I think that your conception of cleverness is too wide basically. It's true that, in my opinion, any new programming language today should stop people from C-style "cleverness". But there are languages where the clever programs are actually the pretty ones. For example, the borrow-checker in Rust encourages good code design (and yet it still can be better). And most importantly, algebraic types constitute a radical improvement over classic C-style code. You may think that they hide what's happening, as they have a hidden tag and could be built from C structs and C unions. But after thinking a lot about it, thinking about the tag is actually not thinking about the program's behavior. There is a difference between the program you want to write, and what needs to happen on the machine to compute it. I could probably write a lot about the solution I found to reconcile both opinions, but my project is a lot newer so I can't redirect you to anything yet. But I think that by wanting a more grounded language, you are maybe dismissing too many ideas that would actually encourage programs to be clear and transparent while still not doing anything automatically with magic (and at the same time, would dismiss incorrect programs, that C can express but that machines cannot execute).

Btw, I understand that I am probably not the target of your language, so I won't expand much further unless you want.

But that's not true based on what I can find anyway, https://app.23degrees.io/view/j4luMuv8fnpO2frL-bar-grouped-v...

In retrospect, I tend to think that this take was naive. It probably increased financial performance but it discouraged taking risks, and pushed the multidisciplinary skills out of companies in a way that is hard to reverse, inducing knowhow loss and probably slowed down innovation. But this is only my personal analysis and I am no economist.

Nobody can be sure of what the LLM will output for a certain prompt. If you don't review what it outputs, it will not necessarily match your expectations. You could argue that it is the same as when you assign an intern to the task, but I personally would check what the intern writes (and in my experience they are more reliable than current AIs, of course not as quick).

There is the NanoIC research line at imec (2nm), CEA-Leti incomming 7nm FD-SOI pilot lines, and in terms of full production lines, Global Foundries Dresden (12 nm), ESMC (12 nm, in construction), and the various FeRAM/FMC projects I can't keep track of (Neumonda for example).

I would be more worried about designs, because outside of ARM (and Imagination Tech, both in the UK), I don't know any competitive European designs. (about routers NXP already makes router chips with accelerators on top of ARM cores, used for example in the Mono Gateway, but they are fabbed on old TSMC nodes)

On KDE, something nice is that if you have a maximized window and a panel on the top of the screen, I can drag that panel to grab the window (or maybe it was a setting of Latte dock or something). And since window titlebars nowadays can be cluttered with buttons, it is a predictable way to grab those windows only using the mouse.

[0]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%A9ma_narratif (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%A9ma_quinaire is also describing the same thing)

The syntax changes a lot from the C one, and I can't see any reason for it. To me, it looks unstructured, with the lack of colons for example. It ignores memory safety, it feels like it ignored all of the typing system research since C, no discriminated union, and structures and types in general are heavy to write. It encourages bad patterns, errors out on mundane things like an unused variable, forces you to handle errors with a lot of code while not catching much more than C in terms of bug-prone practices. The package/module system is a nightmare for contributing to open source projects. Modifying a dependency to find a bug is very hard, even swapping a dependency (version) is annoying.

And what do you get from all of this compared to C? A garbage collector, tuples, and goroutines. No metaprogramming (aside from generics, and that was a whole story), interop with C is limited. To me, it looks like it does not focus on the algorithms, but on the code implementation, which is imo what leads us into poor programming and missing critical logic flaws, because the logic is buried. I may have forgotten other gripes I got while working with Go, but honestly, if I wanted all of that, I would pick D, at least it interops well with C and has metaprogramming (and has been made earlier, which excuses a little the lack of certain things).

But really, I am open to someone explaining me how they enjoy Go. Because I feel like I should be wrong as I see most people (which, for some of them, I know are clever) praise Go.

Edit: I added modal expressions to make it clear that it is my opinion.

You are stating that like this has been the state of things for a century. The dependence on American and Asian tech has been a gradual process, that accelerated in the 1990s and 2000s. Before that time, every European countries had their own tech industries able to compete with the tech giants (Nokia, Siemens, Grundig, Alcatel, Thomson, Olivetti, Philips, Ericsson, Amstrad and that's only citing a few of the ones that marked history forever, only in the field consumer electronics, a lot of them back in the day were competing but ended up fading away, and also others were everywhere in the tech industry before without being really exposed to consumers).

But sure, if I was assigned to make an all-purpose desktop operating system today from scratch, I would likely do this differently, but along with a bunch of other things I think (and the app would have to be implemented differently too).

[0]: https://x.com/khanhduytran0/status/1954724636727587237