On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 19:39:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

In fact, to work both ways, my code is still full of constructs like
this:

#ifdef PROTOTYPE
int foo(char *bar, BOOL baz)
#else
int foo(bar, baz) char *bar; BOOL baz;
#endif

What a pain-in-the-bum way of writing things.

K&R C is gone, people. Let it go.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-01-10, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 19:39:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

In fact, to work both ways, my code is still full of constructs like
this:

#ifdef PROTOTYPE
int foo(char *bar, BOOL baz)
#else
int foo(bar, baz) char *bar; BOOL baz;
#endif

What a pain-in-the-bum way of writing things.

K&R C is gone, people. Let it go.

People should have the choice of writing that way if they want. And you
always have the choice of not reading it.


(If this sounds too harsh to somebody: I wrote this because of how
Lawrence repeatedly mentioned "choice" as a way to dismiss criticism in
other threads in comp.os.linux.misc.)

--
Nuno Silva

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 00:27:20 +0000
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:

People should have the choice of writing that way if they want. And
you always have the choice of not reading it.

(If this sounds too harsh to somebody: I wrote this because of how
Lawrence repeatedly mentioned "choice" as a way to dismiss criticism
in other threads in comp.os.linux.misc.)

While I appreciate the zing, I do have to opine for the record that K&R function definitions really are something best left buried with K&R C.
I'm willing to write in ANSI C for the sake of whatever random weirdo
wants to try building something of mine on an old proprietary *nix, but
man I am *not* going any farther back than that.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 1/10/26 19:41, John Ames wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 00:27:20 +0000
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:

People should have the choice of writing that way if they want. And
you always have the choice of not reading it.

(If this sounds too harsh to somebody: I wrote this because of how
Lawrence repeatedly mentioned "choice" as a way to dismiss criticism
in other threads in comp.os.linux.misc.)

While I appreciate the zing, I do have to opine for the record that K&R function definitions really are something best left buried with K&R C.
I'm willing to write in ANSI C for the sake of whatever random weirdo
wants to try building something of mine on an old proprietary *nix, but
man I am *not* going any farther back than that.

It's never good to foreclose your options. One of my goals for Iron
Spring PL/I is compatibility with the widest base of code possible. It
can compile and run IBM PL/I(F) code from 1965. The newer stuff is
better, but rewriting something that works is a pain.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 1/10/26 22:06, Peter Flass wrote:

On 1/10/26 19:41, John Ames wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 00:27:20 +0000
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:

People should have the choice of writing that way if they want. And
you always have the choice of not reading it.

(If this sounds too harsh to somebody: I wrote this because of how
Lawrence repeatedly mentioned "choice" as a way to dismiss criticism
in other threads in comp.os.linux.misc.)

While I appreciate the zing, I do have to opine for the record that K&R
function definitions really are something best left buried with K&R C.
I'm willing to write in ANSI C for the sake of whatever random weirdo
wants to try building something of mine on an old proprietary *nix, but
man I am *not* going any farther back than that.

It's never good to foreclose your options. One of my goals for Iron
Spring PL/I is compatibility with the widest base of code possible. It
can compile and run IBM PL/I(F) code from 1965. The newer stuff is
better, but rewriting something that works is a pain.

You got Iron Spring to run properly ?

Cool.

And yea, why re-invent the wheel ?

FORTRAN ... a near ZILLION libs/functions
writ by serious pros for engineering and
scientific needs. It's all there, tested
over and over. Why try to re-do it in 'C'
or Python ??? Just use FORTRAN.

My complaint with PL/I is the kind of dated
60s syntax ... however it COULD do most anything.
I remember when it was promoted as "The Lang To
Replace All Others" ....

Turned out to be Python instead.

Just downloaded a COBOL IDE ... I'd looked at it
some years ago and it wasn't bad. Now, because of
the stuff here, I just *have* to write some COBOL
again :-)

Of course the AIs are replacing 'programmers'. It
will soon become like, well, becoming expert with
medieval/ancient musical instruments. The pointy-
haired bosses won't hire you - just TRUST the AI
to make good, secure, apps they 'describe'.

Disaster - but nobody will admit it.

And the pointy-haired bosses ... any probs are
SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT ... perfect !


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-01-11, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:

On 1/10/26 19:41, John Ames wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 00:27:20 +0000
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:

People should have the choice of writing that way if they want. And
you always have the choice of not reading it.

