> Deleted the below posts out of an abundance of caution. Despite the words of the Proclamation, an unnamed White House official told New York Times that they intend to apply the $100,000 only to new applicants only.
> If that is correct, the implications are not as urgent.
Oh, how quaint, as if this significant change went through the normal lawmaking process that involves bills and Congressional approval, instead of the new rule by executive order fiat.
Would this result in the same .class that javac produces? I.e. at runtime is code compiled with this fundamentally different than code compiled with javac?
This results in identical .class bytecode that `javac` produces, yes, because it's literally just `javac`, but built as a native binary instead of a Java entrypoint.
We build at JDK24 and support `--source/--target/--release` so you can build against earlier JVM targets.
If you find any output differences between Elide and JDK24 (Oracle GraalVM), then we'd consider that a bug. Similarly, we accept identical compile flags and emit identical warnings/messages, as under the hood we are just using the same compiler APIs but natively.
To be fair to them... thats a brave step for a startup to take. So many would try to stay quiet and fix the issues behind the scenes (hell, giant companies try this attempt all the time!). They made the right move here.
NB, I don't use Hive and have no interest, I moved to Mastodon because I want to be in control of my data moving forward.
It's incredible to learn from the responses in this thread how widespread and systemic this problem is, not just in software but seemingly every industry. Thank you for these examples.
Perhaps it will be beneficial in the discussion to add examples of other orgs e.g. IETF, Unicode. Unicode spec is fully available[1] and their funding comes from a membership-model rather than a pay-model[2].
ISO's argument is compelling but we see other standards organizations taking different approaches and more or less still finding success.
Also ECMA (C# and JavaScr... er, ECMAScript) which provides standards at no cost vs ANSI (no notable language specs since C and Pascal) which charges a fee.
Last year I finished the school year early because of the coronavirus lockdown and had too much free time - so I wrote an interpreter for CLR bytecode (https://github.com/Leowbattle/clr_lite). The ECMA-335 standard contained everything I needed to know for that project: documentation of the EXE format, VM instructions, etc.
I learned a lot doing this project, and I would never have been able to do it without free access to the standard. So I think Tim is right to recognise the value open standards provide to hobbyist programmers.
ECMAScript is nowadays amusing because the ISO standard for it is literally a single page document… that normatively references the ECMA published document.
OASIS is good but there member orgs need to pay membership dues and do it every year. I think ISO encourages independent experts from public sector and academia to provide expert feedback without paying for membership.
Though, I think that ISO can be fully funded by the national standards bodies on an annual basis just like OASIS is funder by companies and not charge for PDFs.
I'm afraid that you are comparing apples and Walmart.
Unicode is a standard for encoding characters.
ISO is an organisation that _creates_ standards for just about anything.
Unicode became a standard as a result of beating other competing standardisations.
ISO declares that whatever they came up with is the standard, no competition required.
Hence the effectiveness of the business model.
> I only wish it could detect when asshole newspapers do that last minute mutation of the DOM to put bullshit divs in front of the article. It makes me play a button-click race to beat the rendering of the bullshit div to reader mode.
More often than not, going into reader mode, then hitting refresh will fix this! (works for NYT)
