"D4" library/tool for Declarative Data-Driven Documents[4]
"D4" implementation[5] of the data language specification[1]
Overall, I think "D2" is objectively the best choice here. We have at least three "D"s, two "D4"s, and one "D3", so it makes sense to put it in as "D2". I certainly wouldn't want another "D" or, heaven forbid, a "D5".
Could you elaborate further on this? I originally read your response as meaning something bad specifically based on the OP stating that they are Russian, and I am hoping that isn't actually the case.
Blockchain and Crypto are fairly useless in areas with reliable currency. The Ruble is a garbage currency and so, it's entirely feasible that the stated advantages/benefits of something like BTC really do add up in a place like Russia. But I'm not sure BTC is the solution, or that there are really any solutions as of yet.
As for 'meaning something bad' and not being sure about it, why would you even respond? It's just a discussion board. Nothing we say here is important, it's not worth a glancing though to contemplate if someone somewhere on a comment section may or may not have meant something ill mannered towards someone else.
And in all self awareness, I have no clue on earth why I am downvoted, usually in retrospect it's obvious, but when discussing 'Bitcoin' one can never really tell (not that it matters).
Ah, interesting! I usually only hear about crypto/blockchain in a negative context (new XYZ-coins that are pre-mined, environmental impact, plugged into games for new microtransactions, etc), so it's interesting to hear about a potentially legitimate use case.
To be bluntly honest, I responded because I thought you might be advocating for violence against someone entirely based on their nationality |OR| that I completely misunderstood what your comment was about (which I definitely did here; sorry for interpreting your message the wrong way).
Even with it just being a discussion board, I would really regret not at least leaving a comment asking for clarification. I'm glad I did in this case, as I turned out to be completely wrong :)
Yes, but it's not like this only happens with small/new languages. Even today, Go-lang binaries will often get detected by various Windows anti-malware software. They even have a section in their FAQ about it [0].
Also, in Hare's specific case, it doesn't _really_ matter as they will never support Windows or MacOS [1], and there isn't a significant presence of anti-malware software on linux distros.
Not supporting Mac is a big shot in the foot from Hare. Is this a case of ideology getting in the way of pragmatism, or do they have technical reasons? Singling out proprietary platforms sounds ideological.
"As other commenters alluded to, it's an ideological and practical decision. We simply prefer free software operating systems. We do not care to legitimize nonfree platforms, and we prefer to be able to read (and patch) the code to understand the tools we depend on. If that's a deal-breaker for you, no worries - Hare does not have to appeal to everyone to achieve its goals."
"D" the programming language [0]
"D" the data language specification [1]
"D" the programming language for DTrace [2]
"D3" the javascript library [3]
"D4" library/tool for Declarative Data-Driven Documents[4]
"D4" implementation[5] of the data language specification[1]
Overall, I think "D2" is objectively the best choice here. We have at least three "D"s, two "D4"s, and one "D3", so it makes sense to put it in as "D2". I certainly wouldn't want another "D" or, heaven forbid, a "D5".
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_(programming_language)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_(data_language_specification...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTrace#Description
[3]: https://d3js.org/
[4]: https://github.com/joelburget/d4
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataphor#Languages