in the language that CS professors are oddly convinced will make your code more reliable.
What they miss is that forcing the programer to spend 95 percent of his time jumping through pointless hoops, working around type restrictions making up types and putting down boilerplate makes the code too full of cruft to read, too long to understand, too unwieldy to change.
This is why I prefer to write in Ruby or Lua or Python or Scheme. Scheme may have an unreadable syntax, but it's the most powerful of the bunch and you can implement the most advanced things in the shortest code. It turns out the functionality is more important than syntax... Still its syntax is unacceptably bad. Ruby is unacceptably slow and needs more straighforward metaprogramming but it's the second most powerful in the list.
I'm pretty sure that making money off of "hours of getting yiffed by random furries" would fall under prostitution rather than a ponzi scheme. But you'd lose your profits on drycleaning.
Will never happen. Also "we'll nuke you" was misspelled, you meant "we'll nuke whoever we can convince you is to blame - some random enemy. Like how we went after Iraq."
Yep this shows a similar attitude but isn't what I originally wrote about. More than one thing has happened in the history of the world, but your brain can't handle the concept of two.
Nonsense. He's taking useful features out for fear that the software will be so useful that people will use it without complying with the license. Only a fanatic would not call that "making software worse"
Basically if the GPL code is in a totally separate process or I compile it into the kernel, no problem!:/ So? That's not how most software can or should be written.
If you're using the heat of the pc to keep warm, then there's no inefficiency in using the power to generate bitcoins.
Actually that sounds like a conservation of energy violation. Isn't there SOME loss of heat in creating order, information inside a computer?
If calculation generates heat exactly as efficiently as every other use of electricity that doesn't generate "work" then all heaters should be generating bitcoins or folding proteins or something.
I googled a little, if I'd found the link I would have included it.
Lets face it though, LLVM started as an educational project, for years people complained that it was too pedagogical (and too fancy) to ever run quickly.
Right, but since no one else can relicense your software and make a real project using it, it's only non-GPL'd software that's useful to working people. It's the non-GPL stuff that's more free in real usage.
the issue is, can people make money selling software? You know, contributing to their own survival and success. Both for individuals and companies. RMS doesn't care about that.
Slashdot Mirror
Poe's law.
The sad thing is that I've seen articles from people who really believe this. Long rants...
as java
in the language that CS professors are oddly convinced will make your code more reliable.
What they miss is that forcing the programer to spend 95 percent of his time jumping through pointless hoops, working around type restrictions making up types and putting down boilerplate makes the code too full of cruft to read, too long to understand, too unwieldy to change.
This is why I prefer to write in Ruby or Lua or Python or Scheme. Scheme may have an unreadable syntax, but it's the most powerful of the bunch and you can implement the most advanced things in the shortest code. It turns out the functionality is more important than syntax... Still its syntax is unacceptably bad. Ruby is unacceptably slow and needs more straighforward metaprogramming but it's the second most powerful in the list.
I'm pretty sure that making money off of "hours of getting yiffed by random furries" would fall under prostitution rather than a ponzi scheme. But you'd lose your profits on drycleaning.
Will never happen. Also "we'll nuke you" was misspelled, you meant "we'll nuke whoever we can convince you is to blame - some random enemy. Like how we went after Iraq."
The public would never have come up with (or voted for) The Bill of Rights on it's own. People are assholes.
So now technology has outpaced freedom. And, mostly, people will day "yay! Those annoying other people will get theirs!"
super rich and powerful. If it ever does.
Yep this shows a similar attitude but isn't what I originally wrote about. More than one thing has happened in the history of the world, but your brain can't handle the concept of two.
So if you calculate the sum and the difference so that no information is lost then you have less heat?
Nonsense. He's taking useful features out for fear that the software will be so useful that people will use it without complying with the license. Only a fanatic would not call that "making software worse"
It was obvious to me, even not knowing about this moronic manifesto that the GPL license (not LGPL) is harmful to programmers.
I was always surprised that so many people accepted it without thinking the implications through.
IN THE REAL WORLD, the GPL doesn't make society "post scarcity" it just lowers the value and therefore salary of software engineers.
a parody.
Basically if the GPL code is in a totally separate process or I compile it into the kernel, no problem! :/ So? That's not how most software can or should be written.
in a separate process that you don't link to, in a separate computer, and send it into space so it's not on the same planet.
No wonder you've never heard of that, you're too stupid to understand abstraction.
software in your own software. But you can't because then you can't control the license of your own software.
You can use LGPL with your software and still control the license if you only link it and don't use it in a more embedded form.
And you missed that you can only use GLIBC because it's not GPL it's LGPL
the market value of software down to zero."
Citation PLEASE? That would be important.
that says you must share *all* of your code simply because it uses some LGPL library somewhere.
If it's full GPL you do, if it's LGPL you don't.
That's why everything useful is LGPL instead of GPL.
You could argue that LGPL isn't compatible with GPL and shouldn't be included in Linux >.>
with Lesser GPL. But I was talking about relicensing.
If you're using the heat of the pc to keep warm, then there's no inefficiency in using the power to generate bitcoins.
Actually that sounds like a conservation of energy violation. Isn't there SOME loss of heat in creating order, information inside a computer?
If calculation generates heat exactly as efficiently as every other use of electricity that doesn't generate "work" then all heaters should be generating bitcoins or folding proteins or something.
You didn't go far enough. Obviously BSD is terrorism and imperialist hegemony!
Citation = "I read it some time"
I googled a little, if I'd found the link I would have included it.
Lets face it though, LLVM started as an educational project, for years people complained that it was too pedagogical (and too fancy) to ever run quickly.
GCC isn't so nicely documented.
are "large corporations working on whole operating systems" then you might prefer GNU.
If you care about regular programmers and projects of the size they might invent then you don't want GNU.
Right, but since no one else can relicense your software and make a real project using it, it's only non-GPL'd software that's useful to working people. It's the non-GPL stuff that's more free in real usage.
the issue is, can people make money selling software? You know, contributing to their own survival and success. Both for individuals and companies. RMS doesn't care about that.
I use both.
I get impressed by how much better for my needs a lot of free software is than Microsoft's bloat though.