These Tiannenmen rioters burned army officers alive.

…which is not the same people as were on the square. Those were Peking locals, not students, barricading the side streets so the army could not get to the square, while (other) Peking locals had previously informed the army that the people on the square weren’t counter-revolutionary insurgents but their sons and daughters, good Dengists, because the hardliners in the party had conveniently omitted that part from the marching orders. You can find lots of pictures of people handing bowls of noodles to soldiers in tanks, those are of that. The army had its orders, though, pushed through the barricades, that’s where the casualties occurred, arrived at the square, then told the protesters to GTFO or else, orders from above. The protesters chose GTFO, hence no massacre on the square. Don’t expect me to side with the hardliners giving those marching orders, they were not the ones saving the day, the Peking noodle brigade was. And I’d actually expect even lemmygrad to not side with them either because their views do not represent current CCP positions. Like, for one, private enterprises exist in China, the hardliners wanted none of that.

Also I have no idea why you’re going on about a massacre in the US right now. They’re having one at least once every fortnight, business as usual. Did you mistake me for a Yank? Whataboutism looks really silly if you don’t take proper aim.

I acknowledge the CIA exists. What I deny is it being all-powerful. The CIA is not god, it cannot achieve aphysical results. I hope that’s not controversial.

Oooooh typewriters. Did they also send pencils? Other things that the protestors could get themselves, or do without? That could have come from other places if the CIA didn’t supply them to their moles, to distribute? How many pencils did the protesters use that were not procured through the CIA?

The whole colour revolution thing is a KGB myth. Populations cannot be influenced like that, it’s just not how social dynamics work. It’s a power fantasy they never managed to implement for themselves, but believe the other side has, because they’re that kind of paranoid.

In any case: Yes, the students were Dengists. Is, or is not, Dengism a Chinese political stance. One that wasn’t that extraordinary in the days, and still the foundation of much current policy. Did the CIA come up with the modern stance of the CCP or something or what do you want to imply.

Tiannenmen was an American backed color revolution.

I was with you speaking truth about what happened in the square vs. side streets, but now you went off the rails.

The protesters were Dengists. The whole thing started when Hu Yaobang died, making people fear that anti-reformist forces within the party would get the upper hand. They were backing up one faction against the other, predictably, the hardliners wanted to crack down on them just as they wanted to get rid of the reformers. That’s why this turned ugly instead of getting resolved in the reformist way, which they were busy doing, having conferences with the protestors.

Absolutely, 110%, Chinese-internal politics.

There’s plenty of schemes that aren’t fully standards-compliant but I don’t think leaving out eval is common – it’s easy to implement and nothing about the standard says that it needs to run code fast.

Just wanted to point out that eval is the real static vs dynamic boundary. As to evil, sure, you shouldn’t run just any code you find without having a sandbox in place, C’s way to do the same thing is to call cc followed by dlopen, that’s way scarier, which is why people just link in lua or something instead. I guess in <currentyear> you should probably include a wasm runtime instead of using dlopen.

Fork. Setting up a whole new project infrastructure, getting fellow developers on board with your putsch and everything can be a PITA but all those are natural hurdles, due to how the licensing works the BDFL has no way to stop you.

As such, as a BDFL you rule by the grace of authority of the bootmaker. If you don’t make sense, if you aren’t respected, sooner than later the community is going to leave you behind.

Rust has affine types and gets close to linear when you include #[must_use] (you can still let _ = foo but at least it won’t be an accident, also, drop code isn’t guaranteed to run and there’s good reasons for that), refinement types there’s a library for that. GADTs… I mean sure trait magic can get annoying and coming from Haskell you’d want to do more in the type system but in the end the idiomatic rust way to do many of those things is with macros. Which, unlike Haskell, Rust actually is really good at. Really good. Tack refinement types onto the language kind of good.

Proving tools, honestly, there’s only one piece of actually proven software (SeL4) and the only language it’s really written in is Coq. Which Rust will never, ever, compete with on its home turf.

Any language containing eval in its spec cannot be (fully) compiled ahead of time, you’ll need interpretation or JIT.

Also last I checked (it’s been a while) Racket compiles to bitcode and then links in a bitcode interpreter. There’s static lisp/scheme compilers but when they come across an eval, they’re going to bail and compile in a JIT compiler or interpreter to deal with that stuff.

Nono you’re not allowed to judge the man individually. You’re required to judge before you see both the man and bear so that we get a properly over-essentialised judgement how else are we going to propagate in- / out-group divisions.