221–230 of 555 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideological purity is the point. A whole range of other options are available but ideological purity is what Stallman offers, with no expectation that everyone will appreciate its benefits. The very existence of the FSF's offerings is necessary to understand what other positions compromise to obtain other benefits.
Okay, but Stallman's non-purity related bad qualities are a problem for his own mission. Eg, Stallman is reported as creeping women out in the link above. That has nothing to do with his uncompromising ideals regarding software. So maybe Stallman could quietly retire to some sort of metaphorical ivory tower, and keep producing uncompromising ideology, which could be then evangelized by somebody less creepy. There's n…
This starts with simple things like not picking fights with the BSD projects only because they allow non-free software in ports and not alienating many lead developers of the most successful project that uses your license (Linux).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stable project structure is a requirement to survive as an enterprise language, which everyone tries to make it into. It can live with the forks, but only as a toy language.
C++ survives having a GCC variant and a MSVC variant, not to mention whatever half-broken compiler you used to get for your microcontroller code. I would argue the requirement is that each compiler is a stable project. But one language can have multiple compilers that aren't 100% compatible and implement slightly different subsets of the language (as long as there's a common subset libraries can choose to stick to)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just look at LibreOffice. This is a fork of OpenOffice and OpenOffice is dead (at least to me)
OpenOffice isn't dead, they made a release a few months ago this year. https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/announcing-apache-openoff... Last commit made 3 days ago, actively maintained. https://github.com/apache/openoffice
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All this does is creating unnecessary drama surrounding the Rust foundation. This doesn't create drama surrounding the Rust Foundation, this is drama directly caused by the Rust Foundation.
Its actually not. The most recent drama was caused by the Rust Project, not the Rust Foundation, which are two completely separate entities. This seems to be a common misunderstanding which is being spread around here, including the top comment to this post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Forks of a large project seldom survive. The fork died. that is the point. goal or no goal.
It obviously didn't die. It got merged into the original project. That is a great end of a fork.
> Forks of a large project seldom survive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ideological purity is the point. Can a person be ideologically pure and not be an asshole? Or do the two go together (as is alleged with Stallman)?
I agree with throw0101bm but then there are people like Henry Cavill.
I don't see this as a real fork, the same way CentOS isn't (or wasn't) a real fork for RedHat, or Iceweasel wasn't a real fork of Firefox. This seems only meant to be work around the trademark. If all this does is to establish an other, non-trademark encumbered name you can use to refer to the language and the compiler than that could be good.
If a whole slew of things were only available in Crab, the Rust trade mark would be devalued. That would be the one coherent theory of why you would launch such a project and try to get others on board. And it is why Ashley G Williams was commenting in that Register piece on the lack of technical talent (“language designers”) that had jumped ship. Commitment of talent and effort and resources is by and large what makes the trade mark valuable. People who are important to the project leaving is the only useful measure of an effective protest.
Since the Crab project fails to mention any specific people who have signed on, or even who decided to create it, I don’t see it having any impact whatsoever. The Rust Foundation will not feel threatened by this. I suspect the maximum it can be is just another IceWeasel. That is certainly the vision laid out by this person on one of the issues, who despite posting as if they created it, is careful to disclaim any responsibility for the project or to call any of the decisions their own. (Come on!) https://github.com/crablang/crab/issues/14#issuecomment-1508...
It’s also the vision laid out on the website: “promoting the language without worrying about the litigation associated with trademark infringement.” Basically the project has outlined the least ambitious possible goals and apparently nobody is willing to sign their name on it. My advice is to write an open letter and open it for signatures instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stable project structure is a requirement to survive as an enterprise language, which everyone tries to make it into. It can live with the forks, but only as a toy language.
Toy... well, similarly to that of most Rust rewrites of long-established stable projects.
Heard it all a thousand times already.
Here is a good walk-through of the changes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gutR_LNoZw0 I don't particularly care about Rust but one of the reasons I've hesitated to learn / use it was because the project seemed like it was led by woke people that pushed politics into the programming space which imo is completely unnecessary. One thing I've learned by experience is that people who push their political agenda into eve…
Even if the safety is on?