When your language is so tiny and unpopular that a growth of couple of small projects in an industry your don't like can overshadow the whole existing community...
If you create neutral open source tool like a programming language, you have to be OK with people using it to do stuff that you don't approve of.
And also, it's OK to have your own opinion about something and share it, but in complex matters you have to admit that there's a possibility that you're wrong. I think TSLA and a some other money losing overhyped companies are a FED-induced bubble, terrible investment etc. but so far it works for people who invest in them, so maybe I am wrong, and who am I to make decisions for other people anyway?
“ When your language is so tiny and unpopular that a growth of couple of small projects in an industry your don't like can overshadow the whole existing community”
So you decide to open your argument with an insult to the community... Not a great showing.
“ If you create neutral open source tool like a programming language, you have to be OK with people using it to do stuff that you don't approve of.”
So I have to be okay with crime and scams? I can’t decide to call attention to it and recommend that people don’t let the bad influence guide the direction of the whole language?
“ I am wrong, and who am I to make decisions for other people anyway?”
Please don't expect anything too serious from me. :D
> I can’t decide to call attention to it and recommend that people don’t let the bad influence guide the direction of the whole language?
I can't see how even Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin teamed up and backed by a lot of money, could break ... let's say... C++ if they got on the design committee. Are they going to make the type system more totalitarian-state friendly? Is memory safety features better for building tools of state oppression? Are they going to introduce new features and libraries that make it more useful as a tool of industrial-level genocide?
> “ I am wrong, and who am I to make decisions for other people anyway?”
> Good thing this article didn’t try to do that.
What did it try to do then?
This whole article can be TL;DR with: Some people found Haskell useful to write their software and they support Haskell development now and I don't like what that software is for, so let's do something about it.
Why?
I think there's a lot of people in Open Source community that can't separate technical and free speech (and use) aspects of their work from their moral beliefs and keep conflating the two, trying to use their beloved OS projects as a tool in yet another moral crusade of their choosing.
PS. Come to think of it, maybe Haskell compilers should change the license to some custom non-Open-Source license that says: "only programs that are technically and morally pure can be compiled". ;)
If you create neutral open source tool like a programming language, you have to be OK with people using it to do stuff that you don't approve of.
And also, it's OK to have your own opinion about something and share it, but in complex matters you have to admit that there's a possibility that you're wrong. I think TSLA and a some other money losing overhyped companies are a FED-induced bubble, terrible investment etc. but so far it works for people who invest in them, so maybe I am wrong, and who am I to make decisions for other people anyway?