geofft

126 ms·

961.
by geofft 6y ago
Andy Wingo was and still is right, and more people should say it publicly. What he wrote then had been widely believed among many free software developers - including many who had worked closely with the FSF and with GNU - for years, but th
962.
by geofft 6y ago
Well, if neither you nor the GP are willing to be customers of Red Hat, didn't you get exactly what you paid for? Of course putting docs behind a paywall is hostile to non-paying users! So am I! (it's also empirically untrue tha
963.
by geofft 6y ago
You do remember that, a couple years ago, CentOS was a community project with no relation with Red Hat that went rather out of its way to avoid mentioning Red Hat and drawing trademark ire? Also it costs $40/year to get access to the p
964.
by geofft 6y ago
I think that's changed my mind a little bit on this, thanks! I'm mostly surprised they were able to get the abstraction right in advance - did they have an idea of what they might move to? Or did they change the abstraction as the
965.
by geofft 6y ago
In the old days we called that "multiparadigm" and said it was a good thing.
966.
by geofft 6y ago
The good idea of unit testing is repeatable, reliable tests, ideally those that can be run as part of CI before every merge and also on your end-user machine. "Unit" testing imposes an architectural demand on how you do this. What
967.
by geofft 6y ago
I've worked on projects with database swaps, too, but I find it hard to believe that use of abstraction in advance would have helped them. There's a couple of cases. One is that you're using two SQL databases and you're
968.
by geofft 6y ago
What's the alternative here? If you had to change a codebase's usage of ints to uuids, should the original author have used dependency inversion and required an IdentifierFactory that was ints at the time so you could just swap ou
969.
by geofft 6y ago
In my opinion, that's in fact exactly how you should be developing your software. Code is cheap to write, and mostly debt. A software product - a working system that meets some particular need - is not. The distinction is that building
970.
by geofft 6y ago
The thing that strikes me the most about SOLID and the associated suite of practices and doctrines ("clean code," "craftsmanship," etc.) is the complete lack of evidence . What you have is a series of anecdotes from p
971.
by geofft 6y ago
Well, you could outsource those, right? Like isn't this basically the point of services like Stripe Atlas or Pilot - that it should be easier to run a company of 10, with almost all of those 10 people working on the actual product? In
972.
by geofft 6y ago
At that point, why have 1,200 people in a single company? Why not have each team hire each other team as contractors? (This isn't sarcasm, I actually do vaguely suspect the world would be a better place if we did this.)
973.
by geofft 6y ago
Sometimes kids get badly injured climbing on a tiny playground structure, but we don't say "All climbing is unsafe" and stick toddlers halfway up El Capitan.
974.
by geofft 6y ago
Are those the same as the more common radiatori, or are my eyes just not seeing a difference? (Maybe the fisarmoniche are bigger?)
975.
by geofft 6y ago
So that gets at my second question. I would expect that if async mode is working well, it specifically avoids needing libraries to spawn a thread. Or put another way - when Rust removed M:N threading and also shipped out of the box with no
976.
by geofft 6y ago
How would this work? (I do really think this is the right model, I'm just trying to figure out what that model is, exactly. :) ) Let's say I have code like this, in Python asyncio: class ShardedDBClient: async def qu
977.
by geofft 6y ago
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but I think it's either answered by the "What color is your function?" article I linked above, or by the answer that this is exactly why unasync exists and why I suggested th
978.
by geofft 6y ago
https://stackoverflow.com/a/48300537 > One of Trio's weirdest, most controversial decisions is that it takes the position that the existence of a background task is not an implementation detail, and should b
979.
by geofft 6y ago
Well, 'Animats expresses a desire in another comment for functions not to go off and spawn a new thread. I do somewhat agree with that desire - I don't think that this is a problem for performance , but since most of my use of Ru
980.
by geofft 6y ago
I would worry this would end up like Python, where there is a default async executor in the standard library (asyncio) which was previously developed outside of the standard library (Tulip), but a) it's changed a fair bit between versi
981.
by geofft 6y ago
Let me try to rephrase this in a way that doesn't pin the blame on "async enthusiasts" as people, and see if you agree: Many years ago, well before Rust 1.0, Rust used its own M:N threading system, used segmented stacks, had
982.
by geofft 6y ago
This is also a problem over in Python-land. One of the interesting approaches is automatically generating non-async code from async code by editing out the async annotations (at the source level). The Trio folks call this "bleaching&qu
983.
by geofft 6y ago
You're selectively quoting. The important part wasn't that the FSF claims that those licenses are "GPL-Compatible," which nobody disputes; the important part was that the FSF claims that those licenses are "Free So
984.
by geofft 6y ago
The problem is this is kind of ill-defined. If I, an open-source hobbyist, am thinking about incorporating some code from your software into my project which I want to allow unrestricted commercial use of (i.e., which I want to put under
985.
by geofft 6y ago
We're thinking the exact same thing we've been thinking since the Debian Free Software Guidelines were written a quarter century ago: > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of
986.
by geofft 6y ago
Absolutely true. There's a consequence of this that people tend to ignore: You cannot remove the (e.g.) MIT license text from an MIT-licensed work if you redistribute it as GPL. The MIT license gives you "Permission ... subject to
987.
by geofft 6y ago
MIT, Apache, and BSD are "GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses" according to the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatible... I gather you have some meaning of Free Software that is d
988.
by geofft 6y ago
Over a decade ago, I remember that we were debating the merits of CLAs that got all of OpenOffice.org owned by Oracle (cf. https://lwn.net/Articles/443989/ as a random starting point). I really think this was the
989.
by geofft 6y ago
Why are you drawing the line at the US? Worldwide, Apple's share is something like 20-25%. And at the level of a single city, it is very common for a single landlord to own over 60%, if not 100%, of mall space in a city. But anyway - t
990.
by geofft 6y ago
Sure, but I'm disagreeing with the claim that there is no retailer monopoly and that there is an Apple monopoly. Landlords have exclusive use of land, a limited resource. If I am running a clothing brand and I want to have a store in a

More ›