Is Lisp compatible with the Suckless philosophy? Can Common Lisp be considered "suckless"? What about R5RS and R7RS-small Scheme?
Is Lisp compatible with the Suckless philosophy?
Common Lisp is Do the Right Thing language as opposed to Worse Is Better (C and UNIX).
https://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html
https://www.dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html
Define compatible
>>3
(define compatible (non incompatible))
In the Autumn of 1992, the Journal of Object-Oriented Programming (JOOP) published a "rebuttal" editorial I wrote to "Worse Is Better Is Worse" called "Is Worse Really Better?" The folks at Lucid were starting to get a little worried because I would bring them review drafts of papers arguing (as me) for worse is better, and later I would bring them rebuttals (as Nickieben) against myself. One fellow was seriously nervous that I might have a mental disease.
>>4
Define non
Define incompatible
Why would you give a single fuck about the philosophy from this website? What do you get from it?
>>7
Simplicity is good because it reduces the amount of bugs and the time it takes to maintain the code base.
I think suckless.org is oriented around Unix, and especially Plan 9, and reflects a lot of what is at cat-v.org. Generally, it seems like it favors using 9base tools. But if you watch suckless youtube, they seem to say that they favor Vim and shells like fish and zsh, and several of them drift eventually to emacs (to edit their config files with).
But anyway here's some threads on it on the suckless subreddit:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/suckless/search/?q=lisp&restrict_sr=1&sr_nsfw=>
>>8 Well then, surely SectorLisp or SectorForth must be the ideal programming language.
>>8
>>9
The C language programmers balk at using an assembler; what a waste of time. They balk just long enough to stop at the C language; writing in a language that doesn't require that drudgery is just silly. They don't care if the programs work.
>>10
Those idiots don't actually want simplicity. They want what they already know, and all of their reasoning is based solely around backing up what they already want to think.
>>11 It is very important to have the most efficient software possible when you are editing your configuration- even if that means configuration-by-patching.
(define non not)
(define incompatible (non compatible))