Making public goods into voluntarist things like charities isn’t benevolence. Robber barons have no problem giving a pittance to the poor, I’m sure, as long as that keeps them from being “bullied”.

People who look out for themselves and their family only and who wants to make public goods into a voluntarist thing through charities are the problem. They are of no use to anyone except their immediates and are only holding progress back.

The title practically screams opinion piece. No serious outlet would write that at the top of a news piece.

Yes. I’ve noticed that programmers from all over the world are narrow-minded and view things like international, inclusive standards to be “bloat”, preferring a monoculture since that would make things simpler (technically simpler, which is all that matters if you have no sense of aesthetics or culture).

But now I guess it’s a landing page with a bunch of tags at the start. That’s not a good development in my opinion.

Because here’s the rub: it’s not like people are addicted or have to have these services—it’s more like they are addicted or have to be a part of the network effect of these services. (Oh I don’t know about that guy, Tony, he ain’t got a FB profile...) And once these services become something-price they just won’t be viable any more, because they are not really essential and paying for 8+ services (or whatever?) is not feasible.

But realistically services like FB are just stuck with their current business model; they will not pivot to something else because they know they would be screwed. But they, of course, twist that into some kind of consumer+small business sympathy spiel.

Other languages, like e.g. Rust (because of lack of HKT), cannot express monads like Haskell can.

But yeah, you can definitely call it a design pattern if that’s what the culture around the language is like. But it would be like Java folks calling interfaces with default implementations for something goofy like “Interface with stateless implementations pattern”, and even they don’t go that far.

Who are you addressing? The Democrats who “demand more more more” are likely to be the same people who are fine with taxing the rich more.

Either that, or: it asks exactly that question rather than assumes that slow compilation is intrinsic to memory safety etc. But yes, there might be an implicit premise about some part of the Rust design contributing to slow compilation times.