Don’t you dare sully these greats by comparing yourself to them

“Python for everybody” from Dr. Chuck. Has accompanying video lectures. Website PY4E.com

Its actually what corporate needs.

I am pro socialism and asking what kind of details is missing in pro-socialist arguments that you find capitalists explain well?

How is it a separate discussion?

I immediately recognized your username. Maybe take a break from the asshole shtick for sometime… and also from online.

I am quite cheeky for saying this but:

How is it leaky if the default paradigm of any sequential program is the expectation that it will block? If i write blocking socket code I know my thread is blocked until read() returns.

If i am writing async socket code I know to wait for poll or whatever it is that is the correct way to wait nowadays. My design would reflect that. The blocking is just moved to another thread effectively and this abstraction is packaged as a Future.

Asynchronous code does not require the rest of your code to be asynchronous. I can’t say the same for blocking code.

Well this is just stating a tautology isn’t it?

Edit:

It would be a Hurculean effort, and I don’t think it’s a sustainable approach. If you’re writing a higher level library, it would be a lot to ask to check if your dependency’s dependency’s dependency maybe reads from a socket.

I guess I understand what’s the argument here.

The author wants a safeguard against libraries that are blocking with compiler checks. I agree it is a nice thing to have. But they could have mentioned that without saying “blocking code is leaky abstraction”.

What kind of details can you not fathom in a functioning sustainable system? It shouldn’t be more difficult than “more! MORE AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYBODY ELSE!”

A very bad one if it requires switching off a large portion of your brain to find it funny.

It’s the most reachable thing. Markdown feels like a toy for many (not me) and people outside of academia look at you kinkily if you suggest latex and bibtex.

Being good has nothing to do with having to maintain your company’s code base that’s in Oracle’s Java SE 1.6.

You can’t just design your way out of a conflict whose solution is to change either the existing system architecture or change Java versions,

both suggestions will get you laughed out of the room.

Who’s we here? You’re getting downvoted to oblivion because of your hostility. I am merely replying in kind.

The entire FOSS community works for very little compensation. You’re not special. Read the fucking room. A lot of people spend their free time building cool shit to share with the community. You’re a prick if you think that you’re in the right calling people in the FOSS community entitled.

You’re a dumbass who can’t read and doesn’t understand foss.

Actually the LGPL legally binds the dev to distributing those versions. So you’re just a troll. I am done replying to you but it has been fun watching you try to justify shit in the name of compensation.

Show us where the dev said exactly that.

You’re asking me to show me where the dishonest person admitted to being dishonest.

Apparently you want me to point out where I took the developer’s words but intentions are not words. You’re deliberately trying to argue that I am accusing the dev of things they did not do, but that’s not true. I am only arguing on their actions and assigning motive to their actions which I make clear in all my comments.

You’re the one who is calling people entitled for expecting LGPL code to be FOSS. I am merely replying to your comments.

The history change was probably to avoid violating the LGPL. If any contributors don’t agree with the change (or you don’t want to do the onerous task of getting consensus as required) you should remove their contributions from the work you make closed source as the contributions still come under LGPL until the original author consents to the change.

Or at least that’s what people said here.

Right, people usually carry a banner stating their intentions clearly and unambiguously.

not enough people donated

Sounds like entitlement to me