(If this sounds too harsh to somebody: I wrote this because of how
Lawrence repeatedly mentioned "choice" as a way to dismiss criticism
in other threads in comp.os.linux.misc.)

While I appreciate the zing, I do have to opine for the record that K&R
function definitions really are something best left buried with K&R C.
I'm willing to write in ANSI C for the sake of whatever random weirdo
wants to try building something of mine on an old proprietary *nix, but
man I am *not* going any farther back than that.

It's never good to foreclose your options. One of my goals for Iron
Spring PL/I is compatibility with the widest base of code possible. It
can compile and run IBM PL/I(F) code from 1965. The newer stuff is
better, but rewriting something that works is a pain.

Thanks, Peter. At the time I came up with this scheme, my programs had
to run on an ancient version of SCO UNIX, as well as Windows and Linux.

My code tends to be like an ATV: it might not be pretty,
but it'll go anywhere.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 1/10/26 21:41, John Ames wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 00:27:20 +0000
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:

People should have the choice of writing that way if they want. And
you always have the choice of not reading it.

(If this sounds too harsh to somebody: I wrote this because of how
Lawrence repeatedly mentioned "choice" as a way to dismiss criticism
in other threads in comp.os.linux.misc.)

While I appreciate the zing, I do have to opine for the record that K&R function definitions really are something best left buried with K&R C.
I'm willing to write in ANSI C for the sake of whatever random weirdo
wants to try building something of mine on an old proprietary *nix, but
man I am *not* going any farther back than that.

Look ... nobody is going to be 'writing' much
of ANYTHING within five years. The "AI" will do
it all - probably led by the pointy-haired bosses
who can't find their ass even with a spy sat.

And Win/Lin/IX ... I think they're going to go
away as well. It'll all just be thin clients
plugged into the leading AI engines. No more
operating systems.

Maybe PIs ... maybe.

"Programming" is going to be like those who learn
to play ancient Greek musical instruments ... an
interesting, but obsolete, old art. "AI" for worse
or worser, will be IT. Many TRILLIONS of dollars
invested in this - it is GOING to be The Future
whether we like it or not.

Just sayin'


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 01:52:02 -0500
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

Look ... nobody is going to be 'writing' much of ANYTHING within five
years. The "AI" will do it all - probably led by the pointy-haired
bosses who can't find their ass even with a spy sat.

The "AI" bubble isn't going to *last* another five years, full stop.
Frankly, I'll be shocked if it makes it to '28, if that.

You're not wrong that the PHBs would *love* to have a Magic Genie
Friend who answers their poorly-specified and unreasonable demands
without question, even if it doesn't actually *work* - but the current
trend of "throw as much raw compute at the same moronic Markov-chain
solution as possible, and somehow scrounge up more training data than
THE ENTIRE INTERNET" will collapse under its own weight *long* before
we ever get there.

Why? There plain-and-simple *isn't the money for it* - global VC funds
are draining at a staggering rate and the needle is inching closer and
closer to *empty,* and major financial backers have finally started to
go "wait, what if throwing infinite money at a thing that doesn't work
*isn't* a sound investment strategy...?" And meanwhile, the morons at
the major "AI" startups are continuing on with their moronic strategy,
so that they continually need fresh injections of *even more money than
they asked for last time.* PHBs will double down on a bad bet every
time, but even *they* only have so many hundreds of billions to throw
around willy-nilly.

I'd strongly encourage you to check out Ed Zitron on this point: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-enshittifinancial-crisis/#blue-owl-in-a-coal-mine
It's looking a helluva lot like the "pop" has *already started* - one
of the easiest partners in the funding business is looking at new "AI" datacenter deals (which they're already up to their *eyeballs* in) and
going "um, no thanks." That's a "Jurassic Park" ripple-in-the-glass
moment, right there.

In ten years, this will be the stupidest, most expensive fiasco of a
footnote in the history of the tech industry, and more than likely the harbinger of a global financial disaster - but it *won't* be the End Of Knowledge Work that the PHBs keep fantasizing it will.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 1/11/26 02:34, John Ames wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 01:52:02 -0500
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

Look ... nobody is going to be 'writing' much of ANYTHING within five
years. The "AI" will do it all - probably led by the pointy-haired
bosses who can't find their ass even with a spy sat.

The "AI" bubble isn't going to *last* another five years, full stop.
Frankly, I'll be shocked if it makes it to '28, if that.

