> Eventually both Windows and Linux programs moved to a model where the OS just gave you the window as a drawing surface, and you were supposed to fill it.

If you follow this model, how do you solve the accessibility issue?

>signed integer overflow being UB would count for C/C++

Then, I raise you to Zig which has unsigned integer overflow being UB.

Interestingly enough, Zig does not use the same terminology as C/C++/Rust do here. Zig has "illegal behavior," which is either "safety checked" or "unchecked." Unchecked illegal behavior is like undefined behavior. Compiler flags and in-source annotations can change the semantics from checked to unchecked or vice versa.

Anyway that's a long way of saying that you're right, integer overflow is illegal behavior, I just think it's interesting.

Rust has UB overflow as well, just unsafe.

https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/intrinsics/fn.unchecked_add.ht...

> Java everything is boxed anyway

Not true, there's int and Integer.

Right but you can’t use them as type arguments to Java’s generics so they’re not really relevant in this context.

> I noticed during my three week summer vacation that it took me a good week to unwind and slow down.

It depends a lot on what you do on your holiday. I think it's best to start with something "mind focussing": you're not going to think about your job while skydiving, scuba-diving etc.

For && and || I disagree: they are 'shortcircuiting' operators and as such they deserve a différent name than just 'and', 'or'. That said &| should have been named and,or which would have freed &| to use for the shortcircuit operators.

> The cost of dead people is a lot higher than the cost of developer time.

So you're using proof on every line of code you produce?

> So you're using proof on every line of code you produce?

No, except for trivially (the code is statically and strongly typed, which is a proof mechanism). The set of activities chosen to give confidence in defect rate is varied, but only a few of them would fit either a traditional or formal verification definition of a proof. See DO-178C for more.

Once Claude found a bug in my code but I had to explain the structure of the data. Then and only then it found the bug.

Error safe, the : or :: I kind of doubt it, I think that finding a typing mistake (two : instead of 1) won't be easy..

Your point is funny but if you're not anal-retentive about the syntax you get monstrosity such as the CSV-escape rule instead of the passwd-escape rule..

> Dual use means extra ceremony with escaping

It depends, if you allow nesting you also need escaping.

Escaping of what?

Of 'yourself', if a text field contain embedded/nested text you need to escape the delimiter.

This case is much rarer than escaping quotes or whitespace. It will happen only if the content of the block will contain unsanitized inputs. In such case a control character for escaping will help, or, if you can have 2x range for control characters, you can use one bit for escaping. E.g. 0x1-0x7 - delimiters, 0x8-0xF - escaped delimiters.