Namespaces are a rubbish hack

How are name spaces different than prefixing every variable name with your library/organisation name? With current editing tools (powerful search and replace), they are one and the same.

namespaces mean that you don't have to do it manually

if there are no namespaces, it's not enough that you add prefixes, you must make sure that everyone else does. it also more or less solves the 'multiple import' problem without the need for C's #ifndef hack. of course, the better way of solving that problem is importing structured data instead of source code text, but you can have both

Unix was created without namespaces. Somehow an OS powerful enough to enable shitpoasting on \prog\ can be written in barebones C.

>>1
so you're proposing that people only use one namespace because you don't like the concept of multiple namespaces?

what about scope?

would you want people to have nestedLoopIterator instead of i to avoid collisions?

>>4
yeah and unix is full of problems

remember that the term ``rootkit'' originated from unix malware from back in the day (a kit for getting root user access on unix), since unix was the first insecure OS to embrace networking

>>4
unix doesn't include third-party libraries. you don't really need namespaces when you control all the code

>>7
nobody controls all the code on their devices anymore

hell, your fucking processor has hidden protection rings (ring -1 and -2) and runs fucking Minix (if it's Intel) before your OS or even fucking UEFI boot
https://www.zdnet.com/article/minix-intels-hidden-in-chip-operating-system/

>>8
this is irrelevant to the topic of namespaces though, as hidden minix or other shit doesn't clash with non-namespaced source code the way included libraries do

Back in my day we only had 256 global variables with no scope and we liked it!

>>9
linux, namespaces, noscript, tor, etc don't matter

you are never fully secure or in control of your computer when your CPU is running who knows what kind of code, which has proven to be insecure

the ``management engine'' might be benign, or maybe it's up to no good

nothing you do within such a system can be trusted

If I were an evil government, I'd force Intel to make their minix-based management engine (that runs on the CPU regardless of the OS or UEFI) to inject compiler backdoors into the user's OS, so that any code they compile would have a unique identifying string in it, so that they can be doxxed if they make malware or some shit

it would be similar to a MAC address in the sense that it would be a unique hardcoded combination, corresponding to something physical (in this case, a CPU)

there are many other ways it could be misused

think of all the possibilities

I'm an ideas man

Proper namespaces are functions:
(define (mynamespace f)
(cond ((eq? f 'anus) (lambda (x) (x x)))
((eq? f 'snake) (lambda (x) x))
(#t (error ";_;")))

Use as:
((mynamespace 'anus) (mynamespace 'anus))
((mynamespace 'snake) 1)

>>13
The power of LITHP is terrible to behold.

How does LISP solve the namespaces issue? Fire up Doctor Scheme and check it out for yourself.

>>7
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/namespaces.7.html