cyclohexane

joined 3 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't look much into void, but when I did, gentoo's repository is much larger and there are many packages that I'd call obscure that happen to be in the main repos.

The situations I've had to reach to guru are rare. I bet that gentoo has more obscure stuff in its main repo, though I don't have the numbers to prove it.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Any examples other than ocaml? From my understanding, ocaml's type strength may only be found in a couple other languages. Haskell, scala, and maybe Rust. Any others?

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

GURU is source only

Is void different? Does it have a user repository that provides binaries directly?

My familiarity is with AUR, which does not provide the binaries directly. I suppose you can write a PKGBUILD that only installs a binary, but you could do the same with ebuild.

On binary support, I imagine you're right. Binary support in gentoo is new. I imagine it will only get better.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Comparing cost to AWS Aurora is unfair. Give us the self host price, and compare to that.

Also, they should have tried Scylla or Cassandra. It's very scalable and handles a lot of writes.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

You already said it, but even if you want mostly binaries, gentoo is becoming a distribution that can do that. So I don't think this is something that sets them apart.

Plus, gentoo handles compilations so well, it is almost as simple as binary package managers.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Why b-1 instead of just b votes? "because the vote could've otherwise went to B" well it could've also went to T, but I don't see you accounting for it as t-1.

This math has a double standard.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

The author would likely really enjoy gentoo. Imo it has all those benefits and a little more, plus its more popular.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I won't remember everything, but one very important things comes to mind:

in Typescript, it is very difficult to assert on a type (let me know if you're not familiar with what I mean by this and I can explain further). In OCaml, this is trivial using pattern matching.

Why would you need that? The idea of a type system is it doesn't let you apply a function on a structure without the structure being of the right type. But the lack of type assertion in TS makes people follow hacky workarounds, which defeat the purpose of type system.

There are a couple of other things, like immutable types by default, automatic tail call optimization, functors enabling higher kinded types, etc.

Also in ocaml, you don't have to annotate any types on any variable or parameter, and you'll still get full type protection.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Move account to another unethical, profit driven bank or?

Y'all still believe in the illusion of choice / opt-out in capitalism.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Its increasingly difficult to block 100% of possible ads, but good luck

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The only valid argument against typescript is that it is too similar to vanilla JavaScript. It does not go far enough. We need type systems like Ocaml's.

I suppose you can also complain about needing a build step, but I find this silly. There are so many tools that make this easy or automatic.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I have two arguments: first, it's not true that the OSI coined the term. But more importantly, it isn't even important if it was true. What matters is the context in which the open source movement emerged, and how people who use the term think of it.

The open source / free software movement was born in universities who primarily wanted to erase the barriers on collaboration between them, and wanted to follow an open model. They grew frustrated of the proprietary and opaque model of software written by major corporations. They could not use it. So they decided to write their own free software and combine their efforts to not rely on corporate or proprietary software.

Back then, corporations were uninterested in open source. In fact they were hostile to it and wanted it to die. The issue that we deal with today of corporations leeching on open source did not exist, so the fact that the movement did not specifically fight this does not mean they're okay with it. The corporate hostility took a different form and that's what they combatted.

On OSI coining the term, the OSI themselves claim it was coined by Christine Peterson. They do not claim that they founded the term, nor that the founder had an affiliation with them: https://opensource.org/history

view more: ‹ prev next ›