Are we in the worst of all possible worlds?

Good people are constantly being supplanted in favour of the greedy and sociopathic, over and over and over again.

Imagine if Gary Kildall had made the deal with IBM as was supposed to happen, instead of Gates.

http://www.tomrolander.com/GaryKildall/In%20memory%20of%20Gary%20Kildall.htm

Gary Kildall tried to push elegance in software. Imagine sane computing. Imagine if this person had influence over computing that Gates ended up having.

Actually, I can't imagine it, because some other monster would have come along. The demons are everywhere.

The human race is comprised of mostly nasty, selfish monsters. Our being conscious is a mistake and we shouldn't even be here, but that is a topic for another day.

People who try to do good seem to get stopped before they go too far, while the greedy monsters are completely free to run amok.

>>69

To clarify, because you can't read, the language design precedent is based on catering to shit programmers. New languages carry on the assumptions of the previous languages instead of actually rethinking what's going on, what can be expressed, and how a programmer can manipulate the code itself. It's inertia of failure.

Lisp is the second oldest high level language in existence. It got really popular in the seventies. It was taught in pretty much every university, so every single formally educated programmer was reasonably proficient in it. Lisp was used as the scripting language in the erstwhile most popular text editor. Lisp was peddled like nobody's business through the first decade of this century by Paul Graham, so pretty much every programmer who ever looked for a programming discussion on the internet was exposed to it. And yet, and yet.

Speaking of inertia of failure, Lisp seem to be a physical wonder, a non-inertial object: no matter how hard you push it, the moment you stop pushing it gets to a complete standstill.