Never looked at Python, but I'm a huge Rexx fan.
I spent a couple of years writing FORTRAN for the 1130. They called
it FORTRAN IV, but it was more like III.V, but still better than OS
FORTRAN at the time. Later I worked on an XDS Sigma system, and
their FORTRAN was great (as you'd expect with its SDS heritage). At
the time I liked the language, but I always preferred PL/I.
In fact, to work both ways, my code is still full of constructs like
this:
#ifdef PROTOTYPE
int foo(char *bar, BOOL baz)
#else
int foo(bar, baz) char *bar; BOOL baz;
#endif
I like to be a little more explicit, so I say "#ifdef DELETE_THIS".
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 19:39:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
I like to be a little more explicit, so I say "#ifdef DELETE_THIS".
We have version control nowadays. You can actually delete stuff from
your source, and trust to the version history to keep a record of what
used to be there.
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 19:39:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
In fact, to work both ways, my code is still full of constructs like
this:
#ifdef PROTOTYPE
int foo(char *bar, BOOL baz)
#else
int foo(bar, baz) char *bar; BOOL baz;
#endif
What a pain-in-the-bum way of writing things.
K&R C is gone, people. Let it go.
People should have the choice of writing that way if they want. And
you always have the choice of not reading it.
(If this sounds too harsh to somebody: I wrote this because of how
Lawrence repeatedly mentioned "choice" as a way to dismiss criticism
in other threads in comp.os.linux.misc.)
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 00:27:20 +0000
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
People should have the choice of writing that way if they want. And
you always have the choice of not reading it.
(If this sounds too harsh to somebody: I wrote this because of how
Lawrence repeatedly mentioned "choice" as a way to dismiss criticism
in other threads in comp.os.linux.misc.)
While I appreciate the zing, I do have to opine for the record that K&R function definitions really are something best left buried with K&R C.
I'm willing to write in ANSI C for the sake of whatever random weirdo
wants to try building something of mine on an old proprietary *nix, but
man I am *not* going any farther back than that.
On 1/10/26 19:41, John Ames wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 00:27:20 +0000
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
People should have the choice of writing that way if they want. And
you always have the choice of not reading it.
(If this sounds too harsh to somebody: I wrote this because of how
Lawrence repeatedly mentioned "choice" as a way to dismiss criticism
in other threads in comp.os.linux.misc.)
While I appreciate the zing, I do have to opine for the record that K&R
function definitions really are something best left buried with K&R C.
I'm willing to write in ANSI C for the sake of whatever random weirdo
wants to try building something of mine on an old proprietary *nix, but
man I am *not* going any farther back than that.
It's never good to foreclose your options. One of my goals for Iron
Spring PL/I is compatibility with the widest base of code possible. It
can compile and run IBM PL/I(F) code from 1965. The newer stuff is
better, but rewriting something that works is a pain.
On 1/10/26 19:41, John Ames wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 00:27:20 +0000
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
People should have the choice of writing that way if they want. And
you always have the choice of not reading it.
(If this sounds too harsh to somebody: I wrote this because of how
Lawrence repeatedly mentioned "choice" as a way to dismiss criticism
in other threads in comp.os.linux.misc.)
While I appreciate the zing, I do have to opine for the record that K&R
function definitions really are something best left buried with K&R C.
I'm willing to write in ANSI C for the sake of whatever random weirdo
wants to try building something of mine on an old proprietary *nix, but
man I am *not* going any farther back than that.
It's never good to foreclose your options. One of my goals for Iron
Spring PL/I is compatibility with the widest base of code possible. It
can compile and run IBM PL/I(F) code from 1965. The newer stuff is
better, but rewriting something that works is a pain.
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 00:27:20 +0000
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
People should have the choice of writing that way if they want. And
you always have the choice of not reading it.
(If this sounds too harsh to somebody: I wrote this because of how
Lawrence repeatedly mentioned "choice" as a way to dismiss criticism
in other threads in comp.os.linux.misc.)
While I appreciate the zing, I do have to opine for the record that K&R function definitions really are something best left buried with K&R C.
I'm willing to write in ANSI C for the sake of whatever random weirdo
wants to try building something of mine on an old proprietary *nix, but
man I am *not* going any farther back than that.
Look ... nobody is going to be 'writing' much of ANYTHING within five
years. The "AI" will do it all - probably led by the pointy-haired
bosses who can't find their ass even with a spy sat.
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 01:52:02 -0500
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
Look ... nobody is going to be 'writing' much of ANYTHING within five
years. The "AI" will do it all - probably led by the pointy-haired
bosses who can't find their ass even with a spy sat.
