No sure why you were down-voted, but it probably has something to do with connotation. I agree though -- library maturity, tooling maturity are also very important factors when it comes to productivity. A steep learning curve, however, probably has less to do with productivity and more to do with adoption, which I think is what the parent was trying to get across.
But, of course, adoption rate can indirectly impact library and tooling maturity. :)
I don't understand. Ref: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=634757. This project was put up for adoption, and many people replied showing interest (even some creating PPA's) but ownership was never transferred and it is still listed for adoption.
That bug should probably be closed, because the person who published the PPA uploaded a version to Debian just a month later [1]. From the package's tracker page [2], you can see that the same person became a co-maintainer, and has been preparing most of the uploads ever since.
I don't understand the shopping results argument listed on the top of the pages for search results. I have personally never confused them with actual results, and doesn DuckDuckGo Bing and Yahoo do this? If so, then why single out Google?
Indeed you beat me to the punch. You can totally use unsafe. This just means that the compiler essential is unable to _prove_ that your code is memory safe. That does mean the author can't. Documenting unsafe points in your code gives also tells you where to look if you do start seeing memory related problems, which can be helpful for debugging.
In short, I would like to see Firefox empower and inform its users.
The current implementation of the Adobe Flash plugin warning does neither, and by the looks of it, add-on permissions mentioned in the OP will be the same.
