I believe any reasonable person could understand the previous comment is about the rules themselves, not about a statement in the CoC saying where they apply or not.
Also, the fact that the website is not covered by the CoC makes it worse, since the leadership is excluding themselves from their own engagement rules.
I used OCaml extensively for a few years, around the time of OCaml 3 and OCaml 4, and I can add a few cents to this discussion.
Some of the points listed here can be considered a matter of taste or opinion, some are indeed pain points, and some are implementation details.
OCaml as a whole is hard to directly compare with most other languages you mentioned above as "better" or "worse". It both suffers and benefits from being an academic/research project not directly in control of a larger corporation.
As a language, IMHO, it is miles ahead of mostly all the languages mentioned above. It recently adopted a novel mechanism for modeling concurrency called algebraic effects, together with state-of-art multi-core support. This not only abstracts away several features that are usually hardcoded on most languages but puts it on another level as a language and abstraction capability. There are other toy languages that implement similar mechanisms or part of this, but none with the adoption level of OCaml.
However, since it does not have the same amount of resources and adoption, progress sometimes is slower that one would expect. Documentation can be sparse, community is smaller, etc.
Regarding OCaml on Windows, I myself used it exactly 20 years ago. It not only has one implementation, but three. There are some tradeoffs and support is not at the same level as Linux but it's still there, and I wouldn't call it mediocre:
You might find it harder to find libraries, for sure. I have not checked the situation recently, though given the smaller community that is likely still the case.
As a tongue-in-cheek comment, I could definitely say "OCaml is certainly not a good language - not as bad as most of all the others though".
Kind of an odd conclusion to take from a weird question.
I would not subject myself or my property to a foreign court system for various reasons, but first and foremost because I'm not subject to their laws.
If I'm on Brazilian territory or doing business in Brazil, however, the question is equally pointless: barring certain exceptions, you are subject to the Brazilian laws to the extent of your presence in the country - period. You have no choice on this matter.
Courts are fallible and that's why you have levels, due process, and presumption of innocence. The Brazilian system is not perfect and it's slow but you cannot say the American system is much better when comparing decisions at same court level.
"first and foremost because I'm not subject to their laws"
People often shop for good jurisdictions when founding companies or even concluding contracts which need an arbitration clause. Countries which have a reputation for quick and neutral justice tend to attract foreigners for this purpose. In Europe, either UK or the Netherlands are on the top of this ladder.
IDK where precisely Brazil stands on this ladder. They seem to attract quite a lot of FDI, so maybe not as bad as the GP said.
This wasn't clear for me from the question, though I understand where you are coming from.
Investing is certainly not as risky as people from outside of Brazil generally think it is, since the banking system is well regulated and the legal framework is solid.
My two cents: if someone that is a foreigner in both Brazil and the US asked me what I think, I would say investing is Brazil is likely less risky than the US at the moment.
Not the person you are responding to, but just as an FYI: in Brazil right now there are certain groups attempting to stamp political motivation on the decisions of the upper judiciary and discredit its impartiality and capacity to judge.
The reason most of these politicians and alies are acting like this is fear.
See what they just tried to vote a couple of months ago:
The popular name of this amendment should tell you everything you need to know about its purpose.
There were several large protests before the vote on the Senate, and before it was eventually ruled unconstitutional by a commission from the Senate.
It is also important to note members of Congress and Senate already have a certain level of immunity in Brazil and can only be judged by the Supreme Federal Court, and this would further restrict the ability of the judiciary branch to give sentences to politicians convicted of any serious wrongdoing.
Last, but not least, I can tell you that you quoting the CNN article would probably ruffle some feathers from (most of) the same ones questioning the Supreme Court. I speak from experience.
"Certain groups" are ruining the court's impartiality by pointing out the fact it has been investigating, prosecuting, judging and executing made up crimes against themselves since at least 2019?
Judge straight up comes out to the public and brags about how they all personally defeated Bolsonaro? Same guy who's implicated in the USAID nonsense? And you make it out to be a conspiracy theory?
The "shielding" law is absolute nonsense yet I can't even fault them for trying. What else are you supposed to do when you have a supreme court that has essentially usurped all power?
It names the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE as the author, not the Supreme Court.
> And you make it out to be a conspiracy theory?
I did not say this and I was not trying to imply a conspiracy in what I said, only that this is a blatant attempt from the Congress to protect their own interests.
It is not a conspiracy when Congress members like Nikolas Ferreira say things like:
'' If any Member of Parliament commits a crime, they will go to jail. This House just needs to say "yes." ''
Which means the Congress now will be the final judge, overriding the Supreme Court (via secret voting, btw).
