After the leader of a substantial project disappears, in the ~20 minutes of incidental contact you have with the issue after having only just been introduced to it having not stumbled over a particular discussion out of sheer dumb fucking luck, you conclude that means the discussion never occurred. Do you really think that's a sound conclusion?
Let me put it this way, do you really think that, in the three months since this person disappeared, out of the dozens of people who have a far closer relationship to him than you do and a far greater personal stake in his wellbeing, that you are really the first person to consider whether something might have happened—to the point that you're comfortable to grandstand with a public indictment about how "sad" their behavior is?
What's with all the legal bluster in your comments here? Not only do the liabilities you're trying to conjure up not exist, but this is not even the first occurrence of something like this happening with GitHub. They have a documented policy for freeing up inactive names. (Spoiler alert: it's allowed, and they've done it.)
This is a genuine case of survivorship bias in action.
I guarantee you that there are people not using Clang or writing, let's say, C++ because of slow compile times. You just never hear about how much they hate using them, because those people no longer are using them.
> Great systems also have advice. There's no universally accepted name for this feature. Sometimes it's called hooks, or filters, or aspect-oriented programming. As far as I know, Lisp had it first, and it's called advice in Lisp. Advice is a mini-framework that provides before, around, and after hooks by which you can programmatically modify the behavior of some action or function call in the system. Not all advice systems are created equal. The more scope that is given to an advice system — that is, the more reach it has in the system it's advising — the more powerful the parent system will be.
A "Have you considered..." question asks for a "yes" or "no".
A "Why[...]" question asks for why.
Assuming that "Why didn't you just do X?" isn't really just a disingenuous way to say, "you're an idiot; do it this way instead", then you should ask for what you want and ask the why question, not the yes-or-no question. In the case that it is a disingenuous question, then that's something that's covered adequately by #5. Suggesting the avoidance of sarcasm is already broadly applicable enough to cover using questions when you really mean to make a statement. (Which is not specific to code reviews—it's as obnoxious in real life.)
It's vulnerable in that whichever threshold N that you choose allows for N participants to conspire to publish ahead of time, or M - N to conspire not to publish after the fact.
IIRC, it didn't really let up. I don't have a reference, but I vaguely recall something that, if not an official recantation, was akin to the general sentiment of backpeddling from the original stance, although I may be misremembering. In any case, the forthcoming concerted effort to go all-in on JS-for-Gnome didn't really happen as that post suggests it would.
A couple months after the fomentatious announcement linked above, GitHub quietly started work on Atom Shell and then a year later released Atom and Electron under MIT. What a massive lost opportunity for the Gnome folks to take advantage of the lead they'd set up for themselves instead of bowing to the vocal pressure! Had that not been the case, GTK+JS might've been the go-to framework for rapid cross-platform desktop app development in the instances where people are reaching for Electron today. (And that recurring plea for more "native" UIs would never be heard—or at the very least there'd be a straightforward path to migrate codebases to native in a piecemeal fashion if there was any motivation to do so.)
GTK already has JS bindings. If you're running Gnome, then substantial parts of what you're seeing and interacting with on your desktop is JS.
The Gnome folks tried anointing JS as the de jure development language across the Gnome project (i.e., for apps, too) a few years back, but there was a minor backlash. Unfortunately, Electron came along within the next year or so has since snagged most of the mindshare that was up for grabs after they backpeddled a bit. You can write JS apps, but it's not a prominent park of the environment outside of Gnome Shell and extensions, AFAIK. The documentation is pretty lacking.
GJS is SpiderMonkey under the hood—the same JS engine used in Firefox. It would be interesting to see if XS were an improvement for Gnome. Web browsers are subject to constraints that aren't necessarily a relevant factor for static packages downloaded from your distro vendor. For example, it looks like XS/Kinoma/Moddable supports AOT compilation, which could be a win.
Metrics here look like they focus on RAM and not on speed of computation.
On the softer side, GTK folks do favor C, and the explicit endorsement of (L)GPLv3 is worth brownie points in that circle. (SpiderMonkey is written in C++, and MPL2 is compatible with (L)GPL, but its copyleft is weaker and allows more permissive use.)
In any case, this project is really neat. I only wish I'd heard about it back in 2015.
That's people doing margins wrong. They see a CSS property called 'margin' and go for that, which ends up only working well for displays and window sizes comparable to their own. What they should be using 'margin' for is to specify the minimum outer padding and combine it with 'max-width' to allow the browser to apply flexible margins appropriate for whatever window size the reader actually has.
The projects emerging to build a P2P Web bring an additional non-monetary reward system to this, which is that in return for publishing good content, you get readers/viewers who are willing to help offload server costs.
The naive implementation might work by simply reseeding, say, the Wikipedia articles you've already got in your browser cache to whomever is also interested in them.
There are also UI concepts, however, to give you fine control over how much and how long you're willing to help seed. (Like [1].)
The latter might end up being the currency of low-friction microtransactions that actually stands a chance of taking off. The downsides here are that it only helps in offsetting distribution costs, but it's not good for turning a profit (i.e., funding the creator's real life living situation). It might be fruitful to create a more fungible currency on these principles, though.
1. The ReactOS project's implementation of Windows APIs is purely for compatibility reasons; on the other hand, Android's implementation was not meant as a compatibility layer for existing apps. (In fact, that Android didn't implement a compatibility layer was a huge sticking point for the Sun contingent within Oracle—although if we're honest, we know the motivations for Oracle proper are the dollar signs.) It wouldn't be a good idea to try and draw direct parallels between the two.
2. Oracle v Google still isn't over, so even drawing any inferences about Oracle v Google itself would be premature.
3. The copyright holder here is MS. Any action on their part to go after ReactOS now be the undoing of all the goodwill they've built in the Nadella/MS-on-GitHub era. The result would be (a) a bunch of I-told-you-sos from the leery folks still holding on to their grudges today, and (b) a massive, massive, innoculating "fool me once…" reaction among the folks who'd actually been made suckers for not heeding the grudgeholders' warnings. All in all, it would be a spectacularly bad idea for MS at this point, especially given how much weaker their empire has already gotten in the last decade.
So you've decided to double down on the not-knowing-what-you're-talking-about thing? It would have taken you less time to look up the relevant facts than typing out that comment. Besides that, the whole thing reeks of post-hoc argumentation. This will be my last comment in this thread.
Let me put it this way, do you really think that, in the three months since this person disappeared, out of the dozens of people who have a far closer relationship to him than you do and a far greater personal stake in his wellbeing, that you are really the first person to consider whether something might have happened—to the point that you're comfortable to grandstand with a public indictment about how "sad" their behavior is?
You are the worst kind of person. Fuck you.