That's a really important point, and I completely agree.
This perspective reminds me of an excellent book I recently read, How Big Things Get Done: The Surprising Factors That Determine the Fate of Every Project, from Home Renovations to Space Exploration and Everything In Between by Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner.
This book focuses on extremely high-cost "megaprojects" and emphasizes the critical importance of thorough "planning" before execution. This stands in stark contrast to the low-risk creative activities discussed in the article, which makes the point about cost even more compelling.
However, rather than being a complete counter-argument, I see a significant overlap. The book advocates *for low-risk, low-cost experimentation and creative exploration during the planning phase* through methods like miniature prototyping and CAD simulations. In this sense, both the article and the book highlight the value of iterative approaches, whether it's through frequent, small-scale actions or through meticulous, low-cost trials before committing to high-cost endeavors.
I think that there is still a fundamental problem of string encoding.
The problem is that decoders cannot know what encoding a byte stream was encoded in without additional information.
Such information are often lost or omitted as you can see in web world.
In such a situation, what decoders can do is just guessing. This is the reason why we still suffer Mojibake.
A possible solution was to attach encoding information to a head of bytes as one or two byte.
For example:
UTF-8 = 0b00000001
UTF-16 = 0b00000002
Shift_JIS = 0b00000003
EUC-JP = 0b00000004
and so on.
Of course this is not actual and reasonable solution because everyone must switch decoder/encoder to this protocol at once.
I think they meant feature updates, not security updates. And those come not very frequently, but agreed, even then, they are automatic (unless some moron disabled Windows Update).
While you may think so, GPL is based on copyright, and it's what the copyright law and courts say which count. Linked modules contain code covered under copyright and hence is regulated by the GPL. A connection via TCP/IP does not.
It would be odd indeed to connect to Facebook's web site via TCP/IP, and claim that the Facebook system and my TCP client code are all part of one system, so Facebook has violated my copyright.
If you're curious about the legal side of linking in non-C languages,
the following legal analysis of the LLGPL (Lisp Lesser GNU Public License)
is an interesting read:
Are there correct answers more than one? I could complete the Level8 without filling all spaces. I prefer only single possible answer, which fills all spaces.
I agree that using data as templete is great. This is a typical example of "The value of value"(Rich Hickey's speech).
And I think client side have a bit different requirement compared to server side.
At client side, I often need to manipulate specific element instead of root element which crate and dommy return.
So I forked crate in order to get a collection of created elements as a hashmap.
https://github.com/hozumi/crate-bind
This is useful. I will create dommy version of this.
This book focuses on extremely high-cost "megaprojects" and emphasizes the critical importance of thorough "planning" before execution. This stands in stark contrast to the low-risk creative activities discussed in the article, which makes the point about cost even more compelling.
However, rather than being a complete counter-argument, I see a significant overlap. The book advocates *for low-risk, low-cost experimentation and creative exploration during the planning phase* through methods like miniature prototyping and CAD simulations. In this sense, both the article and the book highlight the value of iterative approaches, whether it's through frequent, small-scale actions or through meticulous, low-cost trials before committing to high-cost endeavors.