> The explicit safety target that FAA and other regulators have settled on is that catastrophic events should be “extremely improbable,” meaning one per billion flight-hours. The regulation of this kind of aviation is nothing short of maniacal.
If you understood the problem then you’d know that their argument is about how Unity’s new pricing change is retroactive, affecting all Unity versions and charging fees to devs for games made years ago.
Unreal uses perpetual licenses for their versions meaning this kind of bullshit behavior is not possible
> Epic is not doing this out of the goodness of their heart, they're doing it because it is beneficial to them. Epic is a multi-billion dollar corporation part owned by a massive conglomerate.
Holy straw man! And there’s certainly no self-interest involved with me using their engine without giving them a cut under 1 mill right?
You can make this argument about literally anything.
Godot must have no self-interest in releasing their engine for free and making $30k a month to develop their project.
Who cares what the motivation is if it gives real benefits to devs. If anything it tells me they’ve picked a business model that’s mutually beneficial unlike Unity
I’ve been trying to use emacs and vim/nvim on and off for a several years now but it always seems like a task in vain. Half of it works and it’s a real pain to get something usable.
I wish I could use Linux but I work in the gaming industry ina company that solely creates windows games so it’s not really an option…
You don’t need to have touch it to see. Just browse this thread. A big one mentioned is over promising, which is pretty interpretive for a language only on version 0.4 of its development cycle. Most other complaints are slight variations of this. Promising magic performance or magic features without a good explanation, is another variation. This would be well and good for a fully released language, which this is not. All that tells me is the creator is overly ambitious for their own good and possibly naive, which I hardly classify as a sin.
Whenever this topic comes up I’m at a loss to understand why anyone would waste so much energy mud slinging over some personal language project. It only makes sense if it’s become a hate meme. My pocket word for an event that’s a sort of social singularity. It occurs when enough popular voices have directed the entirety of a community to shame a target based on some perceived wrong, real or otherwise.
Wherever it comes up I’m pretty taken aback by how tribal and ego focused we can be, even among the smartest of us. And that thought isn’t meant be taken as condescending. After all, we’re only human. And for a larger span of human history, that word has meant “hairless ape” more than anything else.
It became one of those hate memes. A target of irrational fervor among anyone caught in between. If you ask those angered they pull out a list of petty grievances a mile long composed of misleading or highly interpretive wrongs.
I haven’t had the pleasure to try out V yet but I hope this discussion can rise above. Endless bickering leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
I find carbon and the development of a modern replacement for C++ intriguing to watch. But for the life of me I can’t understand why someone would want this over a more mature language like D
This is something I’ve been thinking about for some time, a new type of programming that uses an ai model for parsing. It’s a interesting thought that can lead down many rabbit holes. You could have AI interpret a lot of expressiveness into a language while having an optimizing AI turn whatever crazy thing we come up with into fast code.
For any prospective language designers out there. Please don’t make human based language programming a thing again. That’s an idea that should stay in the waste bin. A language that describes programs shouldn’t be ambiguous. I also wouldn’t trust any AI—no matter how smart—to create code I’d be happy with, unless I could go into very specific detail.
No limits on structure serialization though. Make that a one liner please
I feel like this is mostly a straw man argument or maybe it comes from a lack of experience in functional programming. Functional programming to me is more of a process to problem solving and less organizational. (Though it can be a part of it) Indeed you can combine OOP and functional styles very easily. Scala is a great language that did just that to great success.
Maniacal really? Is the author living in reality?