1,948 karma · joined July 20, 2012
It's not that different from `1.times` or `90.chr` which are vanilla Ruby.
> HashWithIndifferentAccess
HashWithIndifferentAccess was an unfortunate necessity to avoid DOS attacks when Symbols used to be immortal. There's no longer a reason to use it today, except for backward compatibility.
My bad, I haven't seriously used Python for over 15 years now, so I stand corrected (and will clarify the post).
My main point stands though, Python strings have an internal representation, but it's not exposed to the user like Ruby strings.
> Article also says PHP has immutable strings. They are mutable, although often copied.
Same. Thank you for the correction, I'll update the post.
The point is that the magic comment (or the --enable-frozen-string-literal) only applies to literals. If you have some code using mutable strings to iteratively append to it, flipping that switch doesn't change that. It just means you'll have to explicitly create a mutable string. So it doesn't change the performance profile.
The question is whether 1+ thread per core with GIL free Python perform as well as 1+ process per core with GIL.
My understanding is that this global is just a way to demonstrate that the finely grained locking in the GIL free version may make it so that preforking servers may still be more performant.
It’s just a not so subtle way to claim he’s innocent and that he’ll get his revenge.
I personally agree with you that shouldn’t be the case, but given Sarkozy made his entire political career about being tough on crime and harsher mandatory sentencing, I’d be appalled if he received any sort of special treatment.
The court couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that the money was used for his campaign.
However they were able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew what his subordinates were planing and that he did nothing to stop it.
In France conspiring to commit a crime is punishable, regardless of whether the crime actually happened or not. That's a law that has been crafted by Sarkozy's own party.
> The solitary confinement part is quite harsh
The solitary part isn't a punishment, but to ensure his safety. They even went as far as to allocated another cell for the two full time police officers of his security detail...
Also the upside is that he has a cell for himself, something a lot of prisoners would love to have given the over prison occupancy in France is 137% (and up to 200% in some specific prisons).
I always find these debate weird. How can you compare one app’s TPS with another?
Since that discussion on the forum, I talked more about pipelining with some other core devs, and that may happen in some form or another in the future.
The main limiting factor is that most of the big Rails contributors work with MySQL, not Postgres, and MySQL doesn't really have proper pipelining support.
So you take the original allegations at face value, even though they only rely on second hand reporting of anonymous testimonies, yet you don't want to consider my post even though the standard of proof is the same.
Got it.
> at which point the only claims made are fairly vague allusions to there being more to the story with even a hint at what that might be.
The goal of my post was mostly to provide "character evidence".
It's not for me to relay accusations made by others that I can't substantiate myself. Some other people did that previously and that is what caused that massive controversy.
> The grievances against Shopify seem pretty legitimate based on the only knowledge we have as outsiders.
My whole post is about how these allegations are horseshit.
But since then, new information came out, you may want to read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45530832, that may change your perspective.
Did he point out how it ended, and how he spent the better part of two years having public tantrums about it on Twitter?
Disclosing that you worked somewhere isn't relevant. Worse, it can easily give the impression that there is some insider knowledge involved.
What is relevant is how the relationship ended.
> Let's add here that YOU also worked at Shopify, until recently.
Yes, and I left over some major disagreements, hence if I have a bias, it would be against Shopify, not in favor.
We don’t have multiple first hand accounts. All we have is second hand account being relayed by someone with a massive axe to grind against Shopify.
There are a lot of truly committed Rubyists at Shopify, particularly the one handling the relationship with Ruby Central.
The idea that Shopify had done what Joel aledges without a single one of the involved parties on the Shopify side blowing the whistle is preposterous.
Ruby Central wanted to oust one or two specific maintainers because of a rocky relationship (whether it was warranted or not is not my point).
It later backfired when a majority of the other maintainers resigned.
> They could start to gatekeep or even worse add some sort of paid version.
That's a funny accusation given that's something the ousted maintainers now behind gem.coop wanted to do a while ago.
That's entirely unsubstantiated.
My understanding is that having a legally enforceable contract help dissuade malevolent actions (easier to sue for breach of contract? But IANAL).
As for copyright attribution, I doubt it. That ship has sailed, that code base already contains contributions from hundreds of people, and I can’t really imagine a business model that would rely on relicensing.
Based on previous posts, they did revoke everyone GitHub access, but with the intent to give it back to some maintainers after they signed some sort of contributor agreement.
However on the package publishing side, you can see that on Sept 20 3 people had access [0], hsbt, deivid and colby.
If you compare to aug 24, there was also andre, sebgiddins and rubymorillo (no idea who that is).
So that leads me to believe they had the intention to keep him, even more so because he was still contracting with them. AFAICT the intent was to remove accesses to former employees who left to start their own consultancy.
So to me, that post from RC checks out, and I think they were very well aware of who was contributing what.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20250920140646/https://rubygems.... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250824033341/https://rubygems....
Edit: answering myself on who rubymorillo was, it's someone who didn't commit in that gem since 2018: https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/commits?author=rubymori...
So yeah, permission management at Ruby Central did indeed seem to have been a huge mess. Not excusing the extremely poor rollout, but some cleanup was definitely overdue...
He posted on the rubygems slack that he left and is conditioning his return on all other maintainers being reinstated.
It's exposing events that have been somewhat of an semi-open secret among Ruby maintainers for a very long time.
The link with the current events is that so far, neither Ruby Central nor Shopify have responded to Joel Drapper accusations, so the vast majority of people only have one side of the story.
Justin is just explaining why, based on what he knows of one of the main protagonists's character, he'd rather reserve judgment. Which also happens to be my stance ever since this thing started.
For multiple years now, I've heard more than one people involved in Ruby Central telling me they were very worried of the Ruby Central relationship with André. Whether they had reasons to be worried or whether they were blowing it out of proportion, I can't say for sure. All I can say is that there was massive trust issues.
Whether he actually did something that triggered the recent events, or whether RC or Shopify tried to act proactively I don't know either. But I can only suspect that RC and Shopify are not speaking out, or at least are slow at doing it, because of potential legal consequence.
NB: Until not long ago, I was employed by Shopify, if I still was today I wouldn't be writing this comment.
He’s one of the most active Japanese Ruby core committer, employed by ANPAD, and also part time contractor for Ruby Central, and one of the most active committers to rubygems/bundler.
[0] https://rubygems.org/gems/bundler
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250824033341/https://rubygems....
The other people I know who had their accesses removed have resigned from RC a while ago, and the one I still see with access on https://rubygems.org/gems/bundler are people I know are currently employed or contractors.
As far as I can tell, this part of the Ruby Central statement seems to check out. Now you can of course debate whether commit rights should be limited to employees, but have have no indication that they lied here.