avvvv

JS0 is supposed to be a high level language. Theoretically it could improve performance by allowing more explicitness in the generated code than in normal JS, thus helping out the JIT optimizer.

I don't see how a browser running JS0 can be any less secure than a browser running JS

Could patents be one of the reason why? Genuine question.

I think that is fair. A simple language with a simple memory model is nice to work with.

I also think that it wouldn't be bad for code to be more generic. It is somewhat unnecessary for a procedure to allow an argument of type A but not of type B if the types A and B share all the commonalities necessitated by the procedure. Of course procedures with equivalent source code generate different machine code for different types A or B, but not in a way that matters much.

I believe it is beneficial for the language to see code as the description of a procedure, and to permit this description to be reused as much as possible, for the widest variety of types possible. The lack of this ability I think might be the biggest criticism I have for C from a modern standpoint.

Being dumb is, like, half the joy of life

Now I'm curious as to what they said

Scientific basis is far fetched. Might as well say unicorns are real and call it scientific because there is nothing stopping it from being true

I have a strong opinion, yes, and I'd argue the opposite. We won't be able to 'discover' a physical process for consciousness because it's nothing like a process. There is no logical reasoning as to how any process creates consciousness, neither could such phenomena be confirmed given our understanding of logic. I mean, it's entirely unintelligible how the brain, or any other mass, with the usage of a set of rules (the rules here being physics), can give birth to a 'being' which can observe the rules and the change over time, nor how that 'being' can use the state of that process to form a reality of it's own. Mathematically speaking, one shouldn't be able to 'observe' time at all, but here we are. Speaking of a 'physics-based explanation' is nonsense when we consider that the subject at hand is undeniably a paradox.

So do companies. What's your point?

That's very deluded and short-sighted. More often than not, investors and shareholders hold more weight in large companies than whatever you can bring to the table. Not to mention skills that are rare often don't have huge markets, otherwise there'd be colleges teaching it in a degree and it'd be no more rarer than other skills, don't you think?

Then everyone gets to benefit, no? All developing nations have far lower wages than the west, but that's often offset by lower living costs. But try to buy something out of the international market and you'll quickly feel envy. If there is an issue with higher wages then I don't see it