okraigher

3 ms·

1.
by okraigher 3y ago
I would not care so much about the definition of open source. My ideal scenario is that code is open, can be improved and reused among commercial and non-commercial endeavors. I also would like that some of the value created by users of the
2.
by okraigher 3y ago
Yes I think it needs to be centralized and aggregated. I am sure many companies realize that they gain value from open source. Thus they are willing to pay something. However they do not want to handle transactions with every transitive dep
3.
by okraigher 3y ago
I think an open source compensation system could work similar to how artists are payed when their song is played on the radio. Radio stations in Sweden pay a fee to an organisation which distributes the money to artists in proportion to the
4.
by okraigher 4y ago
Why not use an open source license that requires payment for commercial use? Then technically companies have to pay for their use and should have no problem justifying the expense if it is small. In this model there is probably a use case f
5.
by okraigher 4y ago
One thing that makes it so fast is the multi-core analysis of the code. Internally it parses every file in parallel since at the parsing stage there are no dependencies. When it comes to semantic analysis of the code it will compute the dep
6.
by okraigher 4y ago
It depends on what you mean by possible. The vhdl_lang crate solves many hard problems required to do document generation such as parsing, disambiguation and connecting references. It solves it in a much more complete and better way then a
7.
by okraigher 4y ago
What did you lack with GHDL-LS? GHDL is a great open simulator with very good support for VHDL but it was not designed to be a language server.
8.
Show HN: Fast VHDL language server written in Rust(github.com)
3 points by okraigher 4y ago|5 comments