From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: cowan@mercury.ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 12:26:34 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Unix taste (Re: terminal - just for fun)
In-Reply-To: <20140803114952.E1AF518C0B4@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20140803114952.E1AF518C0B4@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <20140803162634.GB27404@mercury.ccil.org>

Noel Chiappa scripsit:

> Exactly. I've often wondered what the heck exactly it is that GNU Emacs, GCC,
> etc are all doing with those megabytes of code. 

GCC is parameterized for a lot more variability than actually exists
nowadays.  As for Emacs, it's traditional to call it bloated because of
all the Elisp code it ships with, but (as esr says in the paper I cited)
that's like calling the shell bloated because there are a lot of shell
scripts out there.  It's a category mistake.

> There's just no reason to have N megabytes of code when .N will
> do. (I've often thought we ought to make new programmers serve an
> apprenticeship of a year of two on a PDP-11 - to teach them to 'think
> small', and to realize you _can_ do a lot in a small space.)

That's basically just the kind of peeving that objects to the use of
computers as calculators and spelling checkers.  "What will Kids Today do
when a calculator isn't available?"  Well, what will they do when there
isn't any ink to dip their goose quills in?  If you're not an angel,
there is no real advantage to learning to dance on the head of a pin.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)