(φ (μ (λ)))

Hardware is designed for efficiency, at the cost of having a fixed interface. One can then build software on top of that interface—in effect creating a virtual machine—using software. That extra layer of abstraction incurs a well-known cost, but the tradeoff is well worth the generality that is gained. (Otherwise we'd still be programming in assembly language!) The point here is that this layered structure provides a way to have both efficiency and flexibility. We believe that requiring an entire system to be implemented in the most efficient possible way is counterproductive, preventing the flexibility for adapting to future needs. The real cost of a system is the time spent by programmers—in designing, understanding, maintaining, modifying, and debugging the system. So the value of enhanced adaptability may be even more extreme. A system that is easily adapted and maintained eliminates one of the largest costs: teaching new programmers how the existing system works, in all its gory detail, so that they know where to reach in and modify the code. Indeed, the cost of our brittle infrastructure probably greatly exceeds the cost of flexible design, both in the cost of disasters and in the lost opportunity costs due to the time of redesign and rebuilding. And if a significant fraction of the time spent reprogramming a system for a new requirement is replaced by having that system adapt itself to the new situation, that can be an even bigger win. Chris Hanson & Gerald Jay Sussman, Software Design for Flexibility: How to Avoid Programming Yourself into A Corner (2021)

https://ky.fyi/posts/ai-burnout

One of the 44 70 CVEs in the Rust rewrite of coreutils. It blatantly uses .expect() for error handling. https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-35348

One of the 44 70 CVEs in the Rust rewrite of coreutils. It blatantly uses .expect() for error handling. https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-35348

In its semantic structure Scheme is as closely akin to Algol 60 as to early Lisps. Algol 60, never to be an active language again, lives on in the genes of Scheme and Pascal. It would be difficult to find two languages that are communicating coin of two more different cultures than those gathered around these two languages. Pascal is for building pyramids—imposing, breathtaking, static structures built by armies pushing heavy blocks into place. Lisp is for building organisms—imposing, breathtaking, dynamic structures built by squads fitting fluctuating myriads of simpler organisms into place. The organizing principles used are the same in both cases, except for one extraordinary difference: the discretionary exportable functionality entrusted to the individual Lisp programmer is more than an order of magnitude greater than that to be found within Pascal enterprises. Lisp programs inflate libraries with functions whose utility transcends the application that produced them. [...] As a result the pyramid must stand unchanged for a millennium; the organism must evolve or perish. Alan Perlis, Foreword to Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

(φ (μ (λ))) pinned «Our traffic with the subject matter of this book involves us with tree foci of phenomena: the human mind, collections of computer programs, and the computer. Every computer program is a model, hatched in the mind, of a real or mental process. These processes…»

I don't know what programmers of today need to realize that programming is first and foremost an activity of human thought, like any other field such as mathematics or engineering.

After a few discussions with rms (Richard Stallman), I have been said that the FSF would love to collaborating with lawyers who can help them in fleshing out their AI/LLM policy. If anybody here works or knows someone who works in law and believes in free/libre…

After a few discussions with rms (Richard Stallman), I have been said that the FSF would love to collaborating with lawyers who can help them in fleshing out their AI/LLM policy. If anybody here works or knows someone who works in law and believes in free/libre software, please reach out to me. I will connect you with rms and Krzysztof who leads the FSF Licensing & Copyright Compliance team. We really need to collaborate on this as an united front before more of our free software gets affected by it.

https://tante.cc/2026/04/21/ai-as-a-fascist-artifact/

https://github.com/palincat/gama

After second systeming the assembler from the linked reply, I set out to implement a Forth for RISC-V with it. In particular, I targeted the Qemu "Virt" machine, which is an abstract idealized RISC-V machine that supports the OpenSBI interface, which in itself is like a BIOS but for RISC-V. In about 4 days I managed to implement the most basic Forth functionalities. Now I can implement the fancier abstractions from the REPL. In the screenshot, you see me implement a "while loop" equivalent by using the low-level branching constructs. This is a testament to the simplicity of Forth. By implementing the simplest primitives, you can breath life into whatever machine you are using. You can have these high-level-esque abstractions while still being able to interact with the machine at the lowest level, all the while maintaining very low cognitive load due to how very few components there are to the system you are using. If you want to look at the code: https://codeberg.org/ntn/rva

Ichbiah, Barnes, et.al, Rationale for the Design of the Ada Programming Language (1986)

https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/byron-ada-programming-language

Michael Feldman & Elliot Koffman, Ada 95: Problem Solving and Program Design (1999)

Recording: https://tv.dyne.org/w/h4UPDWPd97oAFJ4S411b4R

Live stream finished (2 hours)

Live stream started