If you saw the early presentations, they complained about the slow compile times and high complexity of C++. It seems that they were targeting that, not Python.
I did see the early presentations. And since you did too, you will recall that one of the primary priorities was for it to "feel like a dynamically-typed language". You know, because it was trying to be a faster Python.
What you might be confusing that with is that their assumption was that Google services were written in C++ because those services needed C++ performance, not because the developers wanted to write code in C++, and that those C++ developers would jump at the chance to use a Python-like language that still satisfies them performance-wise. It turns out they were wrong — the developers actually did want to write C++ — but you can understand the thinking when Google was already using Python heavily in less performance-critical areas. Guido van Rossum himself was even on the payroll at the time.
For what it is worth, Google did create "Rust" after learning that a faster Python doesn't satisfy C++ developers. It's called Carbon. But it is telling that the earlier commenter has never heard of it, and it is unlikely it will ever leave the heap of esoteric languages because duplicating Rust was, and continues to be, pointless. We already had Rust.
This sounds like a straw man. What reason does Iran have to attack Europe? They don't engage in "mowing the lawn" like some other entity in the region.
I think you give too much credit to the US and zionists. They probably convinced Trump that it would be another Venezuela, and because of their hubris they decided to go for it anyway. Remember how at the beginning it was supposed to only last for 2-3 days? Then 1 week, then 2 weeks, then 4 weeks, then until September. They clearly didn't see this far.
I'm very surprised anyone would think Iran would be a Venezuela.
Venezuela's leadership was barely legitimate (with voter fraud / dictactorship 3 years ago) whereas the supreme leader in Iran has had power for 36 years.
We've gone from, "The amazing Islamic Republic of Iran isn't even capable of building deliverable nuclear weapons and they have lots of peaceful reasons to do enrichment to 60%!" to "Yeah OK, they are capable and they are indeed enriching Uranium for their weapons program--hey, look over here! USA and Israel!!!"
Both of those are crimes. It's worth noting that the Israeli crimes tend to be less criticized by western governments which tends to make some people angrier about it.
It's amazing to see the justification done by some people to attack other sovereign countries. Did not america learn from the fake WMD fiasco with Iraq?
The IAEA estimates that Iran had 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to up to
60% before last year's Israeli-U.S. attacks - enough, if enriched further,
for 10 nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick.
The agency and Western powers believe the bulk of that is still intact.
Washington wants Tehran to give it up.
I seem to have missed the IAEA report on Iraq's 400+ kilos of HEU.
Jm2c but I wonder how people can be surprised that Iran wanted to build a nuclear weapon, especially after the US under Trump's first presidency pulled out the nuclear deal struck under Obama and cornered Iran even more.
Like do people in US realize that countries around the world take notes about what happened to the Libyas and Iraqs and many others (like Colombia recently) and see that the US will attack other countries with impunity.
The US feels threatened by Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and has the military force to stop them, probably. Diplomatic avenues bore no fruit. Military force is now being used to--hopefully--end the threat definitively.
Yes, of course we are aware of what happened to Ghaddafi. It's very en vogue to point out the game theoretical incentives to develop nuclear weapons.
But seemingly people never bring up South Africa's disarmament. And nobody ever mentions that game theory also incentivizes the US prevent their adversaries from developing nuclear weapons where possible.
Giving up or stopping development of nukes may invite attack. Refusing to stop developing them may also invite attack.
There is a difference however, of faith based on evidence vs. faith based in no evidence. Without getting into too much details here since it is not the avenue, Islamic faith is strictly based on evidence.
The whole world, frankly. The mere concept of "freedom of speech" is a Trojan horse for far-right movements to gain ground amongst the peoples of the world.
We fucked up from the very moment we let agitators spread their poison around without any sort of punishment. Now the rot is widespread enough that they're making their moves.
reply