3 ms·
I see some interesting parts in the dsl, but at the same time, I see some warts that would rather be shaved off. For example, requiring (sha256 (base32 "hash"))
by Sanddancer 13y ago
I see some interesting parts in the dsl, but at the same time, I see some warts that would rather be shaved off. For example, requiring (sha256 (base32 "hash")) just adds cruft in my opinion. I'd say exposing a function that handles all that for you, like what nix does, would be better -- something like (hash-sha256 "hash").
Though personally, the licensing section leads a real sour taste in my mouth. Nix's licensing system is much simpler, much less politicized. Simply link to the license directly, leave the commentary elsewhere. Linking to the FSF's reasonings for every license just makes me much less inclined to experiment with it.