• 0 Posts
  • 71 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle






  • Plus, the license was only changed on a secondary branch. The default branch still has the MIT license. The text at the top isn’t “this is the license file you have open” it’s “the repo is licensed under this” so it’s correct behavior but bad UX. It would be most user-friendly to show repo license and then also say “this branch has an invalid license, beware shenanigans”














  • GPL FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NonFreeTools

    In the old days proprietary compilers was the norm. If “blue” is of value an open source equivalent will be made eventually. But looking at the blue examples and sdesk repo I doubt it.

    Going just by the examples, Blue itself seems more an incomplete templating/code generation layer for getting some syntax sugar than anything else. Like you write Blue targeting C, write super high level constructs in Blue, then include C headers and snippets of C code for all the stuff you can’t write in Blue, and finally transpile Blue into C which is then compiled conventionally.