[slmjkdbtl]

> This is a ridiculous mischaracterization of what Jonathan Blow was talking about.

I watched the full presentation and agree with almost everything he said, but I can't find a part matching the conflict between "Simple text editor Vs. Complicated character encoding scheme / rendering / formatting". How would JB make a text editor that works with any kind of character?

[asiachick]

I don't agree with almost anything he said. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He comes from games. I too came from games. I had all the same opinions as him. Then I worked on a browser on a team with hundreds programmers (browsers are huge). The article is a perfect example. He hasn't solved the actual problems being solved so he has no clue why the solutions used are the ones that were chosen.

Could some parts be re-written to be more efficient? Maybe. Could they be made efficient and still be easy for any of those hundreds of programmers to follow and modify? Probably not, even if all of them were of his caliber.

Games just don't have to deal with the same issues. Take Unicode fonts. Just the emoji font is 221meg! I'm pretty sure if you ask JBlo about it he'll give some flippant and asian bashing "emoji shouldn't exist in the first answer". He won't actually "solve the problem that's actually being solved", he'll solve some simpler problem in a simpler way in his head and then declare that's all you need.

He's made all kinds of ridiculous and conflicting claims. Example, he believes there should be only one graphics API. To put it another way, he believes in design by committee since that's the only way there would ever be one API. Yet in other areas he rejects design by committee (game engines would be one).

Another issue is security. AFAICT he's never given it a second thought. As one example his JAI language he pointed out he never runs into memory ownership issues so he doesn't want a language that helps with that. Memory ownership issues is one of the top ways security bugs appear. Again, pointing out he doesn't know what problems are actually being solved and is thinking only from his own limited experience.

[cztomsik]

agreed, I respect what he did but some claims are ridiculous and his "clan" of followers only makes it worse.

BTW: would you be willing to chat from time to time? Im doing something similar (hobby, mostly one-man show so far) to browser and I would really could use some help. I dont need any programming but pointing me in the right direction would be awesome.

[alistairw]

I agree with the sentiment you're getting at about nostalgia for the past sometimes ignores the homogeneity of the people using those systems and how that reduced complexity. I do think there's an argument there that needs to be explored further to identify what is actually simple and hard/complex in computing.

However, I think this point about how JB specifically would make one with any type of character is not the best direction for exploring that. He's made games and his own presentation software (Used in the presentation linked above) which is able to do that. I doubt he would classify that as one of the actually hard aspects of computing.

[slmjkdbtl]

Yeah I agree making an editor that supports any type of character is not the best way to explore this subject, but I doubt the result of this exploration can solve that editor problem.

I follow a similar mindset of JB and have being making / using my own tools, even my personal character encoding (I have Chinese as my first language and want to use Chinese in my works but Unicode is too messy and it's impossible to make a font that supports thousands of characters so been developing my subset of Chinese that fits in a byte), also my own game engine / renderers / programming language (similar to JB's stack) My experience is these softwares are too personal and not applicable the the real general public. JB also makes personal softwares and won't consider about generality. Personal softwares are inherently better, because the bloat and bad about current state almost all comes from derailed generalization effort. If we take the beautiful DOOM editor and make it general, it'll be real hard to not make it another Unity, and that's the real under-explored problem.