good: Add foo interface.
Another commit style is summarizing what a commit does. In this case it would be someting like:
Adds foo interface.
I think this style is more in line with auditing code.
There would be no other incentive for companies to buy it.
A company might want to extend it's service offering with a build pipeline/CICD system, and buying GitLab would get them the best-in-class service.
Microsoft bought GitHub for much of the same reasons, and GitHub didn't went to hell after the acquisition.
On all the agile projects I’ve worked on, the teams have been very reluctant to make a specification in place before starting development.
I don't think this is an Agile thing, at all. I mean, look at what Agile's main trait: multiple iterations with acceptance testing and product&design reviews. At each iteration there is planning. At each planning session you review/create tickets tracking goals and tasks. This makes it abundantly clear that Agile is based in your ability to plan for the long term but break/adapt progress into multiple short-term plans.
If anything, I thing Stack Overflow replaced Usenet as the source of informal technical advise.
Never heard of Experts Exchange beyond the jokes.
${CORPORATION} has profited off of Redis without giving much back (...)
I don't understand this blend of comment.
If you purposely release your work as something anyone in the world is free to use and change to adapt to their own personal needs without any expectation of retribution or compensation, why are you complaining that people are using your work without any retribution or compensation?
More to the point, why are you singling out specific adopters while leaving out the bulk of your community?
It makes absolutely no sense at all.
Because Microsoft will eat your ass in your sleep
So Microsoft has access to Firefox's source code. So what? Isn't the point of a FLOSS project that your source code should be made available to everyone?
The optimization I'm the most proud about was when I worked on a legacy project whose end-to-end builds took around 1 hour. After spending some time working on its architecture, project layout and build system, I managed to get the full end-to-end builds to take 10 minutes, and incremental builds to be almost instant.
What makes me the most proud about this project is that the technical debt plaguing the legacy project was directly and indirectly the reason why half a dozen of my team members burned out and quit the company. After that point my remaining team members started to be far less stressed and team velocity skyrocketed, just for the fact that the thought of iterating over a bugfix and posting a pull request didn't cost at least one hour, and sometimes two or three.
but if it’s not readable it’s garbage.
Readability is often in the eye of the beholder, but knowing that a component implements a design pattern is all you need to know how it's used without even having to peek at the code.
I think the most vocal critics of design patterns are those who are clueless about design patterns, and they are criticising their use just because they are scared of stuff they don't know.
Having fun when programming should be much more important than having correct or fast code (...)
That's only remotely reasonable if you're a weekend warrior that messes with coding as a pastime. Even so, I'm not sure what fun you can extract from dealing with slow, broken code.
I would think you would try to perfect what you have instead of making new ones all the time.
Perfecting what you have often leads to a completely different language. See C vs C with classes which ended up being C++.
There is absolutely no problem with creating new languages. These are often designed with specific features in mind, and the success cases often offer features that are in high demand. Take for instance node.js, and how its event loop makes it a near ideal language for network-heavy applications that run on a single thread.
What point do you think you're making? I mean, do you think anyone looks at a PR and says "this PR is clearly wrong, but it's so consistent that I must approve it." That's obviously not the point, is it?