There's barely any blogspam anymore on proggit, and if some manages to get through, it gets the customary tar-and-feathers treatment which even good submissions receive, only with more abundant, and hotter tar.
Maybe, but it's not something worth making into a political issue into itself, when the GNU project has actual political issues in mind, as close as they get to when speaking of a Software stack, like making sure that the management of a certain project is as close to their ideology as possible, as a political organization which writes Software (which is what the FSF and the GNU project always were, and a pair of beneficial ones at that).
Why are people sweating small stuff like version control systems? How can you be a fanboy of a thing that keeps track of branches and patches. It's only incidentally related to Software development, you shouldn't feel as if a limb of yours was amputated if you \gasp\ had to use a different one for another project.
It's like using a different mail client or a different bug tracker; it doesn't affect what you can express or how can you build a program. It's just Version Control.
Web application development. I'm sure plenty of programmers would think of the Layer-3 device that chooses paths to forward packets through nodes to a destination.
So you say that multinational corporations shouldn't compete on ethics? I thought you neoliberals didn't chastise anyone with respect to their choices in commerce.
Yes, this is systemic. Are you trying to convince me that the situation isn't fucked? For all the claptrap about how the economy isn't a zero-sum game and that the tide lifts all the boats and so many other platitudes, there's no denying that the quality of life of most people in the world is nothing but a point in a gradient of declining living conditions, everyone benefiting from the labor of people with fewer options who have to work and live worse than them.
Anyhow, how much do you think it would raise the cost of the things you use, just to ensure safe working conditions at factories? For jeans, it's a paltry 90 cents.
Yes, the poorest in my country would probably have to think twice before spending even 90 cents, hell tell that to the homeless. The vast majority of the poor here probably wouldn't mind, given that it's a mere drop in the sea of debt they are drowning in, and that's a problem with many facets, on its own.
But there's quite a lot of room for diminishing the unfairness of this scheme, even if the solution feels even cosmetic at times given the broader problem of exploitation and inequality.
The economy isn't magical either; jobs lost in one region because the factories closed and moved to another aren't necessarily going to be recouped by new job creation in a short span of time.
Except for the people they'll lay off as the plants move? It didn't work out wonderfully for the autoplant workers at Flint and Detroit; for some reason, the people didn't get the upgrade you speak of after the plants closed. Weird, huh?
If they assured me that the extra price goes to ensure a better standard of living and better working conditions for their third-world workers, then yes.
Java's concurrency primitives and libraries are really overlooked in these discussions. Is the syntax too off-putting, or is it merely that Java is unfashionable?
> it's just hard to make them work for a variety of types simultaneously.
That's sort of what you expect from any given implementation of a data structure and its related algorithms, though I imagine that some specialized implementations benefit from having them tailored to their concrete types. Examples, anyone, please?
Well, as we all know, Go does give you a way, sort of. You'd have to write basically a dynamic version using interface {}, and then write wrappers casting the values in and out, and possibly handing out the equality predicate.
That sucked in Java at the time, though, when you had to screw around casting Objects in your code, I don't see why people would prefer that.
It has a state-of-the-art Virtual Machine, rich concurrency facilities (why does everyone forget this?), reasonable type safety, great tooling, and it operates within a diverse ecosystem of languages using the same infrastructure.
But yeah, I have always liked the argument of throwing a curve ball at the kids who were already programming in imperative languages. It also levels the playing field and those who hadn't had any prior experience tend to perform better without feeling so inadequate next to their peers.
The author said that he needed a generic set for different concrete types, so he'd have to write a bunch of these functions for all the combinations he needed. And he did. And it was a mess. And it was also slow.
Edit: not that we can conclude anything from the lack of performance, though, we don't know how it was written.
So... if you need any data structure other than an array, a hash table or a channel, you should skip Go and find some other language? That's kind of limited.
Could be, given that book burning was always more of a symbolic act to intimidate the supporters of the ideas contained in the book rather than just the act of destroying information. What could the purpose of burning records of environmental research centers and monitoring stations possibly be, for what's pocket change to a first world Government?
I have just read this, not being from Canada, but this Harper fellow seems to have an internal war with the institutions of the State in charge of the monitoring and protection of the environment and a budget deficit, so he went forth and dismembered the one in charge of water, despite what his advisers said, and what's common sense nowadays, that water ecology is in danger world wide after heavy abuse.