b4ux1t3

Emphasis mine.

Technical terms have definitions that transcend the opinions of people who use them. When I say "byte", everyone knows exactly what I mean, as it's a unit of measurement. When I say "agile", it could mean any number of different things, depending on context. When people say "open source", the thought that comes to a lot of people's minds is simply "I can see the _source_ code, because it's out in the _open_."

It's subjective, and, frankly, annoying. It shouldn't matter how something is licensed, because the most important aspect of software is whether or not it provides value and helps me do my job. Bickering about semantics doesn't get work done.

That said, it's kind of a huge scaling problem. If it really is a matter of throwing more hardware on it, and they currently use, say, 100 servers, they're going to need 429496729600 servers to get the same times they are getting now.

I know there's then the issue of security, freedom, openness. . .whatever. But if you're working on a project with someone else, and you don't trust them, the project's probably doomed to fail to begin with.

("Even if you haven't already-made a mistake, and are just thinking of making a change to a codebase, the # FP version of the code is a lot easier to think about than the # Imperative version" was particularly bad about this. I have never had a problem paralellizing a procedural program that would have been solved using FP)

It is _much_ better at being inclusive and not preachy than other articles of similar scope. But I would prefer if posts like this tried to explain functional programming without feeling the need to put down other paradigms. And, to be clear, I'm a big fan of FP, and have been using many of its tenants for a long time now.

Functional programming is just a different way to structure a code base. Some people are better able to grasp how data flows through a maze of functions. Some people are better able to grasp how an object interacts with other objects.

In the end, it's all just a sequence of instructions executed, in order, by a machine. The true correct way of writing code is: However you can get that machine to do what you want it to do, while still being able to make changes to its behavior.

Some people think better functionally, some people think better procedurally, but, in the end, it's all just a list of instructions, executed in order by a machine.

I'll never understand the need to poopoo all over someone else's way of thinking (not you, the guy you're replying to).

I like the OSI. I use a lot of stuff that they endorse. My 3D printer is OSI certified (or whatever the proper terminology is). But I use my printer to solve problems, and it being open or closed source doesn't really matter, so long as it helps me solve problems.

I like the FSF. I use a lot of stuff that they endorse. One of the operating systems I use is FSF certified (or whatever the proper terminology is). But I use this operating system to solve problems, and it being open or closed source doesn't really matter, as long as it helps me solve problems.

I like Microsoft. I use a lot of stuff that they make. One of the operating systems I use. . .you get the idea.

When I hear "open source", I don't know which camp the speaker is sitting in. It's perfectly reasonable to get mixed up sometimes.

Turns out opensource.org disagrees with them. But it doesn't seem like FSF (or rather, RMS, and the FSF by proxy) agrees[1].

In the end, I don't really have a horse in this race. I just write code. I don't care how my company's legal department chooses to protect it.

Frankly, I find it kind of tiresome that there's such a big argument over this stuff.

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

I maintain that Windows is always a better choice for running win32 applications, unless you don't have that option. I'll also note that I'm not saying Wine is useless, or anything along those lines. I merely take issue with the idea that it runs win32 applications "better" than a system that's designed to be backwards compatible with win32 applications by the same entity that made win32.

[1]: https://askubuntu.com/a/308679

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPnehDhGa14

EDIT: TO be clear, this is a video of upgrading to Windows 7, and there is a direct upgrade path to 10 from 7. Also, as per another user's reply, this doesn't hold true for 64-bit. However, that doesn't change the fact that Wine doesn't and really can't run win32 better than win32 does.

You're thinking of _free_ open source software. While I'm not a huge FOSS-head, there is a distinct difference between "_free_ and open source" and just "open source". It's all in the licensing.

I could, in theory, write a license that says, basically, you can't distribute my source code, but you can look at it, compile it, and even alter it to fit your needs. In fact, a lot of licenses on older software projects allowed for exactly that.

I could also release a license that says that you can only redistribute my code if you haven't purchased it, but if you have purchased it, you're not allowed to redistribute it. Pointless? Yeah, probably. But that's still a valid license.

Anything goes, as long as you can come up with the proper legalese to put in the license.

EDIT: I get it, some people support OSI's definitions, some FSF's, and apparently sharing the opinion of one has angered the supporters of the other. A lot of this is subjective, and I know that. I'd appreciate it if you discussed and voted accordingly.

I'm worried it might have been .NET Rocks![1] They have a great podcast, but their episodes aren't indexed by Google because of their website structure.

I'm gonna keep looking, and even check my home computer's history when I get home tonight, but I wouldn't hold your breath. Someone a bit above linked to a book that I'm pretty sure was the impetus behind the podcast I listened to, so it might be worth giving that a read.

[1] https://dotnetrocks.com/

EDIT: HA! I found it! It was actually in the press section on the book's web page.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1222261...

I really liked their modern take on "retro" programming. I am not of the mind that we need to start teaching every developer how to hack away at assembly, but there's no denying that working on limited hardware (like what is still found in embedded devices) benefits greatly from at least a passing familiarity of it. I think that's kind of what their goal was and is with games like TIS-100 and SHENZHEN I/O. Not necessarily to give seasoned assembly hackers fun games to play, though it certainly does, but to give younger programmers an idea of what working with low-level code can look like.

This article has made me want to re-install TIS-100 and see if I can;t finish some of the levels I struggled with. . .

Thanks for posting this.

I'm going to try to find it. But, if I don't, you got the gist of it:

Have a checklist, and stick to it. Don't expect one person, or even multiple people, to remember all of the steps off the top of their head.

Well, I guess ad companies have no idea how much money I make.

Motherfucker might find a chemical reaction that blows up!

Fuck acetic acid! Fuck sodium bicarbonate!

Also, I refuse to support a local (bleh, state, whatever) government with taxes just so they can ignore my vote. I'd rather live in a state where my vote goes to someone who supports my gripes. And yes, I recognize that that sucks, and that if more people moved to places where they could change things with their vote, things would actually get changed. But I'm one person, and me moving wouldn't solve anything.

You've got a chance of being struck by a meteor whenever you leave your house (and also while being in it). Do you solve that problem by staying inside? No. You go outside and take those odds. The chance that you'll be mistakenly shut down by a mistake is minuscule. Google has proven in the past to be a reliable way to do things like whistleblowing and hosting questionable content. The fact that one or even a dozen users get banned doesn't invalidate Google's history of keeping a _vast_, _overwhelming_ majority of even their free users safe.

Google (and basically every other reputable email host _and_ every "independent" email host) are blocking mail from services that host cheap compute power. A lot of Azure and GCP email traffic would likely be blocked, not just Digital Ocean.

If you want to start an email service, use something that isn't a known platform for spammers.