Now I haven't done any scientific polling, but my informal anecdotal experience is so overwhelmingly to the contrary that I'm comfortable believing that consensus isn't determining policy here.
> To build a theorem prover you need to take away some capability (namely, the ability to do general recursion - the base language must be total and can't be Turing complete), not add new capabilities. In Haskell everything can be "undefined" which means that you can prove everything (even things that are supposed to be false).
Despite what the fanatical constructivists (as opposed to the ones who simply think it's pragmatically nice) seem to want us to think, it turns out that you can prove interesting things with LEM (AKA call/cc) and classical logic.
I meant more that symbols are a data structure with function and value slots. Last I knew strings, interned (which is also a Lisp reference) or not don't have that.
This has been true in the USA since approximately 1965, at least. Analysis has shown the general public has absolutely no say in policy making; literally everything is for this or that influential “special interest.”
This is borne out in the erosion of what we now euphemistically call the middle class along basically every dimension that matters.
Some of the heat here is on account of members of this community are, or at least are used to being, special interests that have had a powerful voice in previous administrations and less of one in the current one. But let’s not pretend this is some sort of creeping fascism, it’s just a different faction of elites making their own plays.
Asynchrony, parallelism, concurrency, and even deterministic execution (albeit as a degenerate case) are all just species of nondeterminism. Dijkstra and Scholten’s work on the subject is sadly under appreciated. And lest one thing this was ivory tower stuff, before he was a professor Dijkstra was a systems engineer writing operating systems on hilariously bad, by our standards, hardware.
> *Apparently there are some legal systems, particularly in Europe, where the costs of taking Big Tech to court are lower. You’d have to ask your lawyer about that. The time and willpower aspects may be similar though.
I’m not a lawyer, let alone a European lawyer, but I’ve heard that the drain-their-bankroll-with-spurious-motions technique that’s beloved by shithead corporations and their attorneys when they have no case isn’t practicable in most European jurisdictions. This is because even at the motion filing level, loser pays. So drowning you in garbage motions just gives your lawyer an easy payday.
Has Wayland adoption really been so slow because of technical reasons, or because of its developers and advocates observably abysmal social skills?
Edit: I know that could kind of sound incendiary, but let's consider the facts. We're talking about a project that has been competing with a dead competitor for 15 years and is still struggling to get mainstream acceptance. There's something seriously dysfunctional going on.
I was counting on this concept as competitive advantage.
But since the algorithm isn't going to surface me anyhow, for giggles I'll say I'm leaning more toward darcs than git.