I have never once in my life cared about where a programming language kept its source and I think if anyone is using that as a basis for decision-making, they are truly a moron.
I don't care if it's on GitHub at all, it's not hard to work with any arbitrary git remote. CVS would be a weird choice, but it wouldn't be a dealbreaker on its own. Fossil or some other modern alternative VCS wouldn't be a red flag or weird at all.
But I wasn't talking about contributing to the language, which is a weird standard to use here since Zig isn't interested in outside contributors. I was talking about choosing a programming language for use for some professional or personal project. I don't give a fig what version control solutions the team chooses to use if the language is good and solves my problems, and I would consider it very strange if someone tried to argue that I shouldn't use some language because they put their code on a non-Microsoft owned server.
I generally agree with you that choosing something based on where it's hosted is dumb. I still think there could be an impact wrt a network effect.
The original comment you replied to was talking about "the loss of network effect" and you sounded dismissive of it. It might not even matter, but I think it's somewhat fair to say it could have an impact.
I agree. It's possible in the future a project hosted on codeberg is a silent "stamp of quality". Though, I still think there could be impact wrt a network effect.
What I assume you mean is not the network effect, where more users of a product makes the product more valuable. That's still true for Zig as more users increase the ecosystem, funding potential etc. regardless of where the compiler source lives.
I think you mean to say something like barrier to entry for contributors? Where having to sign up for a new service will discourage some engagement with the core repo.
This is hilarious. Hating Microsoft will never go out of style. Fun to see the youngs rediscover it. Also hilarious is that Codeberg as a frontend is slow as hell; slower than Github even.
It's virtue signaling plain and simple. People who crafted their identities around the current thing in ~2017 are religiously attached to having to be part of the in group and can't let it go, and it inevitably bubbles up like this.
This will no doubt rankle those who align with that group, but they are a pathetic remnant of a terrible period of rampant sociopathy.
Though you will no doubt assume you're getting downvoted because you're speaking truth to sociopaths, I just wanted to say I'm downvoting you because your comment violates multiple HN guidelines. Reminder, those are here:
It's disappointing to see such a long-term community member engage so thoughtlessly. I know the guidelines also say I should just flag and move on, but this will only reenforce your narrative, and I am hoping to break the cycle.
This is exactly my take as well. The people leaving and putting out the call for others to follow them are the same ones that lost their power when the platform changed hands and the ideologies of the people who run it changed.
I'd be more concerned about pricing and vendor lock-in.
Haven't tried SST though. I doubt if it works always flawlessly because even plain old terraform might get stuck in complicated dependency graphs failing to destroy or create/recreate resources.
I think it depends entirely on the product/audience. The selling points around infrastructure tooling are stability and reliability. Zany marketing like this invokes an "unpredictable" feeling in me which I'm not sure is a good fit.
That's in of itself, sad. The lack of efficiency is mind-bottling [1]. There were states with large populations that had 90-100% of results in a matter of hours.
Was just in Canada recently and despite the favorable exchange rate, I couldn't believe how expensive groceries were compared to the states. Everything from juice to eggs to bread to meat was 1.5 - 2x the cost back home.
