4 ms·

Using Facebook's software supports Facebook. I think the industry should move away from that instead of adopting more of their technology. Programmers should st

Using Facebook's software supports Facebook. I think the industry should move away from that instead of adopting more of their technology. Programmers should start considering these things. Alternatives: Elm, Purescript, etc. Edit: I recommend stopping and thinking a bit about ethics of technology choices before reactively downvoting.

kevmo314 8y ago
One reason I don't use Elm and Purescript is that enforcing the purity of functions can be a pain. While pure functions are great in theory, sometimes having a non-pure function is much easier, and I'm okay with my codebase being 99% pure functions.
- purescript 8y ago
  PureScript has a lenient FFI so you can choose to use 99% pure functions if you like (at your own risk).
- JoshMnem 8y ago
  My point is more about ethics in tech than a specific language. I expected downvotes, but wish that the industry were different.
scottmf 8y ago
We can always fork these things if it comes down to it.
- JoshMnem 8y ago
  If it were going to be forked, then it would already have been forked. The unethical nature of Facebook is not well-hidden.
tfranco 8y ago
Interesting... we covered ELM a few weeks ago: https://www.imaginarycloud.com/blog/elm-javascript-reinvented-1-overview/ https://www.imaginarycloud.com/blog/elm-javascript-reinvente...
simplify 8y ago
Of all Facebook tech, this is the least "Facebook" of them all. ReasonML is a thin layer on top of OCaml, a language that's been around for decades. If Facebook one day abandons Reason, it would their loss more than anyone else's.
- JoshMnem 8y ago
  That doesn't really address the issue that the use of Facebook's software supports Facebook. The industry needs to pay more attention to the long-term results of its choices and actions.
  - simplify 8y ago
    I'm not sure what the connection is here. Is it because Facebook sponsored development of Reason? Should we consider not using anything that Facebook touches? What if Facebook pays a developer to work on another popular library like Vue.js? Should we consider stop using Vue?
    - jazoom 8y ago
      Maybe we can think of this as Facebook's payment to us for using our data.
    - JoshMnem 8y ago
      As far as I know, they aren't a sponsor of the project -- they own the project (as opposed to something like Cassandra). Companies release these libraries because they benefit the companies. The successes of projects like React help Facebook. I think that people who believe that Facebook is an unethical company should consider alternative technologies on new projects whenever possible.
      - simplify 8y ago
        > Companies release these libraries because they benefit the companies. The successes of projects like React help Facebook. The success of projects like Haskell and OCaml help Facebook too. Should we consider not using those technologies? It seems the only difference you can point out is that Facebook "owns" React. But this doesn't make any practical difference when it comes to open source. It's like public transportation. If Facebook sponsors a high-speed railway that benefits both them and two cities, so what? That's great for everyone. If you were talking about a paid SaaS run by Facebook, then I would agree with you. That would be more analogous to supporting Uber than supporting public transportation.
kodablah 8y ago
Completely agree. We all have to capitulate sometimes, but rarely with new, less-used tech. I have the same feeling towards GraalVM. Sure we may use Java, React, etc because their ecosystem outweighs their maintainers but that doesn't mean we have to with lesser-adopted things. Reduced adoption is also the best, least-judging way we can send messages to high quality developers that remain at these places.
- JoshMnem 8y ago
  There are alternatives to React too, like Vue.
spraak 8y ago
Hm I've been saying that for a while but no one seems to understand the connection, or care.
- JoshMnem 8y ago
  It takes time. Everyone who considers these issues should speak up.

kevmo314 8y ago

One reason I don't use Elm and Purescript is that enforcing the purity of functions can be a pain. While pure functions are great in theory, sometimes having a non-pure function is much easier, and I'm okay with my codebase being 99% pure functions.

purescript 8y ago
PureScript has a lenient FFI so you can choose to use 99% pure functions if you like (at your own risk).
JoshMnem 8y ago
My point is more about ethics in tech than a specific language. I expected downvotes, but wish that the industry were different.

scottmf 8y ago

We can always fork these things if it comes down to it.

JoshMnem 8y ago
If it were going to be forked, then it would already have been forked. The unethical nature of Facebook is not well-hidden.

tfranco 8y ago

Interesting... we covered ELM a few weeks ago: https://www.imaginarycloud.com/blog/elm-javascript-reinvented-1-overview/ https://www.imaginarycloud.com/blog/elm-javascript-reinvente...

simplify 8y ago

Of all Facebook tech, this is the least "Facebook" of them all. ReasonML is a thin layer on top of OCaml, a language that's been around for decades. If Facebook one day abandons Reason, it would their loss more than anyone else's.

JoshMnem 8y ago
That doesn't really address the issue that the use of Facebook's software supports Facebook. The industry needs to pay more attention to the long-term results of its choices and actions.
- simplify 8y ago
  I'm not sure what the connection is here. Is it because Facebook sponsored development of Reason? Should we consider not using anything that Facebook touches? What if Facebook pays a developer to work on another popular library like Vue.js? Should we consider stop using Vue?
  - jazoom 8y ago
    Maybe we can think of this as Facebook's payment to us for using our data.
  - JoshMnem 8y ago
    As far as I know, they aren't a sponsor of the project -- they own the project (as opposed to something like Cassandra). Companies release these libraries because they benefit the companies. The successes of projects like React help Facebook. I think that people who believe that Facebook is an unethical company should consider alternative technologies on new projects whenever possible.
    - simplify 8y ago
      > Companies release these libraries because they benefit the companies. The successes of projects like React help Facebook. The success of projects like Haskell and OCaml help Facebook too. Should we consider not using those technologies? It seems the only difference you can point out is that Facebook "owns" React. But this doesn't make any practical difference when it comes to open source. It's like public transportation. If Facebook sponsors a high-speed railway that benefits both them and two cities, so what? That's great for everyone. If you were talking about a paid SaaS run by Facebook, then I would agree with you. That would be more analogous to supporting Uber than supporting public transportation.

kodablah 8y ago

Completely agree. We all have to capitulate sometimes, but rarely with new, less-used tech. I have the same feeling towards GraalVM. Sure we may use Java, React, etc because their ecosystem outweighs their maintainers but that doesn't mean we have to with lesser-adopted things. Reduced adoption is also the best, least-judging way we can send messages to high quality developers that remain at these places.

JoshMnem 8y ago
There are alternatives to React too, like Vue.

spraak 8y ago

Hm I've been saying that for a while but no one seems to understand the connection, or care.

JoshMnem 8y ago
It takes time. Everyone who considers these issues should speak up.