WASM is great and as it becomes more accessible it will likely take over more and more
OPs meme is just a sign of someone not understanding the softer parts around development. The meme also seems to forget that we tried java in the browser for two decades and it was just… Horrible from all perspectives, in all layers
Not op but yes, I actually do. Dev for about 20 years, and the vast majority showing vim/emacs struggle when presenting. Could be presentation jitters ofc but the answer to:
You think thousands of developers are handicapping themselves for bragging rights?
Yes, yes I do. Thousands is not all, but they are definitively in the thousands
You are talking about synonyms here, and its highly subjective. The above poster has some good points with the more clear verbs but this whole end of the flow would work just as well as well with a “yes, I’m sure” and “no” instead of cancel
I find the amount of engineers who have built an “alternative to google on their spare time” truly fascinating. Because if you think that is possible, IMO, you have no idea what Google actually built.
Its just not a search engine, and also, as a search engine, it stopped being a good model to follow a decade ago.
Build on the ideas and build something new instead
I think you might have a point there. I for one was not aware of the gay frog situation before that whole drama and I’m grateful it was brought to my attention
I personally think it’s a bit of a fallacy to equal structure with less creativity.
Look at Calatrava https://duckduckgo.com/?q=calatrava&t=fpas&iax=images&ia=images
Further, you can’t design something like the Burj Khalifa without creativity
Maybe the line goes where you are risking peoples life or not, maybe somewhere else. It still makes me sad that you equal programming with chaos. But that is very context driven. The drive for new software, new interfaces, new tech overall naturally breeds less oversight and less structure naturally ofc. But it doesn’t have to be that way, nor should it be if you ask me
Your notion of an engineer is correct in a wide sense
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer
The fact that you feel programming is not that makes me sad. But likely dependent on what software and what you work with. For example, if you build software for NASA or Baxter and dialysis machines and the likes, you’ll get fired fast for not being structured. Working for Elon Musk and Twitter… Well…
This article talks about galaxy formations and stars bursting, curious how you jump to “life” from that?
Alright, thanks. Sounds like the existing fields could have been leveraged for that tbh, seems given that the newer field would be overused/misused
Oh, missed the plural, sorry about that. But is that one the same as “Album artists” or yet another one then?
I agree with most of your points but the artist tag in ID3 tags existed way before streaming music services was a thing. Hell it existed in versions.
So what’s that about?
But I never used a royal “We”, in fact “we” was never used in my text at all. I used us, to refer to all the other comments that you can note does not agree with your assessment of open source.
Instead of you arguing my “cheap rhetorical skills”, how about you actually answer more than, estimated, a fifth of my statements? How about you stop with your own victimization of " what really hurts me". Because that, in essence, is actually cheap rhetorics.
I fully agree that when companies do this, that it is disgusting. But you have to take a step back and look at the actual effect. This is not by any means new, it happened likely before I was even conceived.
What would you say your point is. To shame grayjoy or make a point that this is a threat to open source? Both? Neither?
Your argument there also falls flat because you are making the argument “i made an an irrelevant argument to prove this other point”. You are by your own points arguing that this is bigger than grayjoy and using Windows illegally leaked source code as a reference to that argument? I dont really care about what grayjoy does at this point, it will prove itself over time , but you furthering some idea of of OMG through your sensationalist headline and this point that what grayjoy is doing is a threat to open source code, OSI, and the free software movement is just unnecessary fear. I’m past 40 and let me tell you. Chill. The average user does not care about OSS, the engineer does. The real threat comes when we have nowhere to distribute or host the code, or even can write code that isnt touched by rules and regulations. What a singular entity choose to brand their code as? Has happened hundreds, if not thousands of times before. And all of those instances have garnered no business based on it. The actual threat is Oracle and the likes, not whatever half measure grayjoy is so IMO you skip the sensationalist headlines. And chill. You can judge them if you want but this isn’t a threat to open source in whatever form
Imo it’s not been redefined at all. People are just pushing the boundaries of what it means and creating absolutist views on what it should mean. There is a space for that sure, but shaming companies that define where their own boundaries are is not the way of it.
If we do that, you are challenging what software freedom actually is if you ask me
Your argument falls flat because the Windows source code has never been distributed under open source licenses. Access to the source code does not mean you can redistribute it automatically. Hence its a choice. If you choose to redistribute closed source code, that’s on you.
If the people selling are passing someone else’s work as their own, that’s stealing. Otherwise, it’s just Free Software working as intended.
Do you not see the contradiction in this statement? Where do you find the line of what is stealing and “working as intented”?
If someone is writing software but wants to prevent redistribution, then go ahead and make a license that forbids it. But then don’t get to call it “Open Source” or anything like that.
There are so many licenses for this model already, I’m inclined to believe that you havent actually published any OSS yourself and your attitude in these threads are mildly said, off putting.
I am a big fan of OSI and support their work, but you are treating them (based in what i can read in this thread) like some holy, all defining entity, of what is open source. They are not, and true open source, cannot, and should not, ever derive its power from a central agency setting rules and definitions. If that happens, that will be the end of open source.
Please stop gatekeeping OSS, it hurts all of us
Edit: some autocomplete stupid grammar
What blissful place you must be in, to think the wars have stopped. Hell, there is even inter-Vim wars now (vim, neovim, lunarvim et al)
Dont know the specific artist but its the album cover for a Cranberries album, “Bury the hatchet”
Its important to understand that:
When you are writing typescript, you are writing JavaScript but have additional syntax to help support type safety and structure. If you are creating a function that does x, it should very much be the same in JS and TS, just in TS it has extra syntax
TS doesn’t modify the way JS works, its one of the stated needs for the tooling.
In TS, for example, I can denote an object as
const x: Record = {}
In JS it would be
const x = {}
It’s still nothing but an object. TS doesn’t change the functionality, it just adds typing and checks that you are using that object properly as static build step.
Eh no not necessarily. This depends on the type of audit and the questions specifically, but should never be a default stance if you want to provide a full report. Moreover, if you are learning to do software audits, it would be beneficial to check everything because experience is key to know what you are looking for