@jiaming I'm watching you.

From far.

Without infriging any privacy of yours.

I can decode any cyber-geopolitical block plans thanks to my analysis methodology.

I can smell the influence of any agency with their private hidden cyber-geopooitical agenda.

Rust is NOT the answer.

It's a far from perfect patch.

Of similar kind than bitcoin and blockchains are.

This being said, let's talk.

cc @theruran

@stman Language. Every child should be able to use and learn technologies *completely* in their own language, then have a pathway into developing with at least a language that is substantially similar to their native language.

Until the day English is no longer a monopoly of our computational ideas, cyberspaces cannot truly realize the immense diversity of people.

@stman Your @ tag messed up so I just saw this come across my home feed.

@jiaming is new in the fedi and probably hasn't seen our conversations about cyberspace architectures. And I like his answer about language... every text symbol should be localized. It's like your sociologist friend's answer about a universal translator.

@jiaming - Rust won't solve the architectural problems we're discussing, but then, I haven't seen a language that does. I'm sure you recognize that too - that it's less bad than C/C++. The most promising ones are still new/experimental: F* (FStar) and Cur (on Racket).

Really what we need is systems design of a programming language. I'll have to spec out at least some of it for my research.

@jiaming @stman
I've learned more about the real requirements of supporting diversity in messaging and networks from a friend's effort to build something for his Lakota community than I have from 25 years of studying different approaches to cross-cultural communication (and discarding approaches that I found to be paternalistic)

@stman hmm on the more architectural side, I'm thinking along the lines of Free Software but going all the way to hardware. To achieve real fully free and decentralised systems...

I'm thinking it has to be such that anything executed on it can be verified (formally, because decentralized) as proof for the user. And such that its freedom cannot be revoked.

But the problem here comes from hardware, since you can't verify physical reality, and hardware has to be distributed through that medium...

@jiaming @stman There must be a lower limit to the feature size - that makes it both economical to produce and verifiable for someone with the right equipment in their garage.

Check out the they talk a bit about it.

But yes! Formal verification all-the-things~

@stman i'll be honest, i dont quite understand this toot hahaha. Why Rust not answer :'(

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!