> Judge straight up comes out to the public and brags about how they all personally defeated Bolsonaro? Same guy who's implicated in the USAID nonsense? And you make it out to be a conspiracy theory?
FYI, I was not taking about Bolsonaro.
Again, 30 seconds of Google and I can find not only what are you taking about USAID (Musk accusing USAID of interfering in the Brazilian election) but the fact that this is most likely false and has no basis whatsoever.
A claim requires evidence, and as far as the evidence goes it is pretty much all there is.
For the other claims, it is a matter of opinion. I don't see it that way.
> I'm tired, man.
I think, in a sense, everyone is.
The question you need to ask youself is: what are you fighting for?
My suggestion is for you to consider everything Bolsonaro says and stands for and ask youself: is he really standing for democracy? Are the judges in the way of someone that stands for democracy?
If your answer is yes, then we have a fundamental disagreement and from this point on we can only agree to disagree.
As you can see, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anything that was claimed.
> this is a blatant attempt from the Congress to protect their own interests
That's not what you said. You said "certain groups" are trying to undermine the non-existent impartiality of the supreme court. They've been doing an excellent job at destroying it all by themselves.
As to your claim that congress is blatantly trying to protect itself, we're not in disagreement. I even said so in my original comment. I don't agree with that asinine "shielding" law at all.
I merely expressed sympathy towards their reasons for doing so. The only reason the supreme court hasn't straight up dissolved congress is they need it to exist so this country can have a veneer of democracy.
Here's a notable episode: our current president and his ministers have been on a taxation spree since he took office; at some point our elected congress started blocking their attempts to raise taxes on us; the supreme court suddenly swoops in and overrides our elected congress on this matter, giving the president what he wants.
The only reason the supreme court hasn't dissolved congress is they still need it to exist so this country can have a veneer of democracy.
> Musk accusing USAID of interfering in the Brazilian election
Not Musk. Accusations come from Mike Benz, former US State Department official.
This aligns with my own memories of the 2022 election. I stopped trusting the voting machines when I saw Biden's top CIA official tell Bolsonaro to stop questioning them.
> what are you fighting for?
At this point? My own sanity.
This country is hopeless, it can't be fixed. Nevertheless I can't remain silent in these discussions because I feel like I'm being gaslit.
> Are the judges in the way of someone that stands for democracy?
The judges are themselves against democracy. My position is they have themselves pulled off a silent coup and are now running the country monocratically.
Whatever Bolsonaro plotted to do is mostly irrelevant when faced with this. If anything it'd be a counter-coup.
> That's not what you said. You said "certain groups" are trying to undermine the non-existent impartiality of the supreme court.
I said they were trying to "stamp political motivation on on the decisions of the upper judiciary".
IOW, to label them as politically motivated.
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy since these groups have been pretty vocal about it.
By "certain groups" I meant "some political parties, politicians and associates", though I'm not comfortable defining it further since I don't have exact references ATM.
> As you can see, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anything that was claimed.
This is a different inquiry, check the numbers.
> Whatever Bolsonaro plotted to do is mostly irrelevant when faced with this. If anything it'd be a counter-coup.
It's not necessary to "label" anything. They have publicly confessed. One of the judges went to a public event and bragged about it in public. "We defeated Bolsonarism!" were his exact words.
You cannot possibly witness that and then continue believing in the so called impartiality of the court.
He's been regretting those words ever since for obvious reasons. He's even resigned from his position.
There's no need to debate this further. I could enumerate even more examples of impartiality and persecution, but if a judge publicly bragging about persecuting a political candidate fails to convince, what's the point?
You are dressing the events in your interpretation and stating them as truth.
The events you mention above are cherry-picked bits of information to support what you have said from the beginning.
For instance, in what you said above: you are quoting an excerpt of Barroso's comments from 2023 about democracy (not his exact words) without the actual context, something he even clarified later on as it was picked up by the media. Also, his resignation now, 2 years later, has nothing to do with any of this - looks like he was just tired.
I don't blame him. To be honest, now I'm tired as well.
> You are dressing the events in your interpretation and stating them as truth.
That's how a discussion works. I state what I believe in, and people will either agree or post counterpoints. If I'm wrong then I won't be able to argue otherwise. Testing my ideas is the whole point.
Just for the record, even leftist columnists agree with me.
They admit that the supreme court is out of control. They just think it's okay because they're currently persecuting their political enemies. Now that the court has served its purpose, it's time for things to go back to normal. Just like that.
Their motives are transparent, as are their political maneuvers. It's the intellectual dishonesty that disgusts me.
