Rust believes that tech is and always will be politicalhttps://twitter.com/rustlang/status/1267519582505512960
Go woke and go brokePrint that on the blockchain, as an NFT
everyone participates in the exchange of goods, resources and labor. Which is to say... is political.Is it? (This is a real question to me, not a rhetorical device.)
everyone participates in the exchange of goods, resources and labor. Which is to say... is political.Is it? (This is a real question to me, not a rhetorical device.)
Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political), Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/political), and Cambridge Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/political) all refer to the art and process of governing in the definition of political; they do not define it as just operating/acting within a governed society.
In other words, the dictionaries seem to me to define the term as related to defining the rules of a society, and not as related to operating within existing rules of a society.
<< ... Supporting far left
>> ... Supporting far right
++ ... Profit
-- ... Taxes
UB ... Declaring something to be like a politician
Int ... Unfairly discriminates against floating point people
Double ... Discriminates against unmarried Single people
For (..) ... For support of a particular party/political aim
// ... Comment or No Comment
? : ... Are you Voting for me or Not ?
true ... It is True
! ... It is NOT True
exit ... Exit Poll Results
Politics indeed happen in several subsections of the society where career politicians are not present (politics in the workplace, for example). Despite I think that politics are pervasive in our lives, since many of our actions during our regular relationships must employ politics as a way to either convince people/groups of your points-of-view or give-and-take in negotiations, the intention of the tweet is flawed. The tweet itself is somewhat dubious and innocuous, but the retweetwd post below evidences the type of politics the assertive wants to enforce and I find out of place for a language.everyone participates in the exchange of goods, resources and labor. Which is to say... is political.Is it? (This is a real question to me, not a rhetorical device.)
Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political), Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/political), and Cambridge Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/political) all refer to the art and process of governing in the definition of political; they do not define it as just operating/acting within a governed society.
In other words, the dictionaries seem to me to define the term as related to defining the rules of a society, and not as related to operating within existing rules of a society.
Feels outdated to me, then. The usual things that people would consider "political" include merely discussing topic related to the above; while the above definition seems to suggest only literal politicians do any politic. Which is a bit absurd with respect to how I've seen the word used.
Or we might put it another way and say, -- much as the rules of the English language evolve as it is spoke -- so too the members of a society define the rules of it to varying degree, and so everyone is political by association -- not just because they wrote something down on a piece of paper some other people consider important.
Tim
I find out of place for a language.
Feels outdated to me, then. The usual things that people would consider "political" include merely discussing topic related to the above; while the above definition seems to suggest only literal politicians do any politic. Which is a bit absurd with respect to how I've seen the word used.I disagree, but I'm not a native English speaker anyway.
A Rustling is a person who programs in Rust; and may also be one who grew up as Harry Potter super nerd?
Tools are not political. Creating a sign is not political until you put a political message on that sign. A sign that says "I sell apples for $1 apiece" is not political. Languages are not political, until you rule certain words and idioms allowed to be used by only a specific subset of people (because that is a course of action intended to control or govern people).
most everyone here lives in a modernized world economy, means everyone participates in the exchange of goods, resources and labor.
"Apples $1"
I mean, I can only explain the concept. If your mind is closed to it, you don't have to brag to the world that you refuse to accept it. It's... not a contest? ???
Tim
hence, everything is political.Nowadays, with cancel culture, I cannot even express my true thoughts anymore.
I cannot even express my true thoughts anymore.
A Rustling is a person who programs in Rust; and may also be one who grew up as Harry Potter super nerd?
or suPPa-powers, like suPPa-man :o :o :o
Rustaceans indeed. Rustlings are newbies. Like me. It's also a Rust languagd tutorial project https://github.com/rust-lang/rustlings/
I suggest the difference between Rust and C++ is Rust is loaded with a suPPa excitted developer community that's just suPPa excitted!!!!!
The users and developers of software are political though.Feels outdated to me, then. The usual things that people would consider "political" include merely discussing topic related to the above; while the above definition seems to suggest only literal politicians do any politic. Which is a bit absurd with respect to how I've seen the word used.I disagree, but I'm not a native English speaker anyway.
Discussion about governance and rules is political, of course. Supporting or opposing a course of action done using taxes is about governance, and thus political.
Tools are not political.
Open source developers tend to be more left-leaning.I've never found this to be true. However, if you get some momentum with an open source project a lot of political hangers-on will try to muscle in and make life a misery for the productive people. Too many productive people are too timid to tell the scum just where to shove it.
