Why is it too strong to say that functional point update operations on strings are not provided, when you seem to confirm that the supported way to manipulate strings functionally is to convert them to lists first?
I did think about cache-friendliness and made them as much so as I reasonably could, mostly by trying to minimize levels of indirection; but pointers are inescapably involved, and there are limits to how cache-friendly such data structures can be.
For instance, each CHAMP node is a single CL vector; the header occupies the first few slots rather than being a separate allocated ooject.
Actually, formal verification could help massively with four of those problems — all but the first (UI/UX) and fifth (requirements will always be hard).
A change in the API of a dependency should be detected immediately and handled silently.
Reliance on unspecified behavior shouldn't happen in the first place; the client's verification would fail.
Detecting breakage caused by library changes should be where verification really shines; when you get the update, you try to re-run your verification, and if that fails, it tells you what the problem is.
As for interconnected systems, again, that's pretty much the whole point. Obviously, achieving this dream will require formalizing pretty much everything, which is well beyond our capabilities now. But eventually, with advances in AI, I think it will be possible. It will take something fundamentally better than today's LLMs, though.
The big missing feature, IMO, is that you can't grow a vdev just by adding a disk -- you have to go through this rigmarole of swapping in a larger disk and resilvering, one at a time.
I think the difference is that people could rationalize that warrantless wiretapping would never happen to them -- it was something that only happened to "criminals" -- whereas the new revelations show that the NSA is indeed spying on all of us all the time.
(I'm not saying I agree that warrantless wiretapping is not a problem -- just that I can see how it might not grab people.)
I can't speculate on antidaily's reasoning, but I can tell you why I don't like this way of doing markup. (I thought I was the last one.)
First is the lack of standardization. Asterisks traditionally meant boldface, I thought, but in some of these systems they mean italics. Some use underscores for italics, while others use slashes. And those are just the common conventions; the less frequently used ones tend to be even less standardized.
Second is the fact that the more conventions these languages implement, the more likely I am to emit one unintentionally, and then have to figure out how to escape the input so it's treated literally, if the language even supports that. (Note for instance the long-standing Lisp convention of putting asterisks around special variable names.)
Thirdly, the syntax rules of these languages are often ill-specified and incorrectly implemented, making it difficult to tell at times how to get the effect I want.