> for a long time and for the most part, they provided a better quality of life to many of the subjugated people and provided a path to citizenship. Further, they were adaptable about the places they governed, at least relative to other options at the time, keeping established powers in play, so long as they pledged allegiance to the Roman empire.

Sounds quite a lot like Ghengis Khan, who oversaw the largest empire in history until the British one.

The name mangling scheme was changed to reflect things other than namespaces and overloading, it was modified to reflect fundamental compiler version incompatibilities (i.e. the ABI)

Optimization level should never cause link time or run time issues; if it does I'd consider that a compiler/linker bug, not an issue with the language.

> Languages like Rust include these settings in symbol names as a hash to prevent these kinds of issues by design.

Historically, C++ compilers' name mangling scheme for symbols did precisely the same thing. The 2000-2008 period for gcc was particularly painful since the compiler developers really used it very frequently, to "prevent these kinds of issues by design". The only reason most C++ developers don't think about this much any more is that most C++ compilers haven't needed to change their demangling algorithm for a decade or more.

You may not use it for frequent updates; we do.

There is state.

It is shared state.

It is mutable state.

There are readers, who can see the shared state.

There are writers, who copy it, update it and push it back so that the new state is visible to everyone else.

I have no idea what your definition of mutable shared state might be if that doesn't fit it.

What do you think the "update" part of RCU actually does?