Because it makes me laugh that they actually believe that the measures they're taking will somehow benefit the United States.
It also makes me laugh that they think they can control the development of open standards.
1,071 karma · joined April 1, 2019
It also makes me laugh that they think they can control the development of open standards.
This is just comedy.
npm sucks and all, but at least it just works and doesn't get in my way as much.
I don't think it's about preferring one approach or the other.
A good library/framework should have both instructional documentation and reference documentation. They have different use-cases and are not interchangeable.
For example: I don't think anyone would seriously defend the idea that brainfuck is a reasonable language to write production code in.
1 + 2;
std::add(1, 2);
std::int(1).add(std::int(2));
That's is not orthogonal at all, since we have 3 different ways to do the same thing for no discernible reason.
An orthogonal interface is one where there are fewer reasonable ways to do something, and each function/operation has it's role clearly defined, it doesn't try to do things unrelated to its main role, and the interface doesn't mix different layers of abstraction (like intertwining OOP and arithmetic in my 3rd example, when there already are native arithmetic operations).
That's completely out of scope for a programming language pretending to be taken seriously as a general purpose one (including e.g. systems programming).
Also, your list looks like a pretty arbitrary choice of protocols and formats, why don't we also add support for SSH, SMPT, IMAP, PNG?. In the end, everyone would want their niche protocol/format to be included in the standard.
> the dream: compliant compilers must be able to compile down to static binaries, cross compiling built-in.
Cross-compiling to what architectures specifically? The most used ones are proprietary and I think that disqualifies them from being included in a serious international standard, since you'd need to read the spec and implement it in order to be compliant (I'm not versed in ISO inclusion requirements, so this may be already happening, but it would still be wrong. (grepping "x86" in the offical C standard returns no results though.)).
That's perfect. People who don't use cars don't have to indirectly subsidize those who do.
They don't have the right to know where I go.
I learned just recently that Microsoft Visual Studio is completely different from Visual Studio Code.
Now that I think about it, for most people it seems to simply be an issue of good vs bad.
Maybe I expected too much of them.
It's not bad, objectively speaking, but its design opinions are the polar opposite of mine.
If there was a command line tool for Taylor's theorem,I would prefer the one with generalized interface instead of the one that arbitrarily decided that n=1 was the standard case.
> If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up. Not because it doesn't like me...
> My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for.
These quotes are too individualistic to be "commie".
That's the coolest phrase I've read today. What would someone from before Bitcoin think about that?
Otherwise, we could also argue that iPhones are a humanitarian disaster.
Another example of this is chrome hiding "trivial" parts of the URL. i.e. any subdomain that coincides with "www" or "m".