paxcoder

Can you clarify what exactly is so impressive about this software? I read the article, and I don't see it.

If you turn JS off, you'll still see a mole in the position which signifies your visited subset of tested-for addresses. If you inspect the code, each position has multiple anchor elements, the last of which has an onclick right now. All you'd have to do is add a href to it.

Did zapping you made it disappear?

You imply that indentation isn't a part of Python's grammar...

Would be nice if someone could update the previous NixOS vs GuixSD discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8246338

GNU/Linux distribution with revertible package management.

EDIT: I believe that my description is more accurate and if I am wrong I would like to be corrected. But I'd appreciate if you didn't downvote me simply because I use the term "GNU/Linux". I don't downvote you if you use the kernel's name for the entire OS. Thanks.

Python's grammar is context-sensitive until the lexer processes indentation. There are other programming languages whose grammar is context-free.

I believe you have adopted your opinion of what should go into the first set of brackets of yours.

An engineer is expected to allot too much time to math to turn out unfamiliar with it. I think we should spend less effort on practicing cleaning fish and more on learning to forage for fish.

It's a teacher's job to motivate students and find ways to effectively communicate to them their knowledge.

A "master" may not be able to or want to be a teacher. I would urge such persons to refrain from appearing to teach, and to try and become teachers first.

XMPP and WebSockets are complementary, not mutually exclusive.

I've heard this said numerous times, so I'm going to disagree on the record. I think syntax of a programming language is a very important characteristic.

A language with a nice syntax is easier to learn, easier to read and understand, and delightful to write.

Crystal's syntax is a great differentiator between it and its statically typed, garbage-collecting competition.

Git's author felt the alternative (gratis) systems were lacking. Noms's author, on the contrary, praises Git but doesn't build on it. He chooses to implement the same technology himself, and from the docs it's not clear to me why that is.

Pretty impressive work but seems like reinventing wheels. Why wasn't it built upon existing tech?

I think the docs should enumerate the most important differences and use cases for which it should be a better fit.

Did anyone invest the effort and time to figure out how secure and practical this is?

I'm sorry but I don't see how this is an answer to my question.

Ok, then why are we spending years learning "spelling"?

So why are years of studying math insufficient for one to be "familiar" with it?

Unfortunately, the free version of Foundation, the library that implements the features lacking in Swift's standard library is still dreadfully incomplete (eg. networking is unusable).

You are not a role model (anymore, at least). Don't set up people for failure, or alternatively, an unhealthy lifestyle like yours.

Whatever phisique requires steroids to achieve is literally too big and anyone who is not into bodybuilding will think that.

I do not appreciate this clickbait joke.

In the interest of objectivity, I'd change the title to read "Open Core" instead of "Open Source"

Are you saying that early C learners who do not place the asterisk near the type have an easier time understanding the same?

Copyleft means that the derivative work should have been published under a compatible license (providing at least the same freedoms - in practice often the same license). The act of publishing does not automatically place the derivative work under the same or a compatible license; it means that the derivative work violates copyright and that the its author is liable for damages (unless fair use applies).

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and I am not liable for anyone taking above as legal advice.

>People who write the asterisk next to the type often have a hard time understanding this.

Why do you think so?

Why do you think they've stopped using NOSA? The page claims to show 253 projects and in the same time contains 239 occurrences of "NASA Open Source 3.0" which, for some reason, is the name of links to https://opensource.org/licenses/NASA-1.3

It's not even free software!

NASA Open Source Agreement license is not approved by the Free Software Foundation because its "original creation" clause bars derivatives combining third-party code.

The fact that this non-copyleft license is approved by the Open Source Initiative is as far as I know, the only thing that makes free software a proper subset of open source software.

I reckon that wasn't any ordinary lady. I thought this was going to be about the psychology of the mob, but it seems it was about its spirituality, so to say.

The company logo? Why? Would you please get the copyleft glyph in it? Seems more important.

I always substantiate any of my one-liners. In this particular case see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11836930 . Few things are more deserving of "snarky" treatment.

The other two (chronologically disordered) examples are a product of my indignation with an obstinate person who wasted people's time and, brazenly ignoring their arguments as well as my own, continued arguing FUD.

Bottom point: I am not malicious and I contribute. So I'd appreciate if the trigger was not pulled on me even though it's probably the only way to get one's comments removed from here :-/

I'm happy to see the 0.0.0 release - it means that I might just be using this some day. Few weeks ago, having not heard about the project for a while, I was afraid it had become vapourware.