There's a good bit about data structure-centric programming in The Art Of Unix Programming: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html#id...
(Apologies for linking to esr but it's a good book)
(Apologies for linking to esr but it's a good book)
Imagine Einstein alive and denying climate change. Would you apologize every time when you are referring to the theory of relativity?
P.S. Sorry, if you don't agree with the apologising comment and were just informing about possible reasons.
The chapter I linked to was just a summary of ideas put forth by others - though admittedly written well.
My problem with esr is more his arrogance and conceit than politics (which I also find distasteful)
I've read and liked his book, btw, but I had to ignore all his stupid Windows-bashing where he attributes every bad practice to the Windows world and every good one - to the Unix world.
Sometimes I quote HP Lovecraft and sometimes I feel like apologizing for his being racist (and somewhat stronger than just being a product of his times). But most of the time, also not. But it does usually cross my mind and I think that's okay and important. In a very real "kill your idols" way. Nobody's perfect.
And that's just for being a bigot in the early 20st century, which, as far as I know, is of no consequence today.
However if Einstein were alive and actively denouncing climate change today, I would probably add a (btw fuck einstein) to every mention of his theories. But that's just because climate change is a serious problem that's going to kill billions if we would actually listen to the deniers and take them seriously. This hypothetical Einstein being a public figure, probably even considered an authority by many, would in fact be doing considerable damage spouting such theories in public. And that would piss me off.
What I mean to say is, you don't have to, but it's also not wrong to occasionally point out that even the greatest minds have flaws.
Also, a very different reason to do it, is that some people with both questionable ideas and valuable insights, tend to mix their insightful writings with the occasional remark or controversial poke. In that case, it can be good to head off sidetracking the discussion, and making it clear you realize the controversial opinions, but want to talk specifically about the more valuable insights.
And this IS in fact important to keep in mind both, even if you think it is irrelevant. Because occasionally it turns out, for instance, through the value of a good deep discussion, that the valuable insights in fact fall apart as you take apart the controversial parts. Much of the time it's just unrelated, but you wouldn't want to overlook it if it doesn't.
And then he accused women in tech groups of trying to "entrap" prominent male open source leaders to falsely accuse them of rape.
And then he claimed that "gays experimented with unfettered promiscuity in the 1970s and got AIDS as a consequence", and that police who treat "suspicious" black people like lethal threats are being rational, not racist.
Basically, he's a racist, bigoted old man who isn't afraid to spout of conspiracy theories because he thinks the world is against him.
But in this case the "consequence" to esr was somebody apologizing for linking to him. Methinks the parent protests too much
> I see it used as a reason to limit speech because this speech that I disagree with is insidious and sinister.
Limiting speech is a very nuanced issue, and there's a lot of common misconceptions surrounding it. For a counterexample, if you're wont to racist diatribes, that can make many folks in your presence uncomfortable; if you do it at work or you do it publicly enough that your coworkers find out about it, that can create a toxic work environment and you might quickly find yourself unemployed. In this case, your right to espouse those viewpoints has not been infringed -- you can still say that stuff, but nobody is obliged to provide audience.
And as a person's publicity increases, so do the ramifications for bad behavior -- as it should. Should esr be banned from the internet by court order? Probably not. Does any and every privately owned platform have the right to ban him or/and anybody who dis/agrees with him? Absolutely: nobody's right to free speech has been infringed by federal or state governments. And that's the only "free speech" right we have.
> Should esr be banned from the internet by court order? Probably not.
Where's the uncertainty in this?
> Does any and every privately owned platform have the right to ban him or/and anybody who dis/agrees with him?
Those that profess to being a platform and not a publisher should not be able to ban him, nor anybody else, for their views, whether expounded via their platform. That's why they get legal protections not afforded to others. Do you think the phone company should be able to cut you off for conversations you have on their system?