I actually like ML style: "let foo = bar in zed".
I agree that curly braced languages should stay as curly braced languages, but it's myopic to assume it's the only choice for scoping when designing a new one.
In any event, you're right that what is broken about GO is not really the scoping mechanisms.
People struggle with pretty much every language, it's just that the bugs are different in each.
Sure, but I would argue some languages are dominating strategies over others. There are bugs which simply don't exist in some languages but do in others. Like null pointers or references do not exist in OCaml (instead, you must use the optional type explicitly).
1990 called and wants its version control system back. I'd go poking around in their version control to at least determine the implementation language, but... nah.
Where did you find this? I was looking for the source code repo. And I agree. CVS is dooming this project from the start.
Windows 9: ???
Well, what's your prediction?
I very much agree that SaaS is yet another strategic approach to controlling information and the software used to gather it. But it's hard to completely throw away such a useful abstraction. From a pragmatic view, SaaS is a convenient separation of concerns applied to both infrastructure and software.
Perhaps I missed it, but does RMS actually supply a solution to problems solved by SaaS? I noticed a few already in the threads here, but this basically characterizes most choices:
1. A completely decentralized approach, where everyone shares the software and information equally.
2. Every SaaS must run and share opensource code, as well as somehow opening sourcing the content (safely) as well.
3. Assume the worst about all endpoints, eventually empirically and/or contractually trust certain ones in a white list.
"Pascal is Pascal is Pascal is dog meat." -- M. Devine and P. Larson, Computer Science 340