Re: Not so simple
ctags is your friend
50 posts • joined 14 Jan 2009
Qt is GPL-licensed
actually Qt is a proper mish-mash of licenses: https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/licenses-used-in-qt.html
i've used Qt on and off for many years now, so this change is all a bit sad
does anyone here have any experience of CopperSpice (https://www.copperspice.com/)? been thinking about making the jump myself for a year or two now, curious to hear of anyone else's experience.
I write functionally safe software as part of my day job, and while rust has some nice features, I couldn't advocate using it fo a FS project because it's just too immatue.
Yes, yes, rust is over 10 years old, but there were 6 releases this year alone. That's not stable. The static analysis tools I've seen all seem fairly primitive compared to those for, say C. Disclaimer: not checked rust sca tools for a while, so it's possible things have improved.
But when the rust language team lead writes on that lmkl thread that "I'd be happy to have the Linux kernel feeding into Rust language development priorities", it just screams "constantly evolving, not mature - avoid!". Rust can beat the safety drum all it wants, but unless and until it is stable and mature, I can't see it gaining any acceptance in the functional safety world.
Give it another 10 years then maybe, just maybe. But they need to nail it down and get out of the habit of doing a new release every few weeks.
"Changing the name alone is pointless"
this, a thousand times this
it reminds me of the spastics society rebranding as scope, because in playgrounds up and down the country, the word "spastic" was used as an insult. intended result: stop people using the word spastic. actual result: we gained the word "scoper"
until fairly recently, all FTDI chips were basically an embedded 8051 with built-in USB peripheral
as recently as last week I was playing around with graphics LCD modules as part of my day job, and the manufacturer's reference code is in 8051 assembler
I have no problem at all believing this...
from the counterclaim:
"At a subsequent Executive Committee meeting Ms Whitman did not properly address the issues raised by Dr Lynch and instead repeatedly adopted the management approach of, inter alia, (i) playing country music to the meeting instructing the senior executives attending to take the meaning of the country music songs and apply them to their own management methods and (ii) reading out unrelated emails from members of staff who were not her reports, complimenting and praising her"
and four more times, "Ms Whitman did not properly address the issues raised by Dr Lynch and instead repeatedly adopted the above management approach"
now, where'd i put my popcorn :D
a year or two ago our lovely accounts lady came by and said sorry we accidentally overpaid you this month, and is it ok if we just pay you that much less so it balances out?
i was like "yeah that's fine... errr... hang on, how much are we talking here?"
her: "three pence"
me: "ooh, a life-changing sum!"
the site may well have started in good faith, and the original reports may well have had been valid, BUT... when you have entries like the following:
"Corrupt cheating lying represent fraudulent clients they create at expense of previous creditors and take backhanders from money laundering clients."
which appears to be anonymous, and has no supporting evidence, then I'm sorry, but you shouldn't be surprised when m'lud shuts you down...
I quote from the oral statement (http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/foi-oral-statement.pdf) :
"Mr Speaker, to permit the Commissioner’s and Tribunal’s view of the public interest to prevail would in my judgement risk serious damage to Cabinet government; an essential principle of British Parliamentary democracy. That eventuality is not in the public interest."
Wait... what? Did he just say that the view of the public interest is not in the public interest?!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021