purescript if you count “compile to js” as compiled.

Otherwise Haskell

The first pass of elm ecosystem solved it. Before elm, it was also solved by other frameworks. But people wanted to be able to reuse their components and not rebuild new ones. React provided the ability to reuse css, and dirty js code in the middle of your application. You already had an way bigger ecosystem because you didn’t have to learn and built a complete new system again.

Personally if I had the choice I believe a new start should start at the browser level. Stop supporting HTML/CSS/JS. Create a new app-centric DSL and not a document centric one like html/css/js.

Ideally something inspired from cocoa layout. And I am dreaming but not accept generic code on the client side and only support a small controlled API. It would solve so many security issues. Sure, the creativity in such an ecosystem will be severely reduced. But we will have a so much improved UX.

If you don’t want to go full Cloudflare you can mitigate DDOS using these kind of technique locally.

https://blog.nginx.org/blog/mitigating-ddos-attacks-with-nginx-and-nginx-plus

Cloudflare will be a lot more effective in case of attack. But I don’t think most people need more than a few mitigation rules. If DDOS really come, there are very few things you could do to mitigate anyway.

I think unlike Google, there are still many pure engineers that need to contribute to open source to be motivated and are still have some power.

I feel, but I am not sure, that for Google, thing have switched more and faster to the side of Big soulless corps.

Generally speaking my experience is that even in these big soulless corps there are positive and passionate people. But quite often they do not have enough decision power to have a positive impact.

I would suggest Helvix or Helvim

I think we shouldn’t wait for the billionaires to disappear to make efforts.

Saying as long as billionaires are polluting I can still pollute as usual is simply dismissing our own responsibility.

Even though, I agree, billionaires should be the first to make the largest effort.

I think the message that want to be passed by this article is probably pro-oil industry. It gives a false impression that we could tackle ecology not by changing our habits but just be mad at a few billionaires. And this is factually false.

Unlike wealth pollution is more equitably shared among people. Here in order to demultiply the calculated pollution of billionaires they introduced thier industry and the pollution of their employees somehow.

And while it is expected these people pollute more. Getting rid of them will not reduce the pollution as one could expect.

unfortunately everyone, even not the wealthiest will need to change how they live to have a visible impact on pollution. broadly speeking, not just CO2, as we have a lot more ecological problems than global warming. Note the focus on global warming alone is also a strategy to hide the real changes that need to ne made in order to prevent humanity to hurt itself too much by destroying its own ecosystem.

Edit: As I am being downvoted it looks people probably misunderstood my message. I would gladly get rid of super rich people. But while this would help, we would all still need to make efforts. Until we accept that we should change our way of life, we will not solve our balance with our ecosystem.

“Hi computer! Write me a program that make money. I must just run it and I become rich.”

malbolge

and just after haskell

I use this nice trick to use Clojure has a bash script. This auto-download clojure so this id quite portable and reproductible.

https://gist.github.com/ericnormand/6bb4562c4bc578ef223182e3bb1e72c5?permalink_comment_id=4547071#gistcomment-4547071

Previously I also used Haskell’s turtle lib that could run with a portable shebang and it could even be compiled later if you need more speed.

I feel that I see more and more articles that give the false impression that rich are the only people we should put a pressure for pollution. This will give more and more people the illusion that they can pollute because their pollution is very minor compared to the pollution of the rich.

The reality is while richer people pollute more. The ratio of pollution between a rich and a normal person is not comparable to the ratio of the wealth difference.

In fact, for pollution, everyone effort has a real effect.

More precisely I read an article that made it clear that if a super rich has 100000x more money, they will pollute directly only 40x more than most people. (the number are probably wrong but the order of magnitude is correct).

This mean that pollution is not just for the rich, but for everyone. And your personal effort count.

I don’t see how this could be positive for any Software developer in the long run. I totally see how this could be positive for CEO/CTO, Project Managers, in the long run, and I see a few short term advantages for Software developers.

