That's a fair point. I have learned so many programming languages and continue to enjoy learning about weird ones that these relatively minor syntax design decisions do not seem like they should be dealbreakers to me, but that likewise means that I am also not the one that they have to worry about appeasing when designing the syntax to attempt to maximize adoption.
bitcrafter
joined 1 year ago
It makes the code icky and hard to debug, and you can simply return new immutable objects for every state change.
It makes the code icky and hard to debug, and you can simply return new immutable objects for every state change.
It makes the code icky and hard to debug, and you can simply return new immutable objects for every state change.
It makes the code icky and hard to debug, and you can simply return new immutable objects for every state change.
- Fear of unfamiliar syntax. This is utterly bogus, but I can bet you that if rust used python style layout and haskell style type signatures, it would still be incredibly niche. Something can wipe the floor with the competition, be rock solid, stable and blazingly fast, but if it’s unfamiliar it will be niche. See elm for front end, for example.
But the weird thing to me is that Rust's syntax is also pretty ~~familiar~~ unfamiliar since it is (just to start) heavily inspired by ML. Does it really just come down to the fact that it has mandatory curly braces and semicolons? It just seems weird to me that this should be the sticking point for people.
Edit: Oops, wrote "familiar" when I meant "unfamiliar".
It makes the code icky and hard to debug, and you can simply return new immutable objects for every state change.
What happens if you use an out of range array subscript a[n]? Does that always return an option type?
I think that you would be surprised by the amount you would learn if you spent five minutes actually trying to answer your own questions, instead of treating them as proof that you just made a relevant point merely by asking them.
I am really confused by what is going on here. Was Neo4j the original author of the code? Because if so, then they can license their own code however they like. The potential sticking point would be if they represented the license as being AGPL3 when it is not because this would be fundamentally misleading, and it sounds like the court agrees that this is a valid concern because it awarded a partial summary judgement that, "The court did affirm that a license created by combining the AGPL with other non-open-source terms cannot be called 'free and open source.'"
It is noteworthy that apparently the Free Software Foundation did not think that this legal case was worth intervening in.
The context is that this entire post is essentially making fun of another post; follow the link to the original post on lemmy.world to see what I mean.