Will they though? If I search for stuff like "Android Go" or "Android Go [insert theoretical troubleshooting issue here]", I don't see anything related to Golang. (I actually see more irrelevant results for Pokemon Go for some reason.)
It basically comes down to whether the amount of noise is enough to lose them their seat. Majority of 10000 and 10 letters - they don't care. Majority of 10 and 10000 letters - they will pay attention.
With VC, you can only call the latest version. With versioned functions, all the old code would still call the old functions, until you would explicitly refactor it (or type system would fail).
I guess there is a philosophical debate behind this - what's in a name? Should a name of function refer to a specific body of code only, or all possible function bodies, past and future? What did the caller of the function want?
You can only guarantee correctness if the former. But the latter gives you more flexibility. I am not saying that this is the right answer.
You could see this proposal as tighter integration between version control and the language proper, which has the potential to solve a lot of problems. E.g. there's a common problem with diamond dependencies: if A depends on B and C, and B depends on D, and C depends on D, what do you do if the versions of D they depend on don't match?
Ordering alignment of rectangular prisms under simple shear is well established by now.
As is the variable effects of shaking - can increase or decrease packing fraction and order depending on magnitude.
In addition ordering in packings of rectangular prisms extend up to 8 particle lengths from the side walls - and are variable with time and history. This experiment's results could be partly due to edge effects.
The iOS version is a WebKit wrapper by necessity (Apple mandates that all alternative browsers use the system-bundled WebKit for user experience reasons), and while it’s possible they’ve ported Edge’s engine to Android I’d bet that Edge for Android either wraps WebKit or Blink/Chromium. The primary value proposition for Edge on mobile is syncing of tabs/bookmarks/history/etc, not its engine.
> (Apple mandates that all alternative browsers use the system-bundled WebKit for user experience reasons)
So far, this is the only thing that really drives me bonkers about iOS and has for a long time. I'd love to be able to use an actual third-party browser with a third-party rendering engine, even if it meant having to install a particular signing certificate or some such. Doubly so for using browser-specific extensions. Who knows, maybe iOS 15?
(While I'm wishing for ponies, the ability to change OS-level default applications would be nice.)
I wish someone would just port Firefox mobile to iOS. You don't have to put it on the app store (which is impossible). Just zip up the xcode project, let me swap in my developer key, and run it on my phone. The protections against JIT and so on are enforced by policy, not by technology.
I understand it would be a lot of effort for little gain. But if more developers would offer their stuff as self-signable "xcode projects" (maybe even just a .dylib and some wrapper source), it would be really cool.
Gecko already runs on iOS, I just don't know what the exact build process is. The trouble is, a browser is much more than an engine, and why would people sink effort into an unreleasable product.
Yes, the Android-version is also just a Blink wrapper. It's almost impossible for Microsoft to port Trident/EdgeHTML to other operating systems, because it's so deeply integrated into Windows.
Way back when, there were versions of IE 4, 5, and 6 for non-Windows OSes such as HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, and Mac OS (Classic and X both). It is not unreasonable that they could do it again.
Internet Explorer for Mac was a separate codebase from the Windows version.
The Unix workstation versions (HP-UX, AIX, etc.) were built with a commercial equivalent to Winelib: a library that implemented Win32 APIs on top of Unix and X11.
I have no idea how they managed to build the IE code on a compiler that wasn't MSVC.
The sibling suggests that non-Mac ports shared the Trident rendering engine with IE/Win. IE/Mac used Tasman, which was totally different (and was the first implementation of many CSS 3 features); as far as I'm aware there was no code shared at all between IE/Win and IE/Mac.
5.0 and 5.1 were pretty bad. 5.2 was surprisingly standards compliant for the time (apart from `clear` inheriting, that was painful). 5.5 was a Windows only version of Trident, never available on the Mac (the Mac’s rendering engine was Tasman).
> Apple mandates that all alternative browsers use the system-bundled WebKit for user experience reasons
Not entirely true: Every browser developer is free to use whatever engine they like on iOS. Mozilla could use Gecko, Google could use Blink. They just don’t do it, because what’s not allowed is JITs (because security), thus 3rd-party JS-engines would always be slow.
So the reason everybody uses WebKit on iOS is not that they are forbidden own engines, but only JITs, so Apples is faster.
2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.
The JIT thing was true, but a few years back, they lifted this restriction, see "4.7 HTML5 Games, Bots, etc." for its current incarnation which also says "your app must use WebKit and JavaScript Core to run third party software".
> The iOS version is a WebKit wrapper by necessity (Apple mandates that all alternative browsers use the system-bundled WebKit for user experience reasons)
Which is why viewport values like maximum-scale, minimum-scale, and user-scalable do not work on iOS10+, no matter the browser.
Only if they can find you. The whole point of darknet markets is that it's difficult for even major governments to track down users.
As far as I can tell, the only thing potentially binding darknet sellers is reputation, i.e. they want to be able to make further sales under this name. Even then, people run scams on eBay where they build up a sterling record selling small items for months, then "sell" something worth six figures and vanish with the money.
Art collectors that buy stolen art on dark net would be very ruthless I imagine. They would probably hire an assasin to kill whoever steals their magnificent art.
Alternatively you misunderstood the business requirements and would have cost then a fortune on a failed project.
Alternatively you were brought in by management to make cost cutting recommendations - and your solution wasn't cheap enough.
Alternatively the company accounted for the enormous risk of the project succeeding but actually being worse than what they had in place.
You really don't know the politics of this.
Edit:
Another alternative is that your plan would have resulted in sufficient job losses that the company was worried that it would demotivate other employees and damage the company more than the cost savings.
I upvoted your post because I think those alternatives are interesting to consider, but _you_ know far less about the politics of the situation than the OP.
It's entirely possible that the OP was exactly correct, or close to correct. It's also quite likely that at least one of the factors you mentioned (or others) was also at play.
OP here - the director that brought me in was (and still is) a straight shooter. There's no question as to why I was brought in. While she had the support of the CIO, the rest of the directors spent more time protecting their kingdoms than trying to modernize their systems. Fortunately for both myself and the director, we moved on from that organization.