The users and developers of software are political though.
Open source developers tend to be more left-leaning. Writing software so it can be shared with everyone, to benefit society is a socialist principle. This is bound to affect some of the decisions made and how the documentation is worded.
Good point. I admit I'm basing my experience on a now defunct, pro-Linux/anti-Microsoft forum, I used to post on many years ago, back when Internet Explorer was king. Many of the people where, who were involved in developing open source projects, had left wing views, which I suppose shouldn't have been surprising.The users and developers of software are political though.
Open source developers tend to be more left-leaning. Writing software so it can be shared with everyone, to benefit society is a socialist principle. This is bound to affect some of the decisions made and how the documentation is worded.
Not necessarily, it can work BOTH ways. Some open-source projects (free), seem to have partially capitalistic (right-leaning), reasons for open-sourcing (and making it available for FREE). Because they use other ways of generating money, in a business sense.
Such as selling support (e.g. SQLite), full-commercial-use-and-modify-source-code-privately-licences (for money, e.g. QT), etc.
Or alternatively, a significant proprietary/business, may have its own reasons, for wanting free versions, to be freely available. E.g. Microsoft, making web browsers, available for free. As (it was rumored/believed by some) they were worried, that if companies could become large, by making big profits from web-browsers, they could compete/harm Microsoft's profit line.
The users and developers of software are political though.Feels outdated to me, then. The usual things that people would consider "political" include merely discussing topic related to the above; while the above definition seems to suggest only literal politicians do any politic. Which is a bit absurd with respect to how I've seen the word used.I disagree, but I'm not a native English speaker anyway.
Discussion about governance and rules is political, of course. Supporting or opposing a course of action done using taxes is about governance, and thus political.
Tools are not political.
Open source developers tend to be more left-leaning. Writing software so it can be shared with everyone, to benefit society is a socialist principle. (...)
Open source developers tend to be more left-leaning.I haven't seen any statistics on that, so I don't know which way devs tend to lean. I personally suspect that the age-related distribution (youngsters tending to lean more to left, older more to right, as their personal situations and experiences change) is stronger than developer licensing choices.
Writing software so it can be shared with everyone, to benefit society is a socialist principle.Only on a surface level –– but that is definitely not the reason I ever choose to apply a "copyleft" license.
That said, I do agree that open-source inevitably comes with some politics.Perhaps in the sense that it often requires a politically-laden discussion to explain why one might choose open source.
I find this statement concerning:QuoteRust believes that tech is and always will be politicalhttps://twitter.com/rustlang/status/1267519582505512960 (https://twitter.com/rustlang/status/1267519582505512960)
“Politics” of course is much more then governance or “politicians “ or what the TV calls politicsOkay. Could you define “politics”, then? Or at least how it differs from “culture” or “social”?
Open source developers tend to be more left-leaning. Writing software so it can be shared with everyone, to benefit society is a socialist principle.
Open source developers tend to be more left-leaning. Writing software so it can be shared with everyone, to benefit society is a socialist principle.
Being forced by society to share the result of your labour would be socialist.
Choosing for yourself what to share and what to keep private is the free market and self ownership in action.
The economic right (free market, libertarian) are NOT against sharing or cooperation. They are against FORCED sharing and cooperation.
Everything is political because humans are political creatures. Computer languages are very much a political creation , often embodying the political perspectives of their creators. “Politics” of course is much more then governance or “politicians “ or what the TV calls politics
To Customer: I'm very sorry the LED lights up so dimly. I originally specified a 1k series resistor, which would have lit it up, just fine. But one of the stated political views, on the 10M Ohm resistors website caught my eye. So I designed that in, instead. Because EVERYTHING is political.In the UK, red LEDs are Labour, blue are Conservative, yellow are Liberal, green are obviously the Green Party, purple are UKiP, pink are anything pro-LGBT and white are a far-right white supremacist group.
In he UK, red LEDs are Labour, blue are Conservative, yellow are Liberal, green are obviously the green party, purple are UKiP, pink are anything pro-LGBT and white are a far-right white supremacist group.
Consider something as simple as the C library qsort function, which takes an array of any type and a comparator function for that type and sorts it. Of course this being C, you can call the function on an array of float with a comparator taking arguments of char and int and returning a function pointer. And there is tons of other generic code like that, and bugs when somebody gets the types wrong.