The "AI" bubble isn't going to *last* another five years, full stop.
Frankly, I'll be shocked if it makes it to '28, if that.
You're not wrong that the PHBs would *love* to have a Magic Genie
Friend who answers their poorly-specified and unreasonable demands
without question, even if it doesn't actually *work* - but the current
trend of "throw as much raw compute at the same moronic Markov-chain
solution as possible, and somehow scrounge up more training data than
THE ENTIRE INTERNET" will collapse under its own weight *long* before
we ever get there.
My code tends to be like an ATV: it might not be pretty,
but it'll go anywhere.
1. Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
On 1/10/26 22:06, Peter Flass wrote:
On 1/10/26 19:41, John Ames wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 00:27:20 +0000
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
People should have the choice of writing that way if they want. And
you always have the choice of not reading it.
(If this sounds too harsh to somebody: I wrote this because of how
Lawrence repeatedly mentioned "choice" as a way to dismiss criticism
in other threads in comp.os.linux.misc.)
While I appreciate the zing, I do have to opine for the record that K&R
function definitions really are something best left buried with K&R C.
I'm willing to write in ANSI C for the sake of whatever random weirdo
wants to try building something of mine on an old proprietary *nix, but
man I am *not* going any farther back than that.
It's never good to foreclose your options. One of my goals for Iron
Spring PL/I is compatibility with the widest base of code possible. It
can compile and run IBM PL/I(F) code from 1965. The newer stuff is
better, but rewriting something that works is a pain.
You got Iron Spring to run properly ?
On 1/10/26 21:41, John Ames wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 00:27:20 +0000
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
People should have the choice of writing that way if they want. And
you always have the choice of not reading it.
(If this sounds too harsh to somebody: I wrote this because of how
Lawrence repeatedly mentioned "choice" as a way to dismiss criticism
in other threads in comp.os.linux.misc.)
While I appreciate the zing, I do have to opine for the record that K&R
function definitions really are something best left buried with K&R C.
I'm willing to write in ANSI C for the sake of whatever random weirdo
wants to try building something of mine on an old proprietary *nix, but
man I am *not* going any farther back than that.
Look ... nobody is going to be 'writing' much
of ANYTHING within five years. The "AI" will do
it all - probably led by the pointy-haired bosses
who can't find their ass even with a spy sat.
And Win/Lin/IX ... I think they're going to go
away as well. It'll all just be thin clients
plugged into the leading AI engines. No more
operating systems.
Maybe PIs ... maybe.
"Programming" is going to be like those who learn
to play ancient Greek musical instruments ... an
interesting, but obsolete, old art. "AI" for worse
or worser, will be IT. Many TRILLIONS of dollars
invested in this - it is GOING to be The Future
whether we like it or not.
Just sayin'
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 01:52:02 -0500
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
Look ... nobody is going to be 'writing' much of ANYTHING within five
years. The "AI" will do it all - probably led by the pointy-haired
bosses who can't find their ass even with a spy sat.
The "AI" bubble isn't going to *last* another five years, full stop.
Frankly, I'll be shocked if it makes it to '28, if that.
On 1/11/26 11:55, Harold Stevens wrote:
1. Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
I think there exists a lot of code which makes the world a worse
place, and hence it would be better if it didn't work.
"FORTRAN ... remains popular among engineers but despised elsewhere."
Greybeard quants like me operated on 3 simple maxims:
1. Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
2. If if ain't broke, don't fix it.
3. If it breaks, don't ignore it.
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 16:55:32 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
"FORTRAN ... remains popular among engineers but despised elsewhere."
Considering its enduring popularity among the supercomputing crowd,
I’d say that assessment is a bit out of date.
Le 11-01-2026, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> a écrit :
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 01:52:02 -0500
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
Look ... nobody is going to be 'writing' much of ANYTHING within five
years. The "AI" will do it all - probably led by the pointy-haired
bosses who can't find their ass even with a spy sat.
The "AI" bubble isn't going to *last* another five years, full stop.
Frankly, I'll be shocked if it makes it to '28, if that.
The AI bubble which must be considered (I mean: a lot of people has a
lot of understanding of that term) is that big companies will stop
to invest always more money on it. That doesn't mean the data centers
will stop to work, it means that new data centers will stop to be build.
At least at such increasing speed. It doesn't mean that actual GPU will
cease to work. It means that big companies will stop to buy so many GPU.
