Previously:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39374020

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33262637

Yes, most of them.

C# for instance isn't such a "small language", it has grown, but code from older versions, that does not use the newer features will almost always compile and work as before.

breaking changes are for corner cases, e.g. https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/blob/main/docs/compilers/CS...

The thing is that "most of them" seems incongruous with a demand for "absolute non-negotiable" backwards compatibility. If not for that particular wording I probably wouldn't have said anything.

> be aware it's going to have a funky non C# compliant field name

That's longstanding behaviour. Ever since features such as anonymous types or lambdas arrived, they mean that classes and methods need to be generated from them. And of course these need names, assigned by the compiler. But these names are deliberately not allowed from the code. The compiler allows itself a wider set of names, including the "<>" chars.

I have heard them referred to as "unspeakable names" because it's not that they're unknown, you literally can't say them in the code.

e.g. by Jon Skeet, here https://codeblog.jonskeet.uk/category/async/ from 2013.

> they’re all "unspeakable" names including angle-brackets, just like all compiler-generated names.

> I want to see a tax audit.

Yes. IMHO, the parts that they really don't want to come out are the financial ties. It's the connections of money (and power and influence) that is being covered up, more then the child sex crimes that are now known.

The tax fraud can get a conviction, since there's a paper trail, and juries are more likely to think "yeah this billionaire might not be a monster but they probably cheated in their taxes".

Well, this one is wrong: "I built a language nobody will use just to learn generics"

The comments make it clear that the language author has not yet learned generics by this exercise.

Are these necessary "AI Chips", not just "Chips"?

If - hear me out - this whole LLM AI thing turns out be be overhyped, won't this capability be useful for a lot of other things , from consumer electronics to combat drones.

e.g. Useful in the growing Chinese EV sector. And lessening dependence on chips made in Taiwan seems strategic.

It seems broader than a bet on "AI" specifically. A more strategic move.

From the article, first paragraph:

> cutting-edge semiconductor chips that power artificial intelligence, smartphones and weapons central to Western military dominance.

> ship faster but it produces more bugs

This is ... not actually faster.

FYI, President Amin was described as "virtually bone from the neck up, and needs things explained in words of one letter". (1)

For comparison.

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin#Rise_in_the_Uganda_Ar...

I just downloaded WaterFox, it looks nice.

When they say "AI browsers are proliferating." and "Their lunch is being eaten by AI browsers." what does that mean? What's an "AI Browser", and are they really gaining significant market share? For what?

I found this (1) that suggests that several "AI Browsers" exist, which is "proliferating" in a sense.

1) https://www.waterfox.com/blog/no-ai-here-response-to-mozilla...