Since when do Debian users need to compile APT themselves?

You cannot "point" JSpecify to anything. It is a standard like PEP 484, but much smaller, because everything else is already part of the language standard.

This sounds even worse than Modular/Mojo. They made their language look terrible by trying to make it look like Python, only to effectively admit that source compatibility will not really work any time soon. Is there any reason to believe that a different take on the same problem with stricter source compatibility will work out better?

Yes, type checkers are very good at tracking refactoring progress. If it turns out that you can proceed to test some subset, then congratulations, you found a new submodule.

I am continually astounded by the stubborn incuriosity of humans with a bone to pick.

What in the world are you talking about. Please specify how lack of types helped you in your aforementioned scenario.

I don't think it's a lack of curiosity from others. But it's more like fundamental lack of knowledge from you. Let's hear it. What is it are you actually talking about? Testing a subset of a library halfway though a refactor? How does a lack of types help with that?

I believe that LLMs are detrimental to government efficiency, because they distract from solving the underlying problems (such as porkishly complex laws or a lack of unique identifiers).

In a well-designed city, you don't get onto the subway with a stroller during peak hour, because all amenities that your young children need are reachable in 15 minutes on foot (or <5 minutes by bike).

You don't recognize the objective bad because you've never lived in a place that does it better (NL, DK).

I just had a kid and moved to DK from the US. I was so skeptical of the infant (and often mother!) in cart on front of bike that you see everywhere, but it's such a life-changer versus the ordeal of carseats etc. TLDR totally agreed.

Bullshitting generally gets people farther than anything else.

Not your main point, but how would monomorphization of generics work with binary dependencies?

It wouldn’t, there would have to be dynamic dispatch. Swift provides some prior art for “monomorphization in the same binary, dynamic dispatch across linker boundaries” as a general approach, and it works pretty well.

> Stored procedures also add another risk. You have to keep them in sync with code, making releases more error prone.

This one is easily solved: never change a stored procedure. Every version should get a new name.

That's what I meant when I've mentioned versioning.