skjfdoslifjeifj

> which is why many male only sports have started their own female only sides

Most of the popular sport leagues don't have any rules disallowing female competitors. I'm sure the NHL, NBA, NFL, MLS, MLB, Premier League etc. would love to have a female player that was good enough because it would be a marketing dream.

The standard Ocaml compiler doesn't elide it and as far as I'm aware neither do any of the publicly available libraries. All of the lazy stream implementations in Ocaml have a performance cost similar to Java streams. Haskell and Rust are relatively unique in that they can completely eliminate the performance cost in the typical cases.

I see people quoting him occasionally. They're always mocking him and this site though.

It's not clear that the first two even had direct contact with RMS and they don't even make any serious allegations. Barely anyone cares that RMS had a mattress in his office, lots of people at MIT have done that, and nobody is even making the allegation that anything inappropriate happened beyond him having it and him sleeping on it alone. The third is socially awkward and bad behaviour but it happened almost 40 years ago.

Even if I accept that these quotes are an accurate portrayal of events that happened, I'd expect you to have more damning evidence to support canceling someone that has been extremely important in this industry for over 50 years.

RMS isn't even the only person that has had a mattress by the door in their office at MIT. It used to be common enough, among both males and females, that nobody thought anything of it.

I'm not seeing much from women that actually went to MIT and interacted with him there. A lot of the accusations I've seen are second hand stories/rumours from third parties that never went to MIT or interacted with him directly.

> I don't think they fear the mob.

I vehemently disagree. In my experience, a very substantial number of them fear the mob because there's so much at stake and nobody is interested in falling on their sword. Many people want to talk politics and philosophy and those subjects are often hard to avoid unless conversation is heavily restricted. I've had tons of conversations about algorithms that naturally turn into discussions of political and philosophical ramifications. A substantial amount of the screening that goes into accessing private communities revolves directly around likelihood of charitable interpretation, secrecy and behaviour on public social networks.

I can't link either of the two I use here for obvious reasons, but the primary one I frequent is just a private website made by a bunch of Googlers. It's basically just an invite only forum with a more complicated trust/permission system. It's very active with roughly 5,000 users and access to boards is limited by a trust system which operates similarly to private torrent trackers.

The second one, which I only use occasionally, is a private Android/iOS app that is very similar to Signal group chats.

I've heard of quite a few others but I don't have first hand experience with them.

You are correct. I should have limited my statement to discussions between people using their real identities. I also think this is subjective depending on how much value you place on being able to identify the participants. For example, in language related discussions I think it's extremely valuable to have people like SPJ, Anders Hejlsberg, Andrei Alexandrescu etc. as active AND identifiable participants. When I was in high school, during the very early days of Slashdot, quite a few highly respected developers, professors and authors would comment regularly under their own names. Reading their comments and having discussions with them definitely changed my life and I think it would be sad to see all these discussions move into private spaces or under anonymity due to fear of the mob.

> There is a great moderation tool for such a discussion: not to have it

Do you honestly think the situation improves if the discussion is censored here? Whether you like it or not these industry discussions, and much worse, are happening elsewhere and censoring relatively timid discussions like this only makes matters worse. There are 490 comments at the time of this post and I'd bet the vast majority of them are relatively benign.

My apologies, I should have made clear that my post wasn't directed at the article.

> Wasn't most "legitimate discussion" already happening in private already?

Probably, but I think there was still much more interesting discussion going on publicly in years past. It's anecdotal but I've definitely seen a huge spike in how many of my colleagues are retreating entirely to private communities and most of them never make public comments anymore. That's disappointing to me because I think there's a lot of value in having these discussions in the open with respected and accomplished names attached. It also gives a level of perceived accessibility that I think is important.

One of my main concerns is that almost all legitimate discussion is now happening in private invite only communities because people are too risk averse to continue to chat on public sites that will be indexed forever in a culture where they can be cancelled for even a slightly uncouth opinion. Almost all of my consumption and contribution on the Internet is now in private communities that are quite strict about invites and the trend among my colleagues is similar.

When I was younger I learned so much and established many valuable relationships by having discussions on public services/websites. Many legends in the field were quite accessible on public sites and mailing lists. My life would be much worse if I hadn't had those experiences and it feels like a lot of younger people that don't have connections to the SV bubble are now going to miss out on similar experiences.

This isn't to say that we should be tolerant of everything but it definitely feels like we've swung too far in the opposite direction.

I believe you can get a better normalized form of SubsetFoo by instead doing:

    type SubsetFoo = Extract<Foo, { kind: 'B' | 'C' }>;

I agree. My main issue is with the Java zealots that come into the discussion and make it seem like anyone can just take their existing Java application and use it with an AOT compiler. The reality is that you will most likely have to make changes to your code, do a significant amount of configuration, and heavily modify or remove dependencies. Furthermore, you are isolating yourself from the huge Java community because very few people are using any of the existing AOT Java compilers.

They try to paint an extremely rosy picture of the current situation when the reality is that it's a very long way from the experience you get in Rust, Go, D, C, C++, Haskell, Ocaml or any of the languages where AOT is considered the default.