An idea for commercial support for D

[Joakim]

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 09:26:51 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 31 January 2018 at 09:43, Joakim via Digitalmars-d 
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>> I'm sure you can find much better D devs to contribute such 
>> work by posting bounties on the D or ldc bountysource pages:
>>
>> https://www.bountysource.com/teams/d 
>> https://www.bountysource.com/teams/ldc-developers
>>
>
> I was surprised to see a gdc bounty page.  I was even more 
> surprised that the one notable bounty is an issue that's either 
> blocked by Walter, or waiting on someone to implement array op 
> templates in druntume/object.d. :-)

Heh, the lead gdc dev doesn't know that gdc bounties exist, not 
sure I could have made my case for their being hidden any better. 
:)

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 09:30:08 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> I'm reminded of airlines who have a "Priority" or "Privileged" 
> queuing system at the gate.  If you didn't want to wait in line 
> to board, then you should have paid up.
>
> Not sure if any parallels ring with you here. :-)

Any system that requires payment can be superficially compared to 
any other, but the real salient point here is the discrepancy: to 
even get on the flight, you have to pay for a ticket, whereas he 
paid nothing for the open-source sections of a mixed codebase.  
So, he's more like a guy who shows up at the gate without a 
ticket _and_ barges into the Priority queue, which is a sure way 
to get thrown out of the airport altogether. :D

And I have no problem with priority queues, baggage fees, etc., 
as the reason they charge for those is to _lower_ the ticket 
price for the cheapest consumer, a concept called price 
discrimination (and before I get the usual nonsense about how 
that's illegal, or it should be, it isn't and it shouldn't):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

So I pay less for my cheap flights, while others who want to lug 
a ton of suitcases or get through the line faster pay more, which 
is only fair.

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 09:50:32 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
> On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 08:56:04 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>
>> So given that all your claims are easily logically proven to 
>> be nonsense, there's no point in going any further.
>
> You need to do better than that to convince me ;-)

I wasn't trying to convince you.  I pointed out that your 
statements were a mess of logical contradictions and suggested 
that we stop there.

> Now.. I might entertain a model of paying someone, *after* they 
> had committed there fix back to the community, as open source 
> (and the fix has been formely approved and confirmed) - but 
> certainly not beforehand.
>
> But even that really worries me, as people may then refuse to 
> contribute unless they know they're going to get paid. And, it 
> assumes that people in that open source community project have 
> the means to pay them. What happens to that open source 
> community when the funds are not there?? Do the developers just 
> go off and look for other projects that do have funds, like 
> they were 'bounty' hunters. Is that the future we should be 
> creating?
>
> Your so called hybrid model, is like my neighbour borrowing my 
> lawn mower, and while he's got it, he notices it needs an oil 
> change, does the oil change, and then refuses to give me back 
> the lawn mower till I've reimbursed him. But he never paid for 
> the lawn mower did he??
>
> Well.. my neigbour says, if you can't pay me for the oil, then 
> I'll take the new oil out, put the old oil back in, and then 
> you can have your lawn mower back.
>
> I don't want neighbours like that.

I can't be bothered to strain through your tortured analogies 
that make no sense and explain to you all the ways you're wrong.  
I'm respecting you enough to point out that none of your points 
make any sense, most would just ignore crazy analogies like this 
and move on, content to let you stew in this nonsense.