So, globally, everything that has already be done will stay. And new
things will improve at a slower pace. The AI is there and will stay
there for a long time. When the AI bubble will burst, its impact will
be more on the global economy than on its usage.
That's why the companies invest so much. Because the one which will
have the lead at the time of the burst expects to keep that lead for a
long time. Not because they are stupid and can't predict the obvious.
The AI is there, like it or not, you have to live with it. The fact that
you or I like it or not is irrelevant. Like when Platon was criticizing writing system because people stopped to learn by heart, the writing
system was there, stay through the ages and revolutionised things. There
are some things like farming, writing, electricity that changed
everything on the human way of life. And the AI is one one them. There
is no going back. I'm not saying that it's good or bad, I'm saying that
it's the evolution (not progress because progress is good by definition)
and one can't do anything but live with it.
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 05:55:12 -0600, Harold Stevens wrote:
Greybeard quants like me operated on 3 simple maxims:
1. Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
2. If if ain't broke, don't fix it.
3. If it breaks, don't ignore it.
Those go way beyond programming...
Now, concerning 'AI is there', there was significant progress in
some areas like machine translation. "Creative writers" may be
concerned. But there were attempts to replace a lot of professionals, notably programmers. Examples indicate that "AI" can create
small, trival pieces of code but does not really work for
bigger and more complex things. To be useful for programming "AI"
and way it is used must be significantly improved.
On 11/01/2026 20:44, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 05:55:12 -0600, Harold Stevens wrote:Part of the 'philosophy of engineering'.
Greybeard quants like me operated on 3 simple maxims:
1. Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
2. If if ain't broke, don't fix it.
3. If it breaks, don't ignore it.
Those go way beyond programming...
Perhaps the most fundamental one, after 'an engineer is someone who can
do for five bob what any damn fool can do for a quid' is
'In the construction of mechanisms, complexity should not be multiplied beyond that necessary to achieve the defined objective'
Ockham's Laser...
On 1/12/26 04:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/01/2026 20:44, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 05:55:12 -0600, Harold Stevens wrote:
Greybeard quants like me operated on 3 simple maxims:
1. Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
2. If if ain't broke, don't fix it.
3. If it breaks, don't ignore it.
Those go way beyond programming...
Part of the 'philosophy of engineering'.
Perhaps the most fundamental one, after 'an engineer is someone who can
do for five bob what any damn fool can do for a quid' is
'In the construction of mechanisms, complexity should not be multiplied
beyond that necessary to achieve the defined objective'
Ockham's Laser...
Now if only computer people could follow this rule. Our rule seems to be "why not add just this one more feature"
Now, concerning burst: AFAIK AI companies use investment money to
cover cost of operation (whole or in significant part). If there
is burst, they will have to stop operating literally closing
their datacenters. Basically only things that generate profits
or possibly some research by companies that have other sources of
income and still want to continue research. But that would be
at much lower scale than currently.
But there were attempts to replace a lot of professionals,
notably programmers. Examples indicate that "AI" can create
small, trival pieces of code but does not really work for
bigger and more complex things. To be useful for programming "AI"
and way it is used must be significantly improved. It is possible
that slower, gradual improvement will lead to "useful AI".
But it is also possible that alternative approaches, currently
underfunded due to AI race, will progress and be used insted
of "AI".
[...]
So, it looks that for general AI we are missing something
important. For applications ANN apparently struggle with
tasks that have easy algorithmic solution. So natural way
forward with applications seem to be via hybrid approaches.
But AI crowd seem to prefer pure ANN solutions and tries
to brute-force problems using more compute power.
Now if only computer people could follow this rule. Our rule seems
to be "why not add just this one more feature"
To be fair, I'm sure a lot of computer people are doing this under
duress, being ordered by the marketroids (who have the ear of
management) to add yet another shiny thing.
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 17:03:19 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
To be fair, I'm sure a lot of computer people are doing this under
duress, being ordered by the marketroids (who have the ear of
management) to add yet another shiny thing.
Aren’t you glad the Free Software world isn’t driven by marketroids?
if they can only
get a fraction of their userbase to pay $200/mo. for a Magical Chatbot Friend, good freakin' luck squeezing any more blood from *that* turnip.
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
Aren’t you glad the Free Software world isn’t driven by marketroids?
It's not?
AI Overview
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Eric_S_Raymond_portrait.jpg
Eric S. Raymond (ESR), the well-known open-source advocate, began charging
speaking fees for corporate events in 1999 but waives fees for schools and
user groups; however, specific current fee amounts aren't publicly listed,
requiring direct contact with booking agents or his website, though general
estimates for similar speakers suggest fees could range from thousands to
tens of thousands depending on the event and his involvement.
