-12 21:32
>>20
No one advertises it as just a text editor, if someone just wants a plain text editor then they should be using ed
GNU Emacs is an extensible, customizable text editor—and more. At its core is an interpreter for Emacs Lisp, a dialect of the Lisp programming language with extensions to support text editing.
>>25
lol i wonder if they attack websites of jews that are against israel
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-13 20:11
I love ultra-``UNIX philosophy'' types. I knew a guy who would kill processes by piping ps through grep through awk through kill or whatever. He would always mess it up. Meanwhile I'd always use pkill or killall and he'd have an aneurysm about how it wasn't adhering to the ``UNIX philosophy'' and that I should learn to do it ``properly''.
I never understand why idiots make things harder for themselves.
>>28
Exactly. The Unix philosophy is just a guideline for doing things. If there is a good reason to do it another way, we should be free to do it that way as well.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-13 20:21
>>28
He should have used Lisp, you know, that cool language, that allows you to define your own functions, that can kill anything in any sadistic way you want.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-13 20:23
>>30
And, BTW, Lisp also makes this silly C/C++ obsolete, cause you can write whole OS in Lisp and run it on a hardware, designed using Lisp DSL, instead of their retarded VHDL COBOL mess.
So you're saying that the GNU Compiler Collection's C compiler isn't objectively better than everything else?
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-14 9:13
>>38
It's not objectively better than everything. There are other C compilers that demonstrate better results for a given metric. GNU's C compiler's strength is in its architectural platform targets and its mature features. Chances are, you can throw valid C code to GCC and it'll produce an acceptable binary for a given platform.
>>41
There are other posts that demonstrate higher levels of autism for a given metric.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-14 17:40
>>28
Your friend is just an idiot who doesn't understand the Unix philosophy. Having a script like killall to simplify a complex chain of commands is precising why there's a programmable shell there in the first place.