Consider something as simple as the C library qsort function, which takes an array of any type and a comparator function for that type and sorts it. Of course this being C, you can call the function on an array of float with a comparator taking arguments of char and int and returning a function pointer. And there is tons of other generic code like that, and bugs when somebody gets the types wrong.
That's a bug but it's a bug that doesn't get very far before it is caught. Any reasonable unit testing is going to catch it.
Consider something as simple as the C library qsort function, which takes an array of any type and a comparator function for that type and sorts it. Of course this being C, you can call the function on an array of float with a comparator taking arguments of char and int and returning a function pointer. And there is tons of other generic code like that, and bugs when somebody gets the types wrong.
That's a bug but it's a bug that doesn't get very far before it is caught. Any reasonable unit testing is going to catch it.
but it certainly has better support for generic programming than C.Hardly better than C++, though. Which is another thing they say they want to replace.
But generics, including containers, still suck in that language [Rust] like in all of its predecessors. You have a choice between C++ templates (pointless code duplication), virtual tables (individually added to each object in the container) or good old C void pointers. They call it progress.
C++ templates don't require code duplication. Even if the compiler generates multiple functions, if they have identical machine code the linker will combine them into one. If you write the C++ templates as type-safe wrappers around the same void pointers you'd use in C then the machine code will all be the same.
0000000000001351 <_Z5qsortIiEvPT_mPFiPKS0_S3_Em>:
1351: 55 push %rbp
1352: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
1355: 48 83 ec 20 sub $0x20,%rsp
1359: 48 89 7d f8 mov %rdi,-0x8(%rbp)
135d: 48 89 75 f0 mov %rsi,-0x10(%rbp)
1361: 48 89 55 e8 mov %rdx,-0x18(%rbp)
1365: 48 89 4d e0 mov %rcx,-0x20(%rbp)
1369: 48 8b 4d e8 mov -0x18(%rbp),%rcx
136d: 48 8b 55 e0 mov -0x20(%rbp),%rdx
1371: 48 8b 75 f0 mov -0x10(%rbp),%rsi
1375: 48 8b 45 f8 mov -0x8(%rbp),%rax
1379: 48 89 c7 mov %rax,%rdi
137c: e8 cf fc ff ff call 1050 <qsort@plt>
1381: 90 nop
1382: c9 leave
1383: c3 ret
-- snip--
00000000000013c8 <_Z5qsortIfEvPT_mPFiPKS0_S3_Em>:
13c8: 55 push %rbp
13c9: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
13cc: 48 83 ec 20 sub $0x20,%rsp
13d0: 48 89 7d f8 mov %rdi,-0x8(%rbp)
13d4: 48 89 75 f0 mov %rsi,-0x10(%rbp)
13d8: 48 89 55 e8 mov %rdx,-0x18(%rbp)
13dc: 48 89 4d e0 mov %rcx,-0x20(%rbp)
13e0: 48 8b 4d e8 mov -0x18(%rbp),%rcx
13e4: 48 8b 55 e0 mov -0x20(%rbp),%rdx
13e8: 48 8b 75 f0 mov -0x10(%rbp),%rsi
13ec: 48 8b 45 f8 mov -0x8(%rbp),%rax
13f0: 48 89 c7 mov %rax,%rdi
13f3: e8 58 fc ff ff call 1050 <qsort@plt>
13f8: 90 nop
13f9: c9 leave
13fa: c3 ret
13fb: 0f 1f 44 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)template <class T>
void qsort(T *ptr, size_t n, int (*cmp)(const T*, const T*), size_t sz = sizeof(T)) {
std::qsort((void*) ptr, n, sz, (int(*)(const void*, const void*)) cmp);
}generic <class T>
void qsort(T *ptr, size_t n, int (*cmp)(const T*, const T*), size_t sz = sizeof(T)) {
// honestly type-checked implementation of qsort goes here
// any use of sizeof(T) or T[] transparently employs sz
// sz can't be overriden manually at the call site
// exactly one instance of the function generated in this translation unit and none elsewhere
}Even if true (I don't know) it appears to be easily defeated by the compiler inserting different NOPs for alignment or whatever stupid reason:Depending on the ISA, NOPs are placed to flush the pipeline before taking a long branch. Obviously that, if the non-templated code does not have them, indeed it is an implementation problem.