asdasf

What's with people wanting to dismiss opinions they don't like with poorly thought out strawmen?

>With statements like yours, you are making sure that the gender divide becomes bigger and bigger and that people become very sensitive and insecure when discussing female founders, female programmers and similar.

No, that is what statements like yours do. Contrary to popular belief, not all women share a single brain and all think the same thing. Many women do not like being singled out with patronizing events like this. They do not enjoy being reminded once again that they are not "programmers" but "women programmers", to be used as tools to score points in a game of politics.

It is bloated. Saying "I am cool with how bloated it is" does not change that.

>I offered help and enthusiasm for the project. He called me a lot of names and suggested OpenBSD wasn't for people who weren't like him.

The mailing lists are all archived. Show me the link. The whole point was I hear bullshit stories all the time, but having been on the lists for over a decade, I know they are bullshit.

>but I can't see many people rushing to save it

Nobody cares what you can see. You just want some excuse to push your weird vendetta. Plenty of people are quite happy with openbsd, don't care about your imaginary problems, and have coughed up the $20k.

They have these "computer" things that actually use electricity just to work. Worst of all, they produce heat, so then they have to use this "air conditioning" machine to make it cool again. Crazy stuff.

NetBSD and FreeBSD were the original ones derived from BSD. OpenBSD forked from NetBSD. DragonflyBSD forked from FreeBSD. The forks are the only ones that are interesting. You use openbsd for firewalls, routers, loadbalancers, etc and dragonflybsd for servers.

No, I am pointing out something very obvious and important that you seem to have missed. A bunch of totally independent, distinct projects don't all vanish because one of them wants money. The entire premise that "BSD" would vanish makes no sense.

BSD stopped 20 years ago, if you are worried about losing it you are a little late. This weird misconception that because openbsd is begging for money that other projects with the letters "BSD" in them are in some sort of danger is bizarre. Inventing a problem that doesn't exist, then suggesting doing something that wouldn't solve it as a solution is simply insane.

"Unite bit-parts" is stomping them out, that's the point. Even if you just magically convinced all the openbsd developers to stop developing openbsd and go start working on an OS they don't like instead, that would just be getting rid of openbsd to try to prevent losing openbsd. That makes absolutely no sense.

Two of them "combining efforts" is removing one. That is no different than one of them "failing". That is the point. Contrary to armchair OS designer belief, you can't just say "hey guys, stop working on your project and go work on someone else's because I don't know what I am talking about and think this will somehow help something". Go tell linus to start working on mercurial because you think he should. What is the result of that conversation going to be?

>So let's deal with the elephant in the room: the OpenBSD project is run by complete and utter jerks

Really? Could you give me an example of that? Because from where I sit, as someone having been around the openbsd world for ~15 years, I don't see it. I see lots of people bitch about it, but never any examples of it actually happening. It is just something people seem to assume will be taken as gospel.

Your comment doesn't make more sense from reading it more often. Saying "because I don't understand how the BSDs work or their development processes, I think they should stop existing to prevent them from having to stop existing" is still nonsensical, no matter how you slice it.

>Competition is a good thing, so we should consolidate and have less competition

That makes very little sense.

>Kids don't magically decide that math or science or computer programming is fun

Yeah, they do. That's why it is so important to expose kids to lots of things. You never know what is going to capture their imagination.

>You see the world in black and white

I see simple objective questions in black and white because they are. Is 1+1 2? Yes. There is no grey area. The answer is yes. If you say it is 3, then you are in fact wrong.

>Somebody takes a BSD program, extends it, and distributes binaries. This restricts my ability to inspect, improve, or extend the code.

No it does not. See, this is precisely what I mean. You are simply making an objectively false statement. Here is some BSD licensed code: http://openssh.org/ I challenge you: restrict my ability to inspect, improve or extend it. Hundreds of closed source pieces of software use that code. Yet it is still there, still BSD licensed, my ability to inspect, improve and extend has not been magically removed.

>Anyway, I'm pretty sure you're not going to agree and just add another aggressive or insulting reply.

You might want to consider some introspection. You are screaming 1+1=3 at me and calling me "aggressive and insulting" for correcting you.

>You are using the word "restrictions" incorrect

No I am not. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/restriction

You are trying to be pedantic, but you are simply incorrect. The GPL imposes restrictions as part of the license conditions. Obviously you are not subject to those restrictions if you do not accept the license, and obviously you also don't get the permissions that go with those restrictions either. Nobody is claiming otherwise. The exact nonsense you are doing is precisely why people hate GPL nuts. You are deliberately dishonest and try to hide behind misguided pedantry.

>That is a false statement.

No it is not.

>Please try understand copyright law when making statements about it.

I understand it quite well. You are simply confused. The GPL gives you permission to do things that you couldn't do otherwise due to copyright law. But it gives you that permission under several restrictions. MIT/BSD/ISC license also give you permission to do things that you couldn't do otherwise, but does so under fewer restrictions. This is not complex or difficult to understand.

Some where around 1998?

>Neither of those licenses allows you to claim some code is "your own"

This is a completely irrelevant statement. What was your intended purpose for making it?

>I can easily rephrase that as GPL adds more freedoms

You could, but it would what is known as "lying". I could easily say that the sky is green too, but that doesn't mean it is.

>Your restriction is somebody else's freedom

No, restrictions are restrictions. Words have meanings, and you don't get to just pretend they mean the opposite of what they actually mean. The GPL imposes additional restrictions. You like those restrictions because of their consequences. That is fine. But that does not make them cease to be restrictions.

