Why are you not working on novel programming languages, or novel operating systems?Why are you still using outdated systems from the 70s and 80s when much better ideas already existed in the 60s?Why are you piling on top of them layer after layer of slop regardless when you have the certainty you are making it worse?https://youtu.be/V_Vn5rz6hL0?t=1830
>>109173464but child molestor-san I am learning GNU/GUIX
sex with shinobu
>>109173464I think Linus commented on the kernel mailing list once how RISCV was making the same mistakes ARM learned the hard way years ago which were the same mistakes x86 once committed in the past.
>>109173464https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effectsee also: the rise of worse is better
>>109173464What would a novel operating system look like? What does that even mean? New languages tend to just be rearrangements of features of other languages with slight syntactical differences. I don't know if you can really say any language has "innovated" anything so much as just introduced different QoL features that different people like.I am intrigued by these questions, but genuinely wondering what they even mean. Perhaps that is just my own lack of creativity.
>>109173923I'm not a hardware expert, care to expand on what mistakes?>>109173965By that logic nothing radically new should ever be made, we wouldn't have computers at all in the first place, it's a fallacy.>>109174045I can tell you what a novel language or operating system wouldn't look like: yet another C or UNIX clone (and I say this as a old C/Loonix fag)>Perhaps that is just my own lack of creativityMaybe or maybe you just don't have the right critical mindset to put into question the foundations.I'll give you some examples.You can have an operating system with no files and no permissions, use objects and capabilities instead, that's already a radically different OS, you can have a OS that is built as the computational environment of a specific language instead of being a generic platform for programs written (or compiled to) machine code, that's a radically redefinition of what the purpose of a OS is, you can have a programming language that uses no raw text, but instead structured binary format and lives in memory and is edited with an interactive editor, you can also have live images that can be modified at runtime kind of like Lisp or Smalltalk images, that's radically different than most dev environments, you could have a shell that is based around live objects as command output, kind of like TempleOS shell and Powershell, you can even redefine what a "process" is like Erlang (BEAM VM) so you can build self-healing trees of lightweight processes/objects at the OS-level, and speaking of processes and pipes why should that be limited to series of processes? Dataflow programming exists and you can use it to build entire graphs that manipulate streams of data.These are just a small subset of ideas (reached post text limit), some exists in some way or the other bolted on top of current systems but cannot reach their real potential, once you let go of backwards compatibility and design from scratch you can do much more.
>>109174364i miss lolipire threads
>>109173464>Why are you not working on novel programming languagestrying to, but novel programming langs require a built-in C compiler first, which is a pain
>>109174642We have lolipire threads on /a/
>>109173464>Why are you not working on novel programming languages, or novel operating systems?>Why are you still using outdated systems from the 70s and 80s when much better ideas already existed in the 60s?>Why are you piling on top of them layer after layer of slop regardless when you have the certainty you are making it worse?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M04AKTCDavcIt doesn't have to be this way.
>>109174364>You can have an operating system with no files and no permissions, use objects and capabilities instead, that's already a radically different OS, you can have a OS that is built as the computational environment of a specific language instead of being a generic platform for programs written (or compiled to) machine code, that's a radically redefinition of what the purpose of a OS is, you can have a programming language that uses no raw text, but instead structured binary format and lives in memory and is edited with an interactive editor, you can also have live images that can be modified at runtime kind of like Lisp or Smalltalk images, that's radically different than most dev environments, you could have a shell that is based around live objects as command output, kind of like TempleOS shell and Powershell, you can even redefine what a "process" is like Erlang (BEAM VM) so you can build self-healing trees of lightweight processes/objects at the OS-level, and speaking of processes and pipes why should that be limited to series of processes? Dataflow programming exists and you can use it to build entire graphs that manipulate streams of dataUse case?
>>109174754>Use case?Fixing computing and makes corpocucks seethe.
Shamelessly shilling Mech because it's cool, but also complaining about it because the syntax is fucking ugly and still makes me upset.>design a language specifically for simulations and robots>make it a slog to read and write https://mech-lang.org/
