we should try to target specifications if they exist, but the specifications should be moulded by the implementations. if the major implementations change, so too should the specifications.
because /.well-known sounds like a joke path. like, what if you want to put things that aren't well-known in there? also, i was first introduced to it via an april fool's joke video
the first code creates and initialises two variables (x and y) to 1. it then forms a vector of both of them, and prints that vector of integers as a string (so, prints x and y). if x is greater than 10, it jumps to line 11 (the end of program), which skips line 10. line 10 is executed if x is not greater than 10. it jumps back to line 3.
it's a community? i thought it was very young people doing it after seeing others do it
well, the fourth-dimensional arxifæ is, but that's close enough to the ears to count.
places mind spider directly on your fourth-dimensional arxifæ :3
mind spiders do not. they are too cute and friendly (and mind-controlling!!!! ^w^) to do so. please enjoy the mind spider i have placed upon your ear. :3
robots.txt is merely a suggestion
the mind spiders can ignore it to propagate spider spider ,bmmgmhmhmmhhhm :3
When i think of a modding API, i think of something that is used to fundamentally and completely change what exists in a piece of software
then there. your definition is simply not what the definition of everyone else's is.
no further statements are necessary.
I'd say that an OS is more akin to a scripting API or a programming language, which i am completely fine with.
modifications/plugins are literally just advanced scripts. some even are literally just scripts.
It's not ad-hominem because the analogue has direct relevance to the debate.
wow you're acting like such a capitalism here, continually defending your beliefs even when they don't make sense. (it is very relevant for me to ascribe your behaviour to that of a capitalist)
anyway, why are you so stubborn in your beliefs? you made this thread like a question, and then argue like it's a debate. if you really had genuine curiosity, then why do you refuse to accept the given answer?
is it because you're still curious on the specific details? well it's not like we're going to explain human sociology to you to say why humans want to have multiple modifications working together and modularly, with an easy and convenient way to achieve that. you've got the best answer we can reasonably give.
You're acting like a capitalist, trying to prove your own point by simply saying it again instead of refuting the refutations of others.
i never knew capitalism was about proving points via repeating oneself infinitely. i thought it was about the ruthless drive for profit above literally everything else. but i suppose it's about being a poor debater?
hey, speaking of poor debate skills, i'm pretty sure calling someone a capitalist, or « acting like a capitalist » is some kind of fallacy. it's certainly name-calling. ad hominem perhaps?
I don't think that a modification API helps with anything.
ok, i guess you don't need an operating system then. just flash software to your ROM directly. since, an OS is literally a modification API for computers.
I know that the work itself never addresses that
and therefore, is not a valid counterpoint. if it's so trivial to derive, then provide a point-by-point breakdown of your trivial derivation.
I think that forks rarely become many because most attempts to fork a project will invariably get absorbed into the main project or one of the few forks that fills a unique niche different from the original project.
and also a plugin API. that's a very important reason that cannot be overlooked.
yes, the instances of forking are about it being legally fine. nothing to do with the psychological overwhelming of forks.
also, death of the author just means that the interpretation of a work is independent from the author's intention. nothing to do with categorisation.
I think it addresses that by explaining that forks rarely become many.
yes, because people add plugin APIs/modification APIs. which makes making many forks unnecessary. even the Linux kernel has a modification API; they're called kernel modules.
the document is not an essay explaining how the fear of an overwhelming number of incompatible forks of a project is not upheld by reality.
it is about the legal fear of forks. as in incompatible licensing and cetera. there's a reason it's under a subdirectory literally titled « Licensing and Law ».
the document does not address the psychological overwhelming of many forks to choose from, which is only a counterargument addressing your argument that many modifications to choose from is overwhelming.
this document refutes everything bmh says. read it. https://www.mozilla.org/media/MPL/2.0/index.48a3fe23ed13.txt
all reasonable discussion ended when bmh posted a link to a completely unrelated legal document about the law regarding forks in response to a valid point that a lot of forks would be an overwhelming choice to the user too