>I can claim anything I like

Sure, but you can't expect anyone to treat you like a rational adult if you make obviously false claims and say "I can do whatever I want!" as a rationale for it.

>Do you think that I, and an apparently large number of other people on the internet, spend our time insulting Haskell without having used it? That some great anti-Haskell conspiracy is being waged by evil groups unknown?

No, it seems like a relatively small group. And I did not suggest ill intentions, merely ignorance. Do you seriously think "some people repeat second hand info about topics they lack experience with" requires a "great conspiracy waged by evil groups unknown"?

>I haven't written large enough Haskell programs to have performance problems myself

So, you are confirming exactly what I said, that you don't have experience and are repeating second hand info. Why then did you feel the need to invent some sort of conspiracy theory nonsense as a rationale for your behavior?

>People who have to keep an empty monad around because removing it doubles the run-time of the program

That statement demonstrates such an obvious lack of understanding that I am almost able to believe you are ill intentioned. That makes absolutely no sense, it is like me saying "C is bad because I have to keep an empty function around or it doubles run time".

>make substansal changes to get programs into an acceptable (<16GB) amount of memory

That is too vague to be meaningful. Were they working with >16GB of data? Did they just have a memory leak? Do you understand that memory leaks can be created in every language?

>Also, there are plenty of horrible error messages. Having a random google, here's the first one that comes up

Are you trolling? That is a trivially simple error message. It is a simple type mismatch, the compiler expected X, it got Y. Which is precisely what it says.

>Stackoverflow is full of Haskell questions which are "I don't understand this compile-time error I am getting".

Stackoverflow is full of everylanguage questions of "I don't understand this error I am getting". That is completely meaningless.

>I like go because it's not object oriented

Lots of languages are not object oriented and still have parametic polymorphism. Like SML. In 1973.

>If you are thinking in generic containers and are programming in Go, you either chose the wrong language or need to change how you are thinking.

If you are repeating the same baseless assertion routed in ignorance, then you either chose the wrong forum, or need to change how you are thinking.

That is not a counterpoint, it is an assumption. A counterpoint would be actual experience of getting less contributions with an MIT/BSD/ISC project. Saying "but in my imagination it doesn't work that way!" does not counter actual real world experience.

>but Windows users do not have the same rights of modification and redistribution for that code that Microsoft enjoyed, even if they separately obtain a permissive licence to that code by downloading a fresh copy of the code from the original authors.

Yes they do. They have exactly the same rights microsoft enjoyed, over the exact same code microsoft enjoyed those rights. They don't have the rights to microsofts code, which is a completely different thing.

That isn't actually the case, just the rational used to make the choice. Actual experience has shown that commercial users simply avoid restrictive licensed projects, and frequently give back contributions to liberally licensed projects. Ogre3d for example switched from LGPL to MIT and got more contributions from the commercial software world.

>BSD is restrictive. It protects certain freedoms at the expense of others.

It is objectively and unequivocally less restrictive than the GPL. All it restricts is your ability to claim it is your own code. The GPL adds several more restrictions. Thus it is more restrictive. Arguing that you think those restrictions serve a purpose does not mean you can claim they are not restrictions. Lame straw man crap like pretending anyone ever said the GPL wasn't "valid" doesn't belong in a reasoned conversation.

This notion that having a huge gaping defect is just a different way of doing things is absurd. Lacking parametric polymorphism is completely unacceptable. This is a solved problem as of 1973. There is no excuse. Inheritance has nothing to do with it, and "all the factory code" has even less to do with it. You are saying "I like go because it isn't java", which is fine, but you are implying that being java is necessary to have parametric polymorphism, which is not at all accurate.

>I have written quite a bit of Haskell

That is a very common claim from people posting misconceptions that could only arise from second-hand info and a lack of direct experience. I have a very hard time believing it given that you claim haskell is large and complex.

>Also, I like C++ :)

I won't hold that against you.

>what you think is wrong with my belief

Well, everything you just mentioned except the horrible compile times. Haskell is a relatively small language, and is not complex at all. In fact it is quite simple, and very consistent. I don't know what you mean about horrible error messages, and you do not need to learn any gotchas to get good performance. What you need to learn is very simple, very clearly spelled out in the docs, and is no more than you need to learn in any other language. Avoiding unnecessary laziness is no more difficult than avoiding unnecessary strictness. I can't think of a single "sharp edge" haskell has, I suspect we must have different ideas of what a sharp edge is.

>When I used OCaml, I almost never used the object system. I didn't need it.

Me neither, but it is still part of the language and adds a ton of complexity. Which makes the analogy of ocaml to C vs haskell to C++ quite poor.

>The "full" OCaml is pretty complicated

Precisely the point. The full C++ is pretty complicated too. The full haskell is far simpler than either.

>That said, if you're going to use OCaml, you should use the Jane Street libraries

They didn't exist when I used ocaml, and I would never go back to ocaml now.

His dismissal of haskell is rather misinformed. Haskell has no such problems with cyclic data structures. And this:

>Except that abstracting things into functions that take the `old' graph as input, and answer the `new' graph as output are not very convenient or easy.

Is just crazy. Yes, it is very convenient and easy: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/mtl-2.0.1.0/docs/Control-...

I think you are forgetting that everyone who uses haskell has obviously gone through the trying it stage. It is not that hard, I did it. I just had a couple of PHP programmers do it without any problems. LYAH assumes you know very little, and explains things very simply. It gets to IO plenty quick enough, and before that it is showing you how to play around in ghci where you don't need to care about IO.