On 1/12/26 10:14, John Ames wrote:
if they can only
get a fraction of their userbase to pay $200/mo. for a Magical Chatbot
Friend, good freakin' luck squeezing any more blood from *that* turnip.
Make it a s*xbot, and all the incels will pay to imagine they have a girlfriend.
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 07:52:46 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
Now if only computer people could follow this rule. Our rule seems
to be "why not add just this one more feature"
We follow Einstein’s rule: “things should be as complicated as they
need to be, but no more.”
On 2026-01-12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 07:52:46 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
Now if only computer people could follow this rule. Our rule seems
to be "why not add just this one more feature"
We follow Einstein’s rule: “things should be as complicated as they
need to be, but no more.”
s/complicated/simple/
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 00:24:02 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2026-01-12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 07:52:46 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
Now if only computer people could follow this rule. Our rule seems
to be "why not add just this one more feature"
We follow Einstein’s rule: “things should be as complicated as they
need to be, but no more.”
s/complicated/simple/
Really?? The man who brought Riemann tensors into physics?
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 17:03:19 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
To be fair, I'm sure a lot of computer people are doing this under
duress, being ordered by the marketroids (who have the ear of
management) to add yet another shiny thing.
Aren’t you glad the Free Software world isn’t driven by marketroids?
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:Eric_S_Raymond_portrait.jpg
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 17:03:19 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
To be fair, I'm sure a lot of computer people are doing this under
duress, being ordered by the marketroids (who have the ear of
management) to add yet another shiny thing.
Aren’t you glad the Free Software world isn’t driven by marketroids?
It's not?
AI Overview
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/
Eric S. Raymond (ESR), the well-known open-source advocate, began
charging speaking fees for corporate events in 1999 but waives fees
for schools and user groups; however, specific current fee amounts
aren't publicly listed, requiring direct contact with booking agents
or his website, though general estimates for similar speakers suggest
fees could range from thousands to tens of thousands depending on the
event and his involvement.
On 2026-01-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
Aren’t you glad the Free Software world isn’t driven by marketroids?
It's not?
AI Overview
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/ Eric_S_Raymond_portrait.jpg
Eric S. Raymond (ESR), the well-known open-source advocate, began
charging speaking fees for corporate events in 1999 but waives fees
for schools and user groups; however, specific current fee amounts
aren't publicly listed, requiring direct contact with booking agents
or his website, though general estimates for similar speakers
suggest fees could range from thousands to tens of thousands
depending on the event and his involvement.
Was ESR ever nearly as influential as he tried to make it look, though?
OK, so he got speaking fees (unclear how often or how much), but did he
have much effect on actual FOSS projects?
Do you think Microsoft would get involved with a GPL project?
How many other FOSS projects use the MIT, Apache, Zero Clause BSD, or
other permissive licenses?
"Abendessen" ("evening meal")ITYM "meal eaten whilst trying to figure out why the damn program keeps crashing"
How many other FOSS projects use the MIT, Apache, Zero Clause BSD, or
other permissive licenses?
I don't know offhand, but I've always been under the impression the
licenses you mentioned are all relatively widespread.
On 13 Jan 2026 06:31:43 GMT, Niklas Karlsson wrote:
How many other FOSS projects use the MIT, Apache, Zero Clause BSD, or
other permissive licenses?
I don't know offhand, but I've always been under the impression the
licenses you mentioned are all relatively widespread.
Precisely. Raymond's argument was restrictive licenses would deter FOSS development.
On 2026-01-13, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 13 Jan 2026 06:31:43 GMT, Niklas Karlsson wrote:
How many other FOSS projects use the MIT, Apache, Zero Clause BSD, or
other permissive licenses?
I don't know offhand, but I've always been under the impression the
licenses you mentioned are all relatively widespread.
Precisely. Raymond's argument was restrictive licenses would deter FOSS
development.
Fair enough, but to go back to where this subthread came from, does that
make him a marketroid? Or just an advocate, maybe agitator if you're
feeling dramatic?
"Marketroid" makes me think of something rather more pernicious than
just copyleft vs. copycenter (to reference the Jargon File, speaking of
ESR).
Niklas
| Sysop: | datGSguy |
|---|---|
| Location: | Eugene, OR |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 219:27:10 |
| Calls: | 361 |
| Calls today: | 34 |
| Files: | 14 |
| D/L today: |
80 files (1,315K bytes) |
| Messages: | 5,781 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