Don't confuse the "bubble" - which IS doomed - with
the tech.

Expect maybe just TWO big AI providers to survive.
CHAT will be one of them.

You're not wrong that the PHBs would *love* to have a Magic Genie
Friend who answers their poorly-specified and unreasonable demands
without question, even if it doesn't actually *work* - but the current
trend of "throw as much raw compute at the same moronic Markov-chain
solution as possible, and somehow scrounge up more training data than
THE ENTIRE INTERNET" will collapse under its own weight *long* before
we ever get there.

This is what I'm saying ... a LOT of stuff IS going
to implode once AI starts writing everything.

But, nobody CARES ... the AI shit is WAY too HOT
for anyone to THINK.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

In <36F8R.627474$3Sk8.623325@fx46.iad> Charlie Gibbs:

[Snip...]

My code tends to be like an ATV: it might not be pretty,
but it'll go anywhere.

+1

Some of the hottest flamewars I've seen in comp.lang.fortran bascially
involved yelling about deprecated syntax embedded in ancient numerical
code (EISPACK, BLAS etc) used in production dating back to the 1960's,

It's very similar to the Wayland mob deciding what's best for users.

Greybeard quants like me operated on 3 simple maxims:

1. Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
2. If if ain't broke, don't fix it.
3. If it breaks, don't ignore it.

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at att, dotted with net. * DO NOT SPAM IT. *
I toss (404) GoogleGroup (404 http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 1/11/26 11:55, Harold Stevens wrote:

1. Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.

I think there exists a lot of code which makes the world a worse place,
and hence it would be better if it didn't work.





--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 1/10/26 20:44, c186282 wrote:

On 1/10/26 22:06, Peter Flass wrote:

On 1/10/26 19:41, John Ames wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 00:27:20 +0000
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:

People should have the choice of writing that way if they want. And
you always have the choice of not reading it.

(If this sounds too harsh to somebody: I wrote this because of how
Lawrence repeatedly mentioned "choice" as a way to dismiss criticism
in other threads in comp.os.linux.misc.)

While I appreciate the zing, I do have to opine for the record that K&R
function definitions really are something best left buried with K&R C.
I'm willing to write in ANSI C for the sake of whatever random weirdo
wants to try building something of mine on an old proprietary *nix, but
man I am *not* going any farther back than that.

It's never good to foreclose your options. One of my goals for Iron
Spring PL/I is compatibility with the widest base of code possible. It
can compile and run IBM PL/I(F) code from 1965. The newer stuff is
better, but rewriting something that works is a pain.

ÿ You got Iron Spring to run properly ?

FSVO "properly". There are still features I'm working on, but it's "good enough" to compile itself and its run-time library. I have some users
giving it a good work-out.




--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 1/10/26 23:52, c186282 wrote:

On 1/10/26 21:41, John Ames wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 00:27:20 +0000
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:

People should have the choice of writing that way if they want. And
you always have the choice of not reading it.

(If this sounds too harsh to somebody: I wrote this because of how
Lawrence repeatedly mentioned "choice" as a way to dismiss criticism
in other threads in comp.os.linux.misc.)

While I appreciate the zing, I do have to opine for the record that K&R
function definitions really are something best left buried with K&R C.
I'm willing to write in ANSI C for the sake of whatever random weirdo
wants to try building something of mine on an old proprietary *nix, but
man I am *not* going any farther back than that.

ÿ Look ... nobody is going to be 'writing' much
ÿ of ANYTHING within five years. The "AI" will do
ÿ it all - probably led by the pointy-haired bosses
ÿ who can't find their ass even with a spy sat.

ÿ And Win/Lin/IX ... I think they're going to go
ÿ away as well. It'll all just be thin clients
ÿ plugged into the leading AI engines. No more
ÿ operating systems.

ÿ Maybe PIs ... maybe.

ÿ "Programming" is going to be like those who learn
ÿ to play ancient Greek musical instruments ... an
ÿ interesting, but obsolete, old art. "AI" for worse
ÿ or worser, will be IT. Many TRILLIONS of dollars
ÿ invested in this - it is GOING to be The Future
ÿ whether we like it or not.

ÿ Just sayin'

I've seen this before. Remember 4GLs like MarkIV, et.al. that were going
to make programming so simple that even a PHB could do it? I haven't
heard much about them lately.

