Forking is a foolish idea. The core principle of computer-science is that we need to live with legacy, not abandon it.

what a crazy thing to say. The core principle of computer-science is to continue moving forward with tech, and to leave behind the stuff that doesn't work. You don't see people still using fortran by choice, you see them living with it because they're completely unable to move off of it. If you're able to abandon bad tech then the proper decision is to do so. OP keeps linking Joel, but Joel doesn't say to not rewrite stuff, he says to not rewrite stuff for large scale commercial applications that currently work. C clearly isn't working for a lot of memory safe applications. The logic doesn't apply there. It also clearly doesn't apply when you can write stuff in a memory safe language alongside existing C code without rewriting any C code at all.

And there's no need. Modern C compilers already have the ability to be memory-safe, we just need to make minor -- and compatible -- changes to turn it on. Instead of a hard-fork that abandons legacy system, this would be a soft-fork that enables memory-safety for new systems.

this has nothing to do with the compiler, this has to do with writing 'better' code, which has proved impossible over and over again. The problem is the programmers and that's never going to change. Using a language that doesn't need this knowledge is the better choice 100% of the time.

C devs have been claiming 'the language can do this, we just need to implement it' for decades now. At this point it's literally easier to slowly port to a better language than it is to try and 'fix' C/C++.

it does if the other ones have edible seeds, seeds without arsenic, or fewer seeds... your analogy makes no sense.

Also, writing memory safe code honestly isn’t that hard. It just requires a different approach to problem solving, that just like any other design pattern, once you learn and get used to it, is easy.

the CVE list would disagree with you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_10%3A_Rules_for_Developing_Safety-Critical_Code

and their 40 page coding standard document. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20080039927/downloads/20080039927.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20080039927

and their software safety handbook. https://standards.nasa.gov/standard/nasa/nasa-gb-871913

all 389 pages of it https://standards.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/standards/NASA/Baseline/0/nasa-gb-871913.pdf

It's also just a huge fallacy. He's saying that people just choose to not write memory safe code, not that writing memory safe code in C/C++ is almost impossible. Just look at NASA's manual for writing safe C++ code. It's insanity. No one except them can write code that's safe and they've stripped out half the language to do so. No matter how hard you try, you're going to let memory bugs through with C/C++, while Rust and other memory safe languages have all but nullified a lot of that.

It doesn’t sound like you want a static site generator. You want a Squarespace alternative. One option I use is Ghost. You can host it yourself for free. But it’s not a static site. Static site means static. That means no backend, no forms, none of that. You won’t get a CMS, you won’t get drag and drop components. That’s not what static site generators do.

You ask them to add a license, you don’t suggest a license.

I am of no help here, but your post made me think of this. https://youtu.be/tbazGVrbN-g

You can write cross platform mobile (and desktop and even browser) apps with Kotlin.

Mercedes isn’t competing against cheap cars locally, so it has no incentive to block their import.

yeah as @Ategon said, that's quite strange, but I'm not sure we're in control of that. Would need to be raised as an issue. lemmy.world has also customized their install quite a bit so it could also be on their side.

that's so weird because I got an email inviting me to participate and I haven't ever been considered a 'prolific poster'. I'm only at 60k and 12 years. I had no clue I was invited until I looked in my spam folder.