-
Acting as a custodian should require a high-bar, including appropriate security safeguards that are independently audited and tested on a regular basis, adequate balance sheets and reserves as commercial entities, transparent and accountable customer disclosures, and clear policies to not use customer assets for proprietary trading or for margin loans in leveraged trading.
Does it not defeat the purpose of Bitcoin? If most people need these companies to manage their Bitcoin assets, and these companies need to be regulated in some ways (“independently audited”, “adequate reserves”, “no proprietary trading”, etc.), then what is the advantage of Bitcoin versus traditional currencies?
-
-
While I do find Java perfectly acceptable in many situations, and I accept that it is often the only viable option in certain shaped companies, I disagree that it is in any way a relaxing langauge.
Relaxing languages for me are things like Lisp, where I can execute little s-expressions as I go.
Or Go, where the documentation is brief, you know what your tools are and you use them.
Or Python where everything is simple to write.
Java on the other hand is heavy. Achieving things needs new classes, in new files. It’s difficult to play around. You need an IDE to do real refactoring, you probably need an IDE to code because the standard library is so huge.
I’d use Java if it was a requirement, but it is so much more relaxing and easy to code in a more programmer-friendly language.
-
University.
Finding and reviewing a machine learning paper for a module.
If you’re reading this looking for ideas, and haven’t learned any CompSci in a while look at Support Vector Machines, they’re really neat.
-
I’m confused, ESR says “They want to build IDEs and other tools that share the compiler’s code. GCC policy won’t let them do that.”
Why can’t the GNU project support GCC being built to enable such tools, but license it such that tools based on it have to in-turn be free?
(I’m using free in the FSF sense here.)
-
We’re talking about technical architecture here, not licensing. If you provide an interface through which things outside of GCC can use all the information GCC has internally, you can (Stallman fears) use that interface to write a new front-end, or optimizer, or whatever. That means that you can write a proprietary front-end for a new language to GCC and claim that it’s a separate program from GCC. This would allow replacing GCC piecemeal with non-copyleft or even proprietary components. And, of course, once it’s non-copyleft, you can make a proprietary derivative.
I think it’s probably possible to provide the information that IDEs need without opening GCC up to proprietary frontends.
-
-
It also actually happened: NeXT tried to build their Objective-C compiler as a proprietary frontend on top of the GCC backend, claiming that the two were separate programs. Under FSF legal threats they backed down, and that’s why GCC supports Objective-C today. It’s probably also why Apple backed Clang.
-
-
-
-
As a more recent member to join. I am not sure yet.
1) There could be more content and users, but with this amount of people there is something new every time I open the site.
2) Mostly, yes. I would prefer more of programming stuff personally.
3) Haven’t been active enough to feel that I am part of the community, but this seems like a nice place.
In the end I really like the idea of the site, and how it addresses the issues on other sites (Reddit,HN). I would like this site to be successful, thats why I use it.
-
Awesome, I’ll try this out in a project I’m working on and see how it performs against the native structures there.