Any AI-generated code is going to need a long hard look from a real
programmer before going into production. Often it's harder to pick up someone's (or something's) code and verify and fix it than it is to
write something from scratch where you understand how every part of it
works.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Le 11-01-2026, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> a ‚critÿ:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 01:52:02 -0500
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

Look ... nobody is going to be 'writing' much of ANYTHING within five
years. The "AI" will do it all - probably led by the pointy-haired
bosses who can't find their ass even with a spy sat.

The "AI" bubble isn't going to *last* another five years, full stop.
Frankly, I'll be shocked if it makes it to '28, if that.

The AI bubble which must be considered (I mean: a lot of people has a
lot of understanding of that term) is that big companies will stop
to invest always more money on it. That doesn't mean the data centers
will stop to work, it means that new data centers will stop to be build.
At least at such increasing speed. It doesn't mean that actual GPU will
cease to work. It means that big companies will stop to buy so many GPU.

So, globally, everything that has already be done will stay. And new
things will improve at a slower pace. The AI is there and will stay
there for a long time. When the AI bubble will burst, its impact will
be more on the global economy than on its usage.

That's why the companies invest so much. Because the one which will
have the lead at the time of the burst expects to keep that lead for a
long time. Not because they are stupid and can't predict the obvious.

The AI is there, like it or not, you have to live with it. The fact that
you or I like it or not is irrelevant. Like when Platon was criticizing
writing system because people stopped to learn by heart, the writing
system was there, stay through the ages and revolutionised things. There
are some things like farming, writing, electricity that changed
everything on the human way of life. And the AI is one one them. There
is no going back. I'm not saying that it's good or bad, I'm saying that
it's the evolution (not progress because progress is good by definition)
and one can't do anything but live with it.

--
Si vous avez du temps … perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 11/01/2026 20:44, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 05:55:12 -0600, Harold Stevens wrote:

Greybeard quants like me operated on 3 simple maxims:

1. Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
2. If if ain't broke, don't fix it.
3. If it breaks, don't ignore it.

Those go way beyond programming...

Part of the 'philosophy of engineering'.

Perhaps the most fundamental one, after 'an engineer is someone who can
do for five bob what any damn fool can do for a quid' is

'In the construction of mechanisms, complexity should not be multiplied
beyond that necessary to achieve the defined objective'

Ockham's Laser...


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 1/11/26 19:42, Waldek Hebisch wrote:

Now, concerning 'AI is there', there was significant progress in
some areas like machine translation. "Creative writers" may be
concerned. But there were attempts to replace a lot of professionals, notably programmers. Examples indicate that "AI" can create
small, trival pieces of code but does not really work for
bigger and more complex things. To be useful for programming "AI"
and way it is used must be significantly improved.

I know this is kind of niche, but just for kicks I asked ChatGPT to
generate a PL/I version of a structure. I have to say I'm surprised that
it even knew what PL/I is, but I was more surprised that it
"hallucinated" some non-existent syntax. I thought it had to be me, but
I researched it and couldn't find it in any compiler or dialect.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 1/12/26 04:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 11/01/2026 20:44, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 05:55:12 -0600, Harold Stevens wrote:

Greybeard quants like me operated on 3 simple maxims:

1. Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
2. If if ain't broke, don't fix it.
3. If it breaks, don't ignore it.

Those go way beyond programming...

Part of the 'philosophy of engineering'.

Perhaps the most fundamental one, after 'an engineer is someone who can
do for five bob what any damn fool can do for a quid' is

'In the construction of mechanisms, complexity should not be multiplied beyond that necessary to achieve the defined objective'

Ockham's Laser...

Now if only computer people could follow this rule. Our rule seems to be
"why not add just this one more feature"

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-01-12, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:

On 1/12/26 04:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 11/01/2026 20:44, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 05:55:12 -0600, Harold Stevens wrote:

Greybeard quants like me operated on 3 simple maxims:

1. Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
2. If if ain't broke, don't fix it.
3. If it breaks, don't ignore it.

Those go way beyond programming...

Part of the 'philosophy of engineering'.

Perhaps the most fundamental one, after 'an engineer is someone who can
do for five bob what any damn fool can do for a quid' is

'In the construction of mechanisms, complexity should not be multiplied
beyond that necessary to achieve the defined objective'

Ockham's Laser...

:-)

Now if only computer people could follow this rule. Our rule seems to be "why not add just this one more feature"

To be fair, I'm sure a lot of computer people are doing this
under duress, being ordered by the marketroids (who have the
ear of management) to add yet another shiny thing.

