What happen when the repository is getting forked? Goofing with the license is all haha fun till nasty lawyers get into the picture and you get all sort of liability claims
Ofcourse its legally binding. If you include a license text with your own code on a platform that doesnt have a clause to license your code under different terms, then that license is legally valid.
But writing the license yourself without making sure that it doesnt allow for any legal loopholes is a bad idea.
Ok, I might be misunderstanding here, but since committing changes is allowed for everyone, doesn’t this mean fixing bugs is something you could do? You’d just be stuck with all the other rights as well until someone else makes a change.
The main dev made the last commit, so they dont have the right to make another commit, until they arent the last person to make a commit anymore (until someone else has made a commit). This makes sure that there are at least 2 people making commits but hopefully much more.
In other words, making a commit revokes your right to do so until someone else makes a commit.
Am I just bad at reading? It says the right to make changes is granted to everyone one Earth. That would include the last person to make a commit as well, assuming they’re a citizen of Earth. I’m sure what you’re saying is what it’s supposed to say, but it isn’t actually what it says.
You can’t just ignore the second part of that sentence which gives the right to make commits to all citizens of earth. That would include the person who wrote the last commit.
The fact that you have 38 upvotes with such an incorrect statement is mind boggling.
This is how politics works I supposed. Write something that sounds plausible but is completely incorrect, inaccurate or completely fabricated and stupid people applaud and follow.
A right not being reserved does not mean it is waived, only that it is not exclusive. The last person to commit still has the right to commit, as does everyone else.
Yeah, the problem with the proposition is that you have all rights and access to the code regardless of who made the last commit, unless the last person to commit revoked the HPL.
the fact that there are this many people having different interpretations shows that the license would need waaaaaay clearer wording to hold any sort of water.
this is why i hate licenses like WTFPL and its ilk, just saying “do whatever” cannot possibly be legally viable and thus using anything with such a license is impossible by anyone who cares about copyright law (such as say, companies).
If you want your creations to be free for all to use, just slap a fat CC0 on it.
If it’s like Lisp, then ? is just part of the symbol and doesn’t have any special syntatic meaning. In different Lisps it’s also convention to end predicate names with a ? or with P (p for predicate)
I’m a principal backend engineer routinely writing Ruby for my day job, so I’m familiar, lol. But you can’t do it for local variables and that just sucks. Definitely a +1 for Elixir.
that works for 2 word names eg is_open or is_file, but in this case is_dialog_file_open is structured like a question, while dialog_file_is_open is structured like a statement
The thing is that in French, Spanish, etc. it still makes sense if you put the adjective before the noun, even if it might sound weird in some cases. An adjective is an adjective and a noun is a noun.
But English is positional. Where you put a word gives it its function. So “red car” and “car red” mean different things.
That’s because they are romance languages. They come from Latin where word order is irrelevant as each “word” has a different form for the specific use.
Yes, that’s what I said. My native language is a romance language too. And after speaking it her whole life, my wife has trouble getting the grasp of how in English swapping two words completely changes the meaning of what she’s saying (especially when it’s two nouns, like e.g. “parent council”)
Nah, we’re alright. I don’t think anyone has clearly defined the requirements of earth citizenship, we can assume it’s like Ireland who hand it out like candy
Dialogue is UK English. But I just looked it up and apparently ‘dialog’ is a computer term, but should not be used on its own but rather in combination, such as ‘dialog box’.
Americans sadly got there first and defined all the computer terms, that’s why it’s a TV programme but a computer program. I can deal with that though, helps distinguish computer things from real things!
I keep asking myself what to choose, only for changing it a day after cursing myself to choose a stupid name.
Big endiant is great for intellisense to quickly browse possibilities, since it groups it all in the same place. But that’s also a detriment when you know what you want. You can start typing without the prefix but you’ll have to go through the better suggestions of intellisense first.
Little endiant is the same thing, but in reverse. Great when needed, but bad for browsing.
Although I do have some fix I’m starting to use. But it’s not applicable everywhere, and not in every language.
What I do is use module as prefix. Instead of dialogue_file_open, I create a file_open in the dialogue module, allowing either directly calling file_open, or dialogue::file_open. Using intellisense on the module allow for easy browsing too!
Although in OP’s post I’d rather have file_open_dialogue as it convey the more significant meaning, being to open a file, first. Then “dialogue” is just the flavour on top
Big endiant is great for intellisense to quickly browse possibilities, since it groups it all in the same place.
If only someone would train a program… we could call it a Large Language Model… to knowingly group the names together so we wouldn’t have to choose between human-readable format or dB format.
Guess that will never happen because instead we’re stuck using “AI’s” to inflate stock prices instead. /s
I remember seeing a proposed language that would allow each programmer to choose what name to use for each item. Don’t like ‘open_file’? Choose to see it as ‘file_open’ every time you review the file in the future.
While we battle with each other endlessly, we keep forgetting that the computer doesn’t care.
I used to like the action followed by direct object format, until some time ago when trying to find methods or variables related to a specific object. If the action comes first, scanning for the object without an IDE means first reading unnecessary information about the action. That convinced me to opt for $object-$action in situations where it makes sense.
For example in CSS, I often scan for the element, then the action, so $element-$action makes more sense. BEM kinda follows this. When dealing with the DOM in JS, that makes sense too button.fileDialogOpen(), button.fileDialogSend(), … makes more sense when searching.
Of course one has to use it sensibly and where necessary. If you are writing a code that focuses more on actions than objects, putting the action first makes sense.
I find this much easier to follow than if main were defined last, because main is obviously the most important method and everything else is used by it. A flattened dependency tree is how these definitions make sense to me or how I would read them as newbie to a codebase.
I prefer everything to be how you would read it as text. So create_file_dialog it is. Honorable mention is to have it namespaced in a class or something which I think is best. file_dialog.create or dialog.create_file or even dialog.file.create
I agree. I say open door so the function should be named openDoor.
Honestly nowadays none of that matter if you’re using any remotely modern IDE with good indexing and a sensible search, you can start typing however you mind works and it will find it no matter how it’s named.
programmer_humor
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.