> Restricted gTLDs should have only been for trademarked company names, like .google or .microsoft
Unfortunately however, there are a lot of grey areas... To name a few:
* Amazon have been in a long dispute with the Brazilian government, over the right to operate a .amazon TLD - as the Brazilians claim it should instead be related to the rainforest.
* On the other hand, Amazon have secured TLDs such as .prime, which could also be disputed. Apple have won .apple, Sky have won .sky, ... the list goes on.
* Sometimes, the conflicts can even be with foreign languages. For example, Ferrero are now the registry operator for .kinder - but as this is the German word for "children", it's been the cause for similar debate.
Also, with regards to your concern that there is a lack of variety in available unrestricted TLDs - I disagree; if anything, there are far too many (there's hundreds!!).
> Unfortunately however, there are a lot of grey areas...
Certainly. Ideally, I'd have left it as .com, .net, .org.
> the Brazilians claim it should instead be related to the rainforest.
How many TLDs does a rainforest need, anyway? :P
> Apple have won .apple, Sky have won .sky, ... the list goes on.
I'm certainly particularly interested in .dev, because I'd like to have a .dev domain. I think there's a lot more people who are developers that would want a .dev than apples that would want a .apple domain ;)
(I actually use /etc/hosts to map byuu.dev to my VPS' IP when I'm setting up a new box before deploying it to the world.)
> Also, with regards to your concern that there is a lack of variety in available unrestricted TLDs - I disagree; if anything, there are far too many (there's hundreds!!).
Still wishing someone would buy .emu for people to use. Anyone have a few hundred thousand dollars lying around for a good cause? :D
> Certainly. Ideally, I'd have left it as .com, .net, .org.
(And .edu?)
Ideally, we would never have had more than one TLD; even before the new rounds of TLDs showed up, people found it annoying and confusing to have example.org and example.com go to two different places. Why did we need more than one TLD in the first place, other than as a license to mint money in the form of domain registration fees? I don't think it makes much sense as an organizational mechanism.
I suspect if there was a flat gTLD with no suffixes, everyone would have domain names that looked more like AOL screen names (lots of numbers after the names.)
I'm okay with a few TLDs, but the original distinction is kind of vague. There's really no distinguishing characteristics between .com and .net, and even though for some reason .org became popular with open source, a lot of OSS sites (including mine) are not organizations. If not for Google, .dev would have been a great one for developer sites.
What I don't like is the idea of adding an infinite number of gTLDs. It's bound to do nasty things: break a bunch of old URL matching regular expressions, collide with some poor businesses that made bad choices for their internal networks, etc.
> I suspect if there was a flat gTLD with no suffixes, everyone would have domain names that looked more like AOL screen names (lots of numbers after the names.)
I don't tend to see lots of numbers in domain names today, even in popular TLDs like .com.
That was the whole point in theory, yes. But in reality, almost all new gTLD registrations are being made as brand protection, and redirecting to the company's existing .com domain. Only a very small minority of websites are trying to build a brand on a new gTLD domain name.
Technically, there is one single TLD at the top of the tree; the root zone is called empty-string-dot and exists at the end of every DNS name, although resolving software doesn't normally require it. But it's why news.ycombinator.com. works as well as news.ycombinator.com without the trailing dot.
Shell/batch scripting can often be useful in the devops world, where you have no guarantee that any additional tools (python, ruby, perl, powershell, whatever) wil be available.
Shell scripts are guaranteed to be runnable on all machines.
Unfortunately the shell "language" sucks, but still...
Shell languages are great at doing interactive programming. Few non-shell languages can match the convenience, flexibility, and expressiveness in that domain. Of course, in any other domain (scripts) they are awful.
> If the POSIX standard is going to require backreferences, then it should also require a non-backtracking implementation for regular expressions without backreferences
At least in some regexp engines, this is possible. There is a concept of possessive (as opposed to reluctant, or as it's often called, "non-greedy") quantifiers. Given the string "abb", consider the following regexes:
/[ab]+b/ -- matches "abb"
/[ab]+?b/ -- matches "ab"
/[ab]++b/ -- DOES NOT MATCH!! (Because there is no back-tracking.)
Funny how the conclusion is basically "Don't use `var`, use `let` instead" - even though almost all documentation/examples exclusively use the `var` keyword!
> (...) there's already the let keyword available for those who want saner scoping rules. We should definitely update the docs to use let everywhere, though.
> Designers suck at code. Coders suck at design. Keep that shit separate.
I currently work in a small-ish company, where I am the ONLY person designing/developing multiple systems. (I do get some input now and then, but it's mostly all down to me.)
I like this idea in principle, but you don't always have the resources to achieve this!
Yes, you can. Ordering has been guaranteed since ruby v1.9, very much intentionally.
The implementation of a ruby hash is now as a doubly linked list [0]. This has inevitably caused a slight performance hit, but the benefits far outweigh the cost IMO.
