> The OC is somehow under the illusion...

Avoiding package managers with shitty policies is the silver bullet for this attack vector. I get that it can be useful in the moment to retract published artifacts, or update them in-place, or run some code after your artifact is downloaded, but all of these are false economies in our hostile environment.

Maven to this day represents my ideal of package distribution. Immutable versions save so much trouble and I really don't understand why, in the age of left-pad, other people looked at that and said, "nah, I'm good with this."

These tools are called "parental controls" and already exist - we don't need laws to compel their production.

...unless, of course, the true aim is to use this as a beachhead for further expansion of privacy-violating requirements.

You write this off as a "slippery-slope" argument, but given that there are already quite a few tools that do what this law aims for, what's the point?

Reminds me of the story of one of my favorite pieces of classical music, 'Scarbo' by Maurice Ravel. It's one of the most technically difficult pieces played today. Ravel wrote it because he 'wanted to make a caricature of romanticism. Perhaps it got the better of me.'.

J++ though, now that is a blast from the past! I think I still have a J# book from my student days, somewhere :)

On backend teams, I've not personally encountered much anti-JVM bias - people seem to love the platform, but not necessarily the language.

(yes I know there's desugaring that brings a little bit of contemporary Java to Android by compiling new constructs into older bytecode, but it's piecemeal and not a general solution)

From the proposal discussion[0], the runtime representation on the JVM will just be `Object`.

[0]: https://github.com/Kotlin/KEEP/discussions/447#discussioncom...

Bach's complexity, incidentally, is seldom "for its own sake" - the pieces all fit together beautifully and without extraneous movement. Contrast that with some lesser works by later composers like Liszt, where you often get the sense that a given passage could be reduced or removed without harming the work.

Can't say I'm surprised that it hasn't taken the world by storm, but it's still a cozy part of the Internet.

So you say, okay, I'll make an `email_to_string` function. Does it return a copy or a reference? Who frees it? etc, etc, and you're back to square one again. The idea is to keep char* and friends at "the edge", but I've never found a way to really achieve that.

Could just be my limitations as a C programmer, in which case I'd be thrilled to learn better.

Not sure what I said that came off as an attack on you or your standing. Not my intent.

I'm with you on the general lack of discipline enforced by Rails; this codebase isn't fun to maintain, precisely for that reason. All the same, I don't think your critique is fair or even that accurate.

But that's from my POV working at bigger companies. Maybe it looks different as a freelancer for smaller shops.

AJAX, that venerable piece of kit that enabled every dynamic web-app ever, was a Microsoft invention. It didn't really take off, though, until Google made some maps with it.

Can't explain TFS though, that was still garbage internally and externally.

Fun times :)