News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Atom's new concurrency-friendly buffer implementation. Parent comment

Re:Atom's new concurrency-friendly buffer implementation by ninegunpi on Friday October 13, 2017 @05:11AM (#15464135)
>3. Automatic garbage collection >4. Interpreting the code (instead of compiling to a single binary). >5. Virtual machine shit

When feeling like the rest of the world is running in a direction of utter madness, it makes sense to re-read "Worse is better" [1] once in a while. However, I agree, DT and GIL aren't helping anything but writing poor code faster and blinder.

[1] https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Atom's new concurrency-friendly buffer implementation by theprotocol on Friday October 13, 2017 @05:19AM (#15464157)
FYI: When clicked, that link takes you to an image of a testicle in an egg cup captioned with a sarcastic comment about Hacker News.

You have to copy and paste the url.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Atom's new concurrency-friendly buffer implementation by WillyOnWheels on Friday October 13, 2017 @11:30AM (#15466539)
> FYI: When clicked, that link takes you to an image of a testicle in an egg cup captioned with a sarcastic comment about Hacker News.

jwz has strong opinions about Hacker News

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Atom's new concurrency-friendly buffer implementation by seattle_spring on Friday October 13, 2017 @06:04AM (#15464330)
Wow, host of that site is seriously full of themselves. And of course, they own some "dance lounge" in San Francisco.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Atom's new concurrency-friendly buffer implementation by majidazimi on Friday October 13, 2017 @05:44AM (#15464259)
Developers want the best quality from other industries, while in the mean time they suggest "Worse is better" for software industry. How about using the same strategy for air crafts, ships, cars, trains, medical devices? Some authority really needs to regulate software industry so every software company builds a high quality, energy efficient, crazy fast software. Aerospace people were successful to land human on moon on 1969. It is late 2017 and software industry is struggling to reduce the memory usage of a text editor to under 1GB. Retarded.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Atom's new concurrency-friendly buffer implementation by seattle_spring on Friday October 13, 2017 @06:02AM (#15464319)
Give me $150B, the inflation-adjusted cost of the Apollo space program, and I'll put together a team and build the perfect text editor that uses "less than 1GB of memory."

Also...

> Retarded

Come on. Let's have an adult conversation here.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Atom's new concurrency-friendly buffer implementation by ninegunpi on Friday October 13, 2017 @08:26AM (#15464981)
Sorry, but I think you've completely missed the point of this essay.

Think for a second: why can't you produce a better working text editor that people actually use, if all current ones are produced on inefficient technologies by subpar engineers with impaired judgment that led them to current choice of techniques? What are the real barriers to do that?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Atom's new concurrency-friendly buffer implementation by pjmlp on Friday October 13, 2017 @09:07AM (#15465226)
The same that keep people returning to $1 / 1€ shops.
[ Parent | on HN ]