Let’s be clear, I saw that coming since Microsoft bought Github, and I am scared by the direction this is taking. The end goal is to move more and more control and power to non-software people about Software development.

By forcing every developer to not use their own tools this will have a lot of advantage for CEO/CTOs but this is terrible for software developers:

1. telemetry: they will try to find a formula to assess who are the best performer in a team. And as with SEO, any formula could be gamed, the best at this game, will not be the best software developers, but the one that will learn how to cheat.
2. global team tooling enforcement: vim vs emacs etc… ? Forget about it, the only way to work on a project will be via this unique allowed editor.
3. assets protection: impossible to download the code on your local computer to use external tools on it. The only way to have analysis tools will be via these “allowed” analysis tools. This will make code analysis and experimentation a lot more difficult.
4. Locked by promoting vendor-specific applications. As you will focus to make your code/app/product work only for Google Cloud for example, you will naturally use Google-Cloud-only features that will make your code difficult (or impossible) to move to another Cloud provider, or god-forbid, host your product on a non-cloud or private made cloud.

And I can think of other possible drawbacks but my comment is already long enough.

• Real programmers code in C!
• NO! Real programmers code in Fortran77!
• NO! Real programmers code in ASM!
• NO! Real programmers code in binary!
• NO! Real programmers build their own hardware!
• NO! Real programmer code using bacteria DNA!

I don’t see how this could be prevented.

There are already many “small web” movements. With different proposals. Like gemini, sub-set of currently supported web standards (typically no-js, no-css, no POST, etc…)

But the monetized web is doomed to reach a point were it will be controlled in such a way that you will not be able to block ads, not be able to hide your pseudonymous identity.

I remember reading an article many years ago about the cat and mouse game between ads publishers and ad-blockers. The conclusion were that in the end, ads blocker will lose the final war. And with these kind of system we are closer and closer to reach it.

I think we need to collectively find a way to have sub-nets. For example declare that our website conform to certain sub-net properties.

• no-ads
• privacy (no cookie/no js/no user-agent header/no canvas, no css)
• etc…

The small webs are different for everyone. It would be very nice if we could put an HTML header that would list which small webs pattern this page is compatible with. And have a browser that would adapt to your preferences and also a way to filter your small-web preferences in search engine.

The closest to this we have today is probably gemini. But this a very small but friendly web. I am sure we could find other solutions to create an alternative “respecting his users” web.

As you only mention git and not any git hosting. I would say you could easily use git hooks. Fir you and probably ask everyone in your team to install the same git hooks to have a chance to review changes before they are commited.

For my team there is an init-git-repo.sh shell script in our repository. When you execute it, it will install all the git-hooks fir your local repository.

You can use them to add checks during commit, merge, etc…

Edit: I read a bit too fast. As you are using bitbucket there id probably the equivalent of github’s CODEOWNER file as already proposed in another comment.

“Do the right thing” in corporate speak generally means to obey some business conduct to prevent any risk for the company to be sued. Mainly, take care of interest conflicts. Do not personally contribute to hide such issue and there should even be an internal team taking care that if you tell the truth your managers could not retaliate.

Mainly, “Do the right thing” is about protecting Google. Not “Do the right thing for the world and strive for progress”.

Google stopped to try to create progress. Instead they just need innovation. This is what they are after. Innovation, not progress anymore.

nix does not need nixOS to run but is a complex package manager. At least for me, it doesn’t seem more complex than docker ecosystem.

I personally use nix to take care of downloading compatible dependencies in isolation for me. And the rest of the code is really, just basic script shell or Makefile too.

I also could add a fancy mergeShells function I have written in nix to support a docker-compose-like composition of nix-shell files. But you could go a very long way with nix before you even want to do something like this.

I use a similar approach, but I went further by creating a system that compose like docker-compose would. The trick was to write my own nix function mergeShells.

https://her.esy.fun/posts/0024-replace-docker-compose-with-nix-shell/index.html

For now, I am pretty happy with it. Also, I put the init script inside nix-shell and not in external files and use exit signal to cleanup the state.