Perfection is achieved, not when there
is nothing more to add, but when there
is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint Exup‚ry

Simplify, simplify.
-- Henry David Thoreau

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 02:42:42 -0000 (UTC)
antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote:

Now, concerning burst: AFAIK AI companies use investment money to
cover cost of operation (whole or in significant part). If there
is burst, they will have to stop operating literally closing
their datacenters. Basically only things that generate profits
or possibly some research by companies that have other sources of
income and still want to continue research. But that would be
at much lower scale than currently.

This is the key point on which the "but the tech will remain!" argument founders. It's not just that research will stop being funded, but that
it costs so much just to *run* that the only thing keeping the lights
on is regular infusions of billions in investor cash - and, in OpenAI's
case, generous subsidies on raw compute from M$.

Once *that* dries up, they're either going to have to magically become
orders of magnitude more efficient (which they've showed *absolutely*
no aptitude for - and China had a good laugh pantsing our tech sector
on that score last spring, but it's sounding post-fact like their gains
were, um, not as impressive as they'dve liked everyone to think) or
price to reflect the *real* cost of operations - and if they can only
get a fraction of their userbase to pay $200/mo. for a Magical Chatbot
Friend, good freakin' luck squeezing any more blood from *that* turnip.

The much likelier scenario is that when the funding stops flowing in
and the business plan fails to advance from "???" to "profit!" things
will just...*stop.*

Obviously, it'll still be *possible* to write this kind of software and
run it in a slower, more limited context on stock hardware (high-end
GPUs will be going *real* cheap for a while, but they also cost so much
to run and require so much infrastructure that it's questionable how cost-effective it'll be to reuse them,) and possibly the tech will find
its niche in certain fields (as "expert systems" did after the first
"AI winter,") but the economics of doing "generative AI" at global
scale are simply *insane,* and the current offerings in their present
form simply will not survive once taken off VC life support.

(Again, I'll recommend Ed Zitron on this, who has written *extensively*
about it over the past couple years, and has done a lot to break down
how much it actually *costs* - https://www.wheresyoured.at/oai_docs/ )

But there were attempts to replace a lot of professionals,
notably programmers. Examples indicate that "AI" can create
small, trival pieces of code but does not really work for
bigger and more complex things. To be useful for programming "AI"
and way it is used must be significantly improved. It is possible
that slower, gradual improvement will lead to "useful AI".
But it is also possible that alternative approaches, currently
underfunded due to AI race, will progress and be used insted
of "AI".

[...]

So, it looks that for general AI we are missing something
important. For applications ANN apparently struggle with
tasks that have easy algorithmic solution. So natural way
forward with applications seem to be via hybrid approaches.
But AI crowd seem to prefer pure ANN solutions and tries
to brute-force problems using more compute power.

Exactly. It's entirely possible that programming twenty years from now
will look very different from programming today, and there *may* come a
point where we "crack" using ML techniques for software development in
a productive, reliable way - but it's *not* gonna come from the current
crop of clowns, nor through burning infinite money on throwing *MOAR COMPUTE!!!1one* at the same stupid "solution."


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 07:52:46 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

Now if only computer people could follow this rule. Our rule seems
to be "why not add just this one more feature"

We follow Einstein?s rule: ?things should be as complicated as they
need to be, but no more.?

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 17:03:19 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

To be fair, I'm sure a lot of computer people are doing this under
duress, being ordered by the marketroids (who have the ear of
management) to add yet another shiny thing.

Aren?t you glad the Free Software world isn?t driven by marketroids?

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 17:03:19 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

To be fair, I'm sure a lot of computer people are doing this under
duress, being ordered by the marketroids (who have the ear of
management) to add yet another shiny thing.

Aren?t you glad the Free Software world isn?t driven by marketroids?

It's not?

AI Overview
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Eric_S_Raymond_portrait.jpg

Eric S. Raymond (ESR), the well-known open-source advocate, began charging
speaking fees for corporate events in 1999 but waives fees for schools and
user groups; however, specific current fee amounts aren't publicly listed,
requiring direct contact with booking agents or his website, though general
estimates for similar speakers suggest fees could range from thousands to
tens of thousands depending on the event and his involvement.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 1/12/26 10:14, John Ames wrote:

if they can only
get a fraction of their userbase to pay $200/mo. for a Magical Chatbot Friend, good freakin' luck squeezing any more blood from *that* turnip.

