Facebook only cares about facebook in the license. We can't say that facebook is doing it for the benefit of the project itself. The more projects that have the license the more protected facebook is while everyone else is left out.

If we were to believe that it is an altruistic endeavor that will result into a "world without patents" then in fact it would be a world without patents... but only for facebook.

I have nothing against patent grants with the condition of not suing for patent infringement but they shouldn't only apply to one specific company. The apache software license and many others have already solved this problem. There is no need for a facebook only solution.

My issue is with people pretending that facebook is doing everything right when they are doing everything wrong.

It doesn't take much imagination to think of this scenario. Creating artifical super children that grow up inside a lab and get killed off when convenient is the most common staple in scifi books and movies involving gene editing.

What's more important? Basic human rights for all humans or competitiveness?

Work for free or even pay for the privilege of working. See some short distance truck drivers working 20 hours a day making losses on some weeks after paying for their truck lease and other costs that were externalised from the employer to the employee. You can't exploit a robot but you can exploit a human.

I like modern C++ because for me it's a reasonable compromise between java safety and C safety. Other than out of bounds memory accesses and legacy code I feel there is not much that can go wrong. However compiling C++ projects takes ages and in the projects I've worked on I often have to modify headers that are included almost everywhere. Every trivial changes requires a 5 minute rebuild.

After working with several high level programming languages with slow compilers I realised the following: typing is fast, compiling is slow. There is a reason why go is so popular. It offers that tradeoff in fast turn around time / compilation time with reasonably good performance and simplicity in exchange for more keyboard bashing and keyboard bashing is a cheap price to pay for what you're getting back.

In my experience you will end up with a dozen coding "standards" and project structures. Especially in C and C++ where header dependencies have to be generated by the compiler even the most basic makefile will take you at least an hour to create if you already have experience in making makefiles.

Since when does initialising the GUI framework include all of your business logic and if it does should a non trivial application have a main function that is several thousands of lines long?

Why is paid busywork or a job guarantee more acceptable than basic income? Apparently the risk of basic income is that people end up only playing video games. But aren't video games the definition of busywork?

Obviously there is an infinite amount of demand for jobs because there is no lower bound income (how much demand is there for an employee that doesn't cost anything?). What's the point of more jobs if you have to work two or more of them to survive? Obviously what matters is the quality of the jobs and not the quantity. A more interesting question would be to ask if robots increase inequality.

What you're talking about has nothing to do with neither.

Any language that has generics can have self types or whatever you want to call them. It's a matter of whether the language has a strong static typesystem and most FP-style languages have these and a minority of OOP-style languages has them too.

The reason why I use C++ has nothing to do with a preference for OOP. It's because all the widely used alternatives have terrible performance.

I hate dealing with C++ projects. I hate dealing with memory leaks and segfaults. But that doesn't stop me from creating more of them and working on existing ones.

All of that because the resulting memory footprint and performance are worth it.

Of course there is nothing inherently wrong about doing experiments on humans but the problem is you now need to justify that gene editing is good and eugenics is bad, that the test subjects do not need basic human rights and therefore can be disposed when convenient.

https://github.com/iluwatar/java-design-patterns/tree/master...

And here is a second source if you don't believe me or iluwatar

>In functional programming, a monad is a design pattern that defines how functions, actions, inputs, and outputs can be used >together to build generic types,[1] with the following organization: > > Define a data type, and how values of that data type are combined. > Create functions that use the data type, and compose them together into actions, following the rules defined in the first >step.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(functional_programming)

The paper completely ignores the lack of ECC, hardware reliability and lack of software support. Especially if you consider that the majority of mobile gpus don't stupport opencl or don't even have drivers available for modern kernels. You will need to support your software for each device type or rewrite your software as an android app. But since developer and sysadmin time is far more valuable you're better of just buying an x86 server.