redbar0n

What’s unique about Jam is that it tries to keep the ergonomics of a C-like language while enforcing safety without a garbage collector or lifetime annotations. Its main differentiators are owned bindings with automatic drop, no undefined or implicit zero-initialization, no first-class references, and a C-ABI-friendly design that aims to make safe code the default even at FFI boundaries.

Jam is trying to be a safe systems language with C-like immediacy, RAII-style cleanup, no lifetime syntax, no undefined, and low-friction C interop.

It's a bit ironic that the "Good fit" for "When High Level Rust Makes Sense" lists all the use cases where someone would typically _not_ reach for Rust, and "Not a fit" lists all the use cases for when people _would typically_ consider Rust.

I think it's because majority of people using Rust come from C++ where the devx is way worse. But I think what pulls down the devx is the perceived steep learning curve, plus lifetimes.

Just remember Rob Pike's 1st rule: don't assume where bottlenecks will occur, but verify it.

How could CSS (or any language) have been designed so that these mistakes could have easily been corrected today in any case?

If the mentioned mistakes or similar language design mistakes were made. Because mistakes will always be made.

(Unison lang comes to mind but it’s refactor failsafe seems narrow. How about: Antifragile language design? Self-correcting language?)

x = x + 1

always annoyed me as a syntax for binding, when first learning programming, coming from using = in equational reasoning in mathematics.

x: x + 1

would have been more natural as assignment/binding, imho.

In two concepts: syntactic sugar vs syntactic vinegar.

I did not dismiss speech’s potential to cause hurt feelings, I acknowledged and affirmed it. It is not to be taken lightly. Yet, we need an effective demarcation between speech and physical action, where resorting to physical action is deemed even more severe than words. So which one do you propose?

I am not arguing that terms cannot be used in broader or more expansive or even metaphorical meaning. But I am arguing that the accuracy/essence of the term «violence» ought to be respected. Especially because diluting it (i.e. washing out the border of it) can have such disastrous consequences.

There should be a very clear line between saying something and using physical force. So if you think the term «violence» isn’t a part of defining that line (or even the terms «attack», «aggression», «force», «assault» etc. which you seem willing to use to describe speech), then I am eager to hear what term(s) you propose to uphold that distinction?

The fact that the Wikipedia page on «verbal abuse» has to use «verbal» as a prefix term to the terms «abuse», «violence», «assault» etc. actually underscores the point: If those terms were obviously verbal in nature, then «verbal» wouldn’t have been needed as a prefix to them.

Why would you even need to say «call for violence» if speech were violence in itself?

No one is opposing the fact that speech can be used to call for violence, but that doesn’t make the speech itself violence. The speech part of it is the «call for» or «incitement to» or even «lead to». But we must not mix up cause and effect.