Make it a s*xbot, and all the incels will pay to imagine they have a girlfriend.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-01-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

Aren?t you glad the Free Software world isn?t driven by marketroids?

It's not?

AI Overview
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Eric_S_Raymond_portrait.jpg

Eric S. Raymond (ESR), the well-known open-source advocate, began charging
speaking fees for corporate events in 1999 but waives fees for schools and
user groups; however, specific current fee amounts aren't publicly listed,
requiring direct contact with booking agents or his website, though general
estimates for similar speakers suggest fees could range from thousands to
tens of thousands depending on the event and his involvement.

Was ESR ever nearly as influential as he tried to make it look, though?
OK, so he got speaking fees (unclear how often or how much), but did he
have much effect on actual FOSS projects?

Niklas
--
This year's Corporate Technology Expo was no different than the ones for years previous. [...] The scene was a three-hour, seemingly unending procession of PowerPoint slides with enough laser pointers to take down an incoming ICBM.
-- http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/MUMPS-Madness.aspx

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

In <10k3kii$2k2m7$1@dont-email.me> Peter Flass:

On 1/12/26 10:14, John Ames wrote:

if they can only
get a fraction of their userbase to pay $200/mo. for a Magical Chatbot
Friend, good freakin' luck squeezing any more blood from *that* turnip.

Make it a s*xbot, and all the incels will pay to imagine they have a girlfriend.

LOL!!! Beats hell outta reuseable inflatable plastic dolls, hidden
in the basement in grandad's empty Vietnam ammo box.

"No self-respecting woman wants to date you? SIGN UP FOR AIGRLLL!"

IIRC, it was pay-to-view online porn sites in the late 1990's that
drove initial development of secure consumer online payment apps.

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at att, dotted with net. * DO NOT SPAM IT. *
I toss (404) GoogleGroup (404 http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-01-12, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 07:52:46 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

Now if only computer people could follow this rule. Our rule seems
to be "why not add just this one more feature"

We follow Einstein?s rule: ?things should be as complicated as they
need to be, but no more.?

s/complicated/simple/

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 00:24:02 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2026-01-12, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 07:52:46 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

Now if only computer people could follow this rule. Our rule seems
to be "why not add just this one more feature"

We follow Einstein?s rule: ?things should be as complicated as they
need to be, but no more.?

s/complicated/simple/

Really?? The man who brought Riemann tensors into physics?

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 1/12/26 19:36, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 00:24:02 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2026-01-12, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 07:52:46 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

Now if only computer people could follow this rule. Our rule seems
to be "why not add just this one more feature"

We follow Einstein?s rule: ?things should be as complicated as they
need to be, but no more.?

s/complicated/simple/

Really?? The man who brought Riemann tensors into physics?

Well, really, it HAD to be that complicated just
to be 'clear' ........

Even worse now, QM and 'strings' and such.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-01-13, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

Do you think Microsoft would get involved with a GPL project?

They already have, including the Linux kernel. If one is to believe
Wikipedia, their first real run-in with the GPL was in 1998.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_and_open_source#1990s

How many other FOSS projects use the MIT, Apache, Zero Clause BSD, or
other permissive licenses?

I don't know offhand, but I've always been under the impression the
licenses you mentioned are all relatively widespread.

Niklas
--

"Abendessen" ("evening meal")

ITYM "meal eaten whilst trying to figure out why the damn program keeps crashing"
-- Kai Henningsen and Cael in asr

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-01-13, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 13 Jan 2026 06:31:43 GMT, Niklas Karlsson wrote:

How many other FOSS projects use the MIT, Apache, Zero Clause BSD, or
other permissive licenses?

I don't know offhand, but I've always been under the impression the
licenses you mentioned are all relatively widespread.

Precisely. Raymond's argument was restrictive licenses would deter FOSS development.

Fair enough, but to go back to where this subthread came from, does that
make him a marketroid? Or just an advocate, maybe agitator if you're
feeling dramatic?

"Marketroid" makes me think of something rather more pernicious than
just copyleft vs. copycenter (to reference the Jargon File, speaking of
ESR).

Niklas
--
In Python, I'd model the CSV row as a class with a method that deserialised an array-of-string, with appropriate validation and coercion to a known static type. And then I'd get half way through before going "fuck it" and finishing it off in Perl. -- Peter Corlett

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)