I know someone who’s literally making that right now. Remind me in a week, I’ll send you the link. He’ll probably be done by then.

For XMPP, have you looked into using snikket? It does most things you’d want out of the box without having to setup extensions yourself.

I got into ocaml recently. I love it. I honestly don’t see issues with the syntax, maybe because I haven’t used it enough.

Which sites or apps does it not pop up? It is rare for it not to pop up for me.

Here is a docker compose: https://snikket.org/service/resources/docker-compose.yml

You only two configuration options in the config file: domain and email.

I’ve been wanting to do this exact thing. I already have wireguard setup. Please update us if you do this.

This makes matrix even less attractive to me lol. But you’re right, that’s a very good point.

cumbersome to parse

Parsers have already existed for so long in every major language. Why need to worry about parsing?

And why need to worry about transports working differently if they achieve the same thing? They seem similarly convenient if I understood what you said correctly

Why is JSON better than XML? It’s more modern, sure, but from technical perspective it is not objectively better right? Not something worth switching protocols for.

You mention XMPP has transports as opposed to Matrix bridges. I thought they give you roughly the same outcome. What’s the difference?

From a quick look into XMPP’s clients for android, they seem nice and some have modern features too.

Is there any technical limitation that would prevent xmpp client from having a WhatsApp-like UI?? WhatsApp started out with XMPP and probably still uses a variant of it. If anything, I’d imagine its harder with matrix given the complexity of the protocol.

Makes sense, but to me newness alone is not a benefit. In fact, it is a bit of a disadvantage. XMPP has more clients for example, and they are more mature.

Any examples other than ocaml? From my understanding, ocaml’s type strength may only be found in a couple other languages. Haskell, scala, and maybe Rust. Any others?

Comparing cost to AWS Aurora is unfair. Give us the self host price, and compare to that.

Also, they should have tried Scylla or Cassandra. It’s very scalable and handles a lot of writes.

I won’t remember everything, but one very important things comes to mind:

in Typescript, it is very difficult to assert on a type (let me know if you’re not familiar with what I mean by this and I can explain further). In OCaml, this is trivial using pattern matching.

Why would you need that? The idea of a type system is it doesn’t let you apply a function on a structure without the structure being of the right type. But the lack of type assertion in TS makes people follow hacky workarounds, which defeat the purpose of type system.

There are a couple of other things, like immutable types by default, automatic tail call optimization, functors enabling higher kinded types, etc.

Also in ocaml, you don’t have to annotate any types on any variable or parameter, and you’ll still get full type protection.

The only valid argument against typescript is that it is too similar to vanilla JavaScript. It does not go far enough. We need type systems like Ocaml’s.

I suppose you can also complain about needing a build step, but I find this silly. There are so many tools that make this easy or automatic.

I have two arguments: first, it’s not true that the OSI coined the term. But more importantly, it isn’t even important if it was true. What matters is the context in which the open source movement emerged, and how people who use the term think of it.

The open source / free software movement was born in universities who primarily wanted to erase the barriers on collaboration between them, and wanted to follow an open model. They grew frustrated of the proprietary and opaque model of software written by major corporations. They could not use it. So they decided to write their own free software and combine their efforts to not rely on corporate or proprietary software.

Back then, corporations were uninterested in open source. In fact they were hostile to it and wanted it to die. The issue that we deal with today of corporations leeching on open source did not exist, so the fact that the movement did not specifically fight this does not mean they’re okay with it. The corporate hostility took a different form and that’s what they combatted.

On OSI coining the term, the OSI themselves claim it was coined by Christine Peterson. They do not claim that they founded the term, nor that the founder had an affiliation with them: https://opensource.org/history

with strong copyleft licenses, businesses must give back, namely when expanding the program

A user is required to make the source open only if they create a derivative work of the copyleft licensed work, and only if said work was distributed to users. And if I remember correctly, it is only required to open the source to the users it was distributed to.

They do not have to do any profit sharing or donation. They are not even required to make the code open source if they merely use this program, or they interface with it. They are not required to do anything if they only use it internally.

no, thats also the open source definition

Correction: the definition of open source by a specific organization, the OSI.

I don’t remember voting or appointing the OSI as our legitimate representative. But you know who did? Corporations like Amazon, Google, Bloomberg, and many of them: https://opensource.org/sponsors

I do not subscribe to a definition from such an organization, just because it has open source in the name.

I am pretty sure that if you ask most open source developers if they are happy about corporations profitting off their software without giving back, they would say no.

The FSF and OSI do not allow licenses that limit corporate leech or restrict profiting of software without giving back.