GitHub is a corporation. The Opal open source project is not. The maintainers in that thread who side against the "SJWs" still readily acknowledge that corporations have different obligations to political correctness than open source projects do. Lest we forget that even if you disagree with this, the maintainers also agree that somebody's personal beliefs are not relevant to whether their contributions are acceptable. So, why should it matter that they hired Coraline, exactly? Either they have an obligation to be politically correct as a VC-funded startup that needs to ensure its public face is immaculate, or Coraline is a fantastic Ruby developer who is good at building community management tools and her politics are irrelevant.
> the maintainers also agree that somebody's personal beliefs are not relevant to whether their contributions are acceptable. So, why should it matter that they hired Coraline, exactly?
I think you argued the wrong way. The maintainer states it's skill not political views that give merit. If github hired Coraline for her political views, then github stated it's political views not skills that give merit.
> Either they have an obligation to be politically correct as a VC-funded startup that needs to ensure its public face is immaculate
Immaculate? There's no black and white here.
> or Coraline is a fantastic Ruby developer who is good at building community management tools and her politics are irrelevant.
Yes but Coraline will never be satisfied with just being a fantastic ruby developer. It was pretty clear from her comments she cares more (or at least as much) about people than software.
I thought it was accepted wisdom at this point that software is people. Caring about people doesn't strike me as incompatible with caring about software --- indeed, for projects which demand collaboration between individuals (i.e. non-trivial complexity), I'd think it would be essential.
That's not what they meant in the Agile manifesto. They just meant they don't want to get bogged down by process instead of publishing something useful to users.
Same here, especially since it'd mean it would /also/ run all the other open source operating systems. It'd be a great litmus-test ("hardware so open that even OpenBSD supports it").
HTTP/2 helps with that but the total size still matters. This is particularly relevant for resources like CSS which block rendering – even with HTTP/2 making it less important whether that's one big resource or a dozen small ones, the page won't render until it's all been transferred.
The way I work is, I make an interface{} red-black-tree, and then when I need to store things in it I create functions around it.
Suppose I'm storing Tiles in a Level: the Level struct will contain a (private) RedBlackTree and I'll define GetTile(Pos) Tile and PutTile(Pos, Tile) on Level which do the casting to and from interface{}.
I still have type safety since I cannot put/get anything but Tiles in the RedBlackTree. But I didn't need generics.
From your description, it is not completely clear what you are ordering on, but typically in an RB tree you (at the very least) want to require some interface/function that specifies ordering and equality.
Of course, in some cases you can do casting on your interface boundaries. But in many other cases this is not possible, e.g. if you want the API to return an ordered set or map.
