avaq

Is Google that organization? Because they themselves have decided that they are. I think what people are worried about is that Google is positioning itself to be the judge, jury, and executioner within such a licensing framework, not necessarily the licensing itself.

> This is just to address malicious code.

Yes, and if Google had shown that it's capable of identifying and rejecting malicious code distributed via its own app store, then maybe their proposed expansion of that security program to the entirety of the Android app ecosystem would carry some weight. But as it stands, their Play Store is full of user-hostile and often malicious apps[1].

> If you publish software for a private group of people, there should be no restrictions. If you're publishing it on a platform that would expose your software to billions of people, get a license after id verification

But that's exactly the opposite of what Google is doing, here, and why people are mad. Google isn't adding a new policy to their app distribution platform (the play store that grants exposure to billions of users), but rather they are forcing ID verification on any form of app distribution: If you want any regular user to be able to install your code, no matter how small the audience, you'll need to first give your identity to Google, and obtain a (paid[1]?) license. So the restrictions do apply to "a private group of people" too.

The crux, and what has people up in arms I think, is the overreach of Google's peoposed licensing policy to cover not only their own app distribution ecosystem, but all others targeting Android.

Many technical users of Android consider it to be a general purpose computing platform, and they want to retain the freedom to install and run whatever software they trust.

Google should focus their supposed concerns about regular user's safety on the user-hostile apps that they allow to exist in their own app store, rather than grasping for broader control that they'll "probably use at some point but only for good things like user security".

We wanted a pipe operator that would pair well with unary functions (like those created by partial function application, which could get its own syntax), but that got rejected on the premise that it would lead to a programming style that utilizes too many closures[0], and which could divide the ecosystem[1].

Yet somehow PHP was not limited by these hypotheticals, and simply gave people the feature they wanted, in exactly the form it makes most sense in.

  Technologies: Functional Programming, React, Node.js, Linux, NixOS, JavaScript, TypeScript, Haskell, fp-ts, io-ts, effect-ts, rxjs, Deno, Docker, Git, CouchDB, MySQL, PostgreSQL, ElasticSearch, Fluture, Sanctuary, Ramda
  GitHub: https://github.com/Avaq/
  Résumé/CV: https://altshift.win/
  Email: aldwin/at/altshift.win

  Location: Rotterdam, the Netherlands
  Remote: Yes
  Willing to relocate: Unlikely
  Technologies: JavaScript, TypeScript, React, Linux, NixOS, Haskell, Node.js, fp-ts, Deno, Docker, Git, CouchDB, MySQL, PostgreSQL, ElasticSearch, PHP, Laravel, Fluture, Sanctuary, Ramda
  GitHub: https://github.com/Avaq/
  Résumé/CV: https://altshift.win/
  Email: aldwin/at/altshift.win

I've been leading small teams for the last eight years, focusing on developer enabling work such as process management, devops, software architecture, and coaching.

I'm very passionate in particular about functional programming, and I'm hoping to coach teams when it comes to the cross-over between functional programming and software architecture - something a lot of developers who are new to FP struggle with.

Although I have been involved in a huge variety of software types, I'm particularly well-experienced when it comes to real-time, offline-first web-applications and real-time data processing.

I'm looking for (ideally) part-time (up to 28h) freelancing opportunities.