MUmusha68k·Jan 6, 2016Submission
Functional-programming macros for the C preprocessor
2 points · Open discussionmcinglis
libpp
C2014–2016
mcinglis / libpp · Archived
libpp
Functional-programming macros for the C preprocessor.
2Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
63GitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
Functional-programming macros for the C preprocessor.
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use has been verified yet.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 12:54:37 PM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by month3 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2014-06-10 20:58:37 UTC to 2016-01-06 01:43:43 UTC.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 2014 | 2014-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2014-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Jul 2014 | 2014-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2014-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aug 2014 | 2014-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2014-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2014 | 2014-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2014-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct 2014 | 2014-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2014-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nov 2014 | 2014-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2014-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dec 2014 | 2014-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jan 2015 | 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb 2015 | 2015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2015 | 2015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Apr 2015 | 2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| May 2015 | 2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 2015 | 2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jul 2015 | 2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aug 2015 | 2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2015 | 2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct 2015 | 2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nov 2015 | 2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dec 2015 | 2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jan 2016 | 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 1 | 0 |
What Hacker News says
3 sourcesI wrote this large reply to a sibling comment on the whole practicality argument against copyleft licenses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7886353
The popularity of a project, derived or not, is not relevant. By that measure, FreeBSD is running on 10% of desktop computers, and it's better off because of that? I don't think so. FreeBSD has its merits, and I think it's a cool project, but the popularity of its derivations has nothing to do with its quality.
I can understand the legal-freedom angle of non-copyleft. I really can. I released Macrofun [0] under the MIT license, because it's not actually useful, and so I didn't care what people did with it. I later released a similar, useful project, Libpp [1], under the AGPL.
I think we just differ on ideology. Like I said, I believe that nonfree software is harmful [2], so I don't want t
Read the rest
o contribute to it at all. When I want to release a body of code as free software, but not have that code be used to develop nonfree software (nor DRM, nor patent abuse, ...), legal complexity has to come into the picture.
The MIT and BSD licenses are really simple, and I get that appeal. I long for an AGPL-like license that doesn't run over 600 lines. Thankfully, the GNU project has a lot of documentation of its licenses, so the most common questions are already answered.
I think the GPL licenses are only problems for people (or employees) who - implicitly or explicitly - are trying to avoid contributing to free software. I care little for their convenience.
[0]: https://github.com/mcinglis/macrofun
[1]: https://github.com/mcinglis/libpp
[2]: http://minglis.id.au/blog/2014/04/09/free-software-free-soci...
Show HN: Libpp – functional programming macros for the C preprocessor
3 points · Open discussion