It's ludicrous to read the article and notice how hard they are trying not to blame the victim, as if a child going through bullying and seeing that nobody around them cares to actually do something is somehow in the wrong when they react.
I never seen or heard any school doing any meaningful actions to deter bullying, and I don't mean this about the US system alone. Students are often left to fend off by themselves like animals, only punished when they fight back.
The classic victim-turned-perpretator is symptom of a system that is fundamentally broken.
I don't say this to justify any kind of violence, just that it is understandable and baffling that so little seems to be done to address root causes. Almost as if the children going through this are right on point: nobody really cares.
The last paragraph says it all:
> At one point during his senior year, he even asked to meet her team to thank them. “He thanked us for caring about him,” the sergeant said. “Because he felt like no one ever took the time to really care, and he could tell that we cared. It was really nice to hear.”
I read this a few times now and it hits hard every time.
I hope he's well and was able move one with his life. This would be indeed the best achievement of a system that should be like this from day 1.
There are tons of languages and frameworks made by developers who know what they are doing that do not treat everything blindly like strings.
For SQL in particular, you should never build queries directly from user input - any modern database supports bind variables or parameters, which completely eliminate any need for sanitizing input.
I agree with you regarding sanitization, and I'd add further that having to sanitize input for security purposes is a big sign of code smell and an overall insecure code by design.
I feel like answering this comment could start a possible argument, which I have no interest in doing.
I do, however, want to point that anyone interested in comparing language design choices can conclude by themselves this is likely a strong factor.
You can find references like the classic "PHP: a fractal of bad design"[1] which not only talks about the language itself but SQL injection, error handling and tons of other issues. It summarizes most of the important points.
I can also add a few issues like[2][3], which unfortunately are not isolated incidents: these are a reflection of core design decisions and how the language approaches software design as a whole.
I stand by my point, which I'll define more precisely as:
"A badly-designed language either makes it hard for developers to do good choices, or makes it easy for developers to do bad choices."
PHP is not alone, but it is a prime example of this.
You can disagree with this assessment - and that's OK.
I have to disagree, because your assessment is outdated and somewhat shallow. My impression is that it doesn't rest on much real programming experience with PHP either.
To stay with the topic, these arguments are in essence a way of trying to hold PHP as a language accountable for functions it exposed in its since long (about a decade ago) deprecated original mysql extension. These functions actually belong to the underlying C library developed by MySQL, and as has been the custom with tons of functionality brought into PHP from elsewhere over the years, the entire library was relayed. The very same functions - e.g. escape_string(), the culprit "luring" users away from parameterization - are still available in Oracle's mysql C library, and are to some extent also available in, for example, the mysql Python connector through its C extension API.
At the time "a fractal of bad design" was published a handful of its talking points were already no longer actual. It got tired and trope-y years ago, and PHP isn't what it was 15 years ago. Referencing the article today is about as valid as regurgitating "classic" 1950s health advice to Ironman triathletes or something.
As I said, I have no intention of starting an argument.
I would just like to point out a few issues:
A) I deliberately focused on the language itself in my claims.
The functions I cited earlier were meant to illustrate the side effects of a certain mindset of the core language.
Keep in mind: these functions are not from some random library in the ecosystem, but from the core library of the language, providing core functionality. And that hasn't changed, nor the functions.
B) You've made a number of statements in response to my comments, but I don't see any supporting references.
The only justification you've given is your own opinion that "the article is too old and not relevant anymore".
Which takes us to point C.
C) I skimmed through the article again, along with the general documentation of the language, and I stand by this statement:
"Every major point in that article about the language is as relevant today as it was in 2012."
PHP might work fine for templating some web pages, but so does Jinja. As a general programming language, it falls short in too many ways to list here. You can revisit the original article I mentioned before for a more comprehensive list, in particular the "core language" section.
Well, at least that's my opinion. As I said, you're free to disagree - and that's OK.
--
Side note: The easiest approach during a disagreement in an online discussion is to write a lot of "opinion-based statements" as if they were facts, and leave everything else as an exercise for the reader.
If you want to be taken seriously, please don't do that.
And tons of such frameworks have been written in PHP; prepared statements with an adapter-agnostic database connection layer are first-class citizens in PHP.
I see the opposite: OP's post sounds like a cry for help, and paints a picture of someone that is not in a good place mentally.
anigbrowl might have been too direct and harsh (I would say the first paragraph of his comment could be worded differently), but he was very clear in the second paragraph about where to go from here.
If this is truly how OP thinks and this post is how they feel about everything that happened, I strongly recommend for OP to look for professional help (with emphasis on "professional").
