derpsaidderp

That's the thing though. You're comment about the debugger? That gives it all away.

My comment isn't just about emacs. It's about all the tools we use. There is no real incentive to fix them. To make them work together. We wait for other people to make it. We all wait.

I can't whip up a tool better than emacs. I can't even imagine it. But, that doesn't mean it can't exist. And you're attitude towards my complaints? That's probably putting off your coworker, someone who could invent it.

I know there are worse things. But that's why I ranted against emacs.

It's good, but we can do so much better. So much. I have faith in you guys, and it's just, well hell I get sad when I see you writing something amazing in C or in emacs. You should be writing the next amazing C or the next emacs. Those tools are the keystones to how cs is able to express itself in a practical manner. And yet almost all new efforts are treated poorly or mocked.

Like, that shit you are describing earlier? Those amazing modifiable and inspectable systems? Why aren't you preaching that from the roof tops? Why do I, the guy who barely knows emacs, have to whine? Cause seriously, that shit sounds fucking amazing. If anything, you should be the one whining "Jeez, after all those advances we only get emacs?"

Yes, Emacs is useful. Yes, it can be used for great things. Am I smart enough to know how to fix it? No. Do I have any solutions to the problems I perceive? No.

But, that DOES not mean that they do not exist.

We're riding the back of Moore's law and we can't even take advantage of it.

Think about it this way: take something you like, or think is well designed, and imagine it 10 years in the future. Now 20. Then 30. And so on. When does it start being a piece of shit? Because, you see, everything besides art and the most practical devices turn to shit eventually. It's happening to emacs, and a lot of other software, and no one wants to admit to it.

You're right, algorithms are timeless. But, you are an absolute idiot if you think that the tools we use don't influence how we conceptualize things. If you use C, it's almost impossible to think in a pointer-free manner (I mean stacks, not gc). Or that the tools we use influence who tries it. Most people have a horrid view of cs, and for good reason. The tools we use represent cs, and they do so poorly. Very, very poorly.

The point isn't emacs. Or quicklisp. It's that people become too satisfied with the status quo. They are happy to master what exists, and pride themselves in that. And they should, we need that.

But, we also need anarchy. We need people to invent things. We need new things. Change is good, it's inevitable.

I want to make this clear: I am an absolute idiot on this forum compared to most of you guys. But, that doesn't mean I can't be on the right side of fate, or understand that.

You're right, no one is forcing me to use emacs. Or gdb. Or Windows. Or C++. Or internet explorer. But guess what, they all get pushed by the popular kids.

I think emacs is probably one of the biggest mistakes to ever happen to computer science.

First, let's remember that emacs is not powerful in and of itself. It requires mastery to understand the potential and power that lies in it. The inclusion of emacs lisp is amazing, but seriously? Have you programmed a separate application in emacs lisp? You haven't? What? You used Scheme or Common Lisp instead? Than why the fuck are you defending emacs lisp?

And that is the biggest flaw. The flaw no one likes to talk about. How many people have picked up emacs and quit? I certainly have. Numerous times. How big do you think the population of people who have tried emacs is to the number of current users? Seriously, in terms of a conversion rate, it's absolutely terrible. And you think that's a good thing? Don't give me that bullshit about how only "smart" people will put the effort in. It isn't about fucking effort. It's about giving people the confidence to learn more about your software. And emacs almost definitely fails there.

And that's the whole fucking point of computer science. It's not writing the "greatest" programs. It's sharing. Sharing techniques, skills, libraries and ideas. And emacs is an artificial barrier. And worse than that, the most elite people in CS continue to protect it and cannot comprehend that their elitism is to the detriment to CS as a whole. It's complicated, arbitrary and designed in a terrible manner. I don't care if it makes sense to you. What matters is that you should be able to easily defend any design decision. And you can't.

We need more people to start programming. We need better editors. Why is it that CS has some of the oldest, most decrepit tools with the most adamant defenders? Why?

Seriously, we deal with fucking computers all day. The most arbitrary representation of knowledge possible. And all people do is whine about how things are "good enough" or "no, someone made this decision a long time ago, and now a lot of people make the same choice, so don't be stupid and choose that."

The number of new computer languages being invented is almost fucking SLOWING down. WTF? Computer science is about the drive to find better ways to express and share knowledge, and that means trying new things. Usually, they will suck. But jesus, we have to keep trying. And whatever we do, we have to help a). more people try programming, and stick to it b). support people following their own loony ideas.

I mean seriously, it's fucking sad how slow shit happens. Common lisp, one of the more powerful languages ever invented, got a wonderful tool called quicklisp last year. 15 FUCKING YEARS AFTER CPAN CAME OUT. Why the fuck is shit so fucked up, I mean jesus, it's fucking inexcusable. Our descendants are going to mock us to our faces til we fucking hara-kiri.