>>1023110
JavaScript frameworks are a perfect example of the UNIX philosophy. Web browsers need millions of lines of code just to implement a language that sucks and still need more megabytes of "framework" code to be halfway usable.
>>1023116
My definition of the UNIX philosophy is whatever UNIX does, just like the definition of C was whatever the PDP-11 compiler did. Windows does not follow the UNIX philosophy, but it's written in C, so C brain damage infected Windows (literally, due to viruses, spyware, and ransomware spread by exploiting bugs in C code). UNIX weenies always bring up hypothetical bullshit they "could" do with 15,600 people if they were able to throw everything away and start over again or pretend that "good parts" that only apply to 0.1% of the OS are a "philosophy" of UNIX. On the other hand, people who like Multics, Lisp machines, Ada, PL/I, and so on, are always talking about specific things that actually exist. Lisp machine users talk about actual facts like how all the code can be modified and the condition system and object system. UNIX weenies say things like "Rule of Economy: Programmer time is expensive; conserve it in preference to machine time" which is another way of saying their code is slow even though they don't check any errors.
In this case, the problem is that JavaScript sucks, so it needs another couple million lines of code (a framework) to actually do something useful. Even Eric S. Raymond says this is "What Unix Gets Wrong."
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s04.html
>But perhaps the most enduring objections to Unix are consequences of a feature of its philosophy first made explicit by the designers of the X windowing system. X strives to provide “mechanism, not policy”, supporting an extremely general set of graphics operations and deferring decisions about toolkits and interface look-and-feel (the policy) up to application level. Unix's other system-level services display similar tendencies; final choices about behavior are pushed as far toward the user as possible. Unix users can choose among multiple shells. Unix programs normally provide many behavior options and sport elaborate preference facilities.
Browsers are bloated because a browser "should be" just an empty shell for bookmarks, tabs, and GUI features like fonts, images, buttons and textboxes that other software on your computer already does. It needs 50 million lines of code just to turn HTML, CSS, and JavaScript into something your computer can already do. Eric S. Raymond is agreeing that "If society ran the same way UNIX does, everyone who owned a car would be forced to refine their own gasoline from barrels of crude..." but he says it's a good thing. I agree with "mechanism, not policy" in libraries because that increases code reuse, but for applications like browsers, it just means everyone has to repeat the same code and reinvent wheels over and over again.
>This tenet was firmly established at Bell Labs by Dick Hamming[5] who insisted in the 1950s when computers were rare and expensive, that open-shop computing, where customers wrote their own programs, was imperative, because “it is better to solve the right problem the wrong way than the wrong problem the right way”.
This is like another planet where people believe that bad is good and broken code is better than working code. Solving the wrong problem the right way just means a different group of users will appreciate it. Lisp was made for AI, but became used for GUIs, 3D graphics, and all kinds of other applications. Solving the right problem the wrong way is how you end up with UNIX, C, C++, JavaScript, asm.js, WebAssembly, Linux, UEFI, GRUB, sendmail, awk, bash, 50 million line web browsers, and so on.
I'm having this nightmare in which a chorus of unix weenie
pod-people chants:
"sendmail is what the internet communty accepts as standard"
"sendmail is what the internet communty accepts as standard"
"sendmail is what the internet communty accepts as standard"
over and over again, as they shuffle relentlessly towards
me, clutching hideous kludges that they claim are "Internet
Standards", that I must accept in order to be "compatable".
In vain, I throw copies of the actual Internet protocol
documents back at them in a futile attempt to demonstrate
the difference between the Internet and Unix. Copies of
RFC821 and RFC822 are simply trampled under their feet as
they close in around me. As I lose consciousness, I think
some of them have switched to chanting:
"you are number six"
"you are number six"
"you are number six"