asdasf

>every thought I don't have to think about static types is a thought I can instead think about something I actually care about.

Static types do not add something to think about. You already have to think about what things are. Static types just let the compiler ensure that you didn't make any mistakes. Passing a user object into a function that wants a string isn't suddenly useful because there is no type system giving you an error.

So, just like you would in a statically typed language like scala or haskell?

Really? How does this kind of shit not get downvoted to oblivion?

Really? Could you point me to some of his evangelizing? Or did you mean "he uses haskell and is quite happy with it"? Because that isn't the same thing.

>inconsistencies that the average programmer will never even realize exist.

Do you honestly believe that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS1lpKBMkgg

>Scala that only when you leave it's confines do you realize, shit, I miss

But the very point Edward makes is that you don't give up those things when you leave scala. You only give up those things if you leave scala for something worse. You could leave for something better, keep all those things, and get tons of important things that you also won't realize you are missing until you get used to them and then try to live without them.

Right, I get that there are lots of scala people who are very anti-intellectual and are vehemently opposed to learning anything. But what I don't get is how "if I don't learn this stuff, I don't understand it" is "snobbism" on the part of people providing the library you didn't learn.

>and historically the response to beginner questions has been something along the lines of, "go read this paper" a la Haskell.

I have not seen that response in either scalaz or haskell. It sounds an awful lot like the common strawman used to dismiss haskell as "academic" from people who have never bothered to try it. Practical experience with haskell in particular has been that people are ridiculously accommodating and helpful.

note: Yes I know the compiler can't actually infer all types all the time, but the exceptions are obvious and require type information in dynamically typed languages too (ie. convert a string to an int: you have to tell it you want an int, you can't just say "convert this string" and have it guess what you want it converted to).

You mean "in which I pose the rather obvious strawman". What scaffolding? What is this mysterious "extra stuff" people give vague names like "scaffolding" to that I've never encountered despite programming in a statically typed language all the time?

I really don't know what the deal is with email, but since the mid 90s there's been this weird thing where everyone wants to follow some kind of step by step guide. But it is just simple software like anything else. If you can setup a webserver or a database server or anything else you can setup a mail server.

Many do. Any many of them realize they didn't actually want the GPL, they just picked the license they had heard of the most. I don't see what this has to do with the discussion of gcc being limited technically because the GPL is not enough to sufficiently hinder people from writing proprietary tools.

>That's really important distinction that people don't realize about the GPL - it's designed to protect the rights of the END USERS

That is an artificial distinction created to try to justify the newspeak meaning of "freedom" where it is defined to mean "imposes restrictions". Developers are users.

Then make that argument. Because just saying "I don't like it" over and over is not making any such argument.

We could certainly look at the hundreds of projects setting precedent to determine that you are almost certainly wrong.

>Is it “FUD” if I still really believe it?

Yes. If you are posting something to create fear, uncertainty and doubt, then it is FUD. Even if you are sincerely crazy, it doesn't make your FUD not be FUD.

>but I have the feeling of Google, Apple, and the rest of the permissive license promulgators

Google are not "permissive license promulgators". And you wouldn't be having this conversation if not for actually free software, like freebsd, apache, bind, etc. The people who made the internet are the "permissive license promulgators". Show some fucking respect.

>And one fine day they will turn off the freedom and turn it all proprietary

And see a therapist. You are paranoid and delusional.

RMS says "freedom" is worth sacrificing functionality for. GCC is a monolithic mess of shit that is virtually impossible to debug, and produces incorrect code very frequently. Being forced into a terrible architecture where everything is smushed into everything else just to prevent people from being able to use gcc as a front end and something else as a backend is absolutely a case of making the code worse for the sake of trying to further a political agenda.