cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/396294
It seems like there’s no English material on this topic.
What would that even look like?
IDK Completely. That’s why I asked if there was an existing interpretation.
I think that the UNIX philosophy could mirror the development of humanity (from primitive communism to capitalism), without slave society or feudalism.
The material conditions of UNIX (specifically the minimal breathing room in computer hardware necessitates the use of communal ownership.
Programming is a wide concept so i’ll go with the concepts i know.
Programming languages, proglang for short, are a set of rules to direct a computer. Any process of change of the proglang itself involves the developers fixing bugs that cause hardships to the proglang user, the contradiction here is between the passive prescence of bugs in the code of the proglang and the active developers fixing this bugs, secondarily theres is the development of new feature in the code.
The previous contradiction is the same as the one present between a programmer making functional code in a programming language
The programming ecosistem, considering that there are people involved and thus is part of material reality, would have contradictions related to class contradictions
Im open to corrections
I wouldn’t say proglangs are rules. Rather, they are a language of instructions to the machine; the language can often be converted to machine instructions through a tool (often a compiler).
Class contradictions of course have an impact.
I think the UNIX philosophy hold some communist values:
- A communal interface for programs and scripts should exist to reduce redundant code.
- Programs should not have private property (or internal code) when unneccessary.
- I think that the “Test prototypes often” is a result idea from the cold war era. Heavy testing was neccessary to ensure that programs functioned properly.
The UNIX philosophy was born in an environment with a lack of surplus; likewise, the primal environment neccessitated communism in humans due to the lack of surplus.
Also, it’s interesting that computers could technically be described in DiaMat.
- Voltage changes form a principal contradiction between states. (Typically a binary state.)
- Electrical circuits form base contradictions in some way.
These two ‘principal’ contradiction form the base for a higher-level contradiction:
- A contradiction between the setter/retriever (CPU) and Memory.
Well considering that dialectical materialism is nonsense, you can’t really apply it to anything, let alone programming.
Uh, dialectical materialism isn’t nonsense. It’s a useful philosophy.
Do you understand what dialectical materialism is?
It’s debunked, is what it is
lmao ok glowie
lol ok pinko
I understand that applying the process of dialectics to a logical process is problematic. Dialectics can be understood as “this depends on and affects that, while that depends on and affects this”. Formal logic can be understood as “this is this. That is that. If you make this that, it no longer is that. If you make that this, it no longer is this”. Formal logic can be seen in computers with bits, either being on or off. It is hard for me to imagine bits in a dialectical manner.
That is the critique I imagine would come from you. Am I correct in that? However, your critique goes beyond programming. Could you elaborate on how it is that dialectical materialism can’t be applied to anything?