I understand your opinion, but the modern question of same-sex marriage is not about your business getting into the state. Modern marriage laws focus on mundane but important laws such as making medical decisions for your spouse, special protections (in the U.S. there is a constitutional provision that the government cannot coerce spouses to testify in court against each other), automatic inheritance of the estate, and lots and lots of tax implications. I'm sure there's more, but in any case I'm certain that there's no laws forcing procreation.

With these laws, it really is a contract that shouldn't be easily broken by one of the participants. I'm not saying you need a lawyer, but I do believe that with laws that have such significant on a person's life (and beyond), there should be government protection and a bit more than a handshake to establish these special protections.

Disclaimer: I'm a gay man married to another man.

When you say "special rights" I think of inequality and favoritism. In reality, gay marriage isn't that (or at least I don't expect it to be that). The main things I want from the law/government regarding my marriage is: medical decisions when the other cannot make them, inheritance decisions without me explicitly writing down that my husband co-owns my assets, the ability to make decisions for our children, and... well I think that's it. I don't consider these natural rights, I really just consider them a government recognition of companionship. This has nothing to do with fucking.

To name it correctly.

What I mean with that is that the language was designed with certain safety mechanisms involved. However, in order to do something as simple (maybe simple isn't the right word, but common) as the printf function, you have to break the standard safety mechanisms. Hence the printf function is a macro, and underneath the hood there is a whole lot of ugliness.

Now, taking a step back further, I think that it's good that ugliness is hidden behind the scenes. My point is that, if one has to get ugly to do the things that need to be done in a printf function, then I expect that it will actually become common and necessary to "do ugly things" in order to get stuff done in real-world applications.

And maybe I'm wrong, who knows?

They could have made the same simple concepts without going C++ style. This is obviously just aesthetics, but I don't think the language looks nice compared to lots of newer languages (Swift, Ruby, Kotlin, and even D).

The :: scope operator is ugly and redundant.

This match syntax is just ugly and hard to type:

    match header[0] {
                1 => Ok(Version::Version1),
                2 => Ok(Version::Version2),
                _ => Err(ParseError::InvalidVersion)
        }

The following is ugly and is not obvious:

use std::sync::{Arc, Mutex};
use std::thread;
use std::sync::mpsc;

fn main() {
        let data = Arc::new(Mutex::new(0u32));

        let (tx, rx) = mpsc::channel();

        for _ in 0..10 {
                let (data, tx) = (data.clone(), tx.clone());

                thread::spawn(move || {
                        let mut data = data.lock().unwrap();
                        *data += 1;

                        tx.send(());
                });
        }

        for _ in 0..10 {
                rx.recv();
        }
}

A simple printf function has to be a macro, because the techniques it uses are unsafe which is a main feature of the language.

OK a lot of these gripes are trivial; I guess I'm getting at the fact that they went an academic route about how to deal with pointers and memory allocation safely, and then built everything around that. It was so academic and engineering-like and they didn't think or try very hard about the design and aesthetics.

Actually a lot of it is because more kids in underdeveloped economies equates to more wealth, and in developed economies, more kids generally does not lead to more wealth.

LOL!

Linus, stop peddling the idea that everything should be 80 characters. 80-wide character terminals are a relic of 1960. Let the git commits fly, and let any browser since, I dunno, 1961, handle word wrapping.

My half brother is one of those doctors who quit because of being sued and didn't want/couldn't continue practicing. It hurts my family very much. But let me tell you, it's not because of "liberals" it's because of many factors. I suppose a completely conservative or completely liberal government could fix it (in a manner disagreeable to the other side), but just like our tax system, the problem won't be solved not because of liberalism or conservatism, it's because of our shitty democracy.

You're so fucking wrong. Your quick googling sounds like you just googled "climate change science is wrong". Taxis are not monitored by anyone, Ubers/Lfyts/Sidecars are.

I don't want to say this because anecdotal evidence is stupid, but I'm going to because I'm mad that I read your post. I've personally known two people to have been robbed by gunpoint by taxi drivers, and there's no way to track them. There's NOBODY who's ever been assaulted by Uber/Lfyts/Sidecars who haven't been able to have been tracked.

I agree that it's at least a majority of the person producing it, but I wouldn't say 99%. Good language design, in the right and appropriate circumstances, do indeed help. For example, Java (which you mention as bad) actually makes it MUCH harder for software to crash. For example, I lead a mobile team with Objective C (iOS) and Java (Android). The number of users experiencing crashes on the iOS app is around 2.5%, while the Android app is a perfect 0%. I don't think the Android devs are any better than the iOS devs - I am certain it's the language.

For the record, I have nothing good to say about C++ :)

Is that some tribal instinct in you invoking emotion instead of logic? English is by far and away the standard international language. Pilots from Russia landing in Taiwan speak English to the radio towers. Travellers between Spain and France in Barcelona (3 languages there) speak English to communicate.

Just because there are more native speakers of Mandarin does not make it the standard international language. And btw, native speakers is a piss poor statistic for a standard international language.

HA!

There are something like 80,000 H1B visa applications per year. That's microscopic compared to other forms of immigration (legal and illegal).

I'd rather be H1B-ified from intelligent and capable and needed immigrants than the rest.

Just curious, how exactly would you do that? A democracy? An oligarchy? Even if you had 24/7 monitoring, how exactly would you give such an entity the ability to protect yourself from bad guys and also defend the rights of Muslims and gays equally without bias?

This is not a troll question, this is actually a question that comes up a bunch when drinking with my buddies.