Support for unsafe constructs is almost critical to a languages success. There are certain things that just cannot be done safely, and any language that wants to be considered a systems language needs some method of providing that functionality. Usually native unsafe support is the cleanest way to go.
Slow is relative. On my machine I can compile all of Chromium in ~15 minutes. I am one hugely impatient person when it comes to compile times, so I watch things closely.
But just like anything else given enough time, money and harddisk space anything is possible :)
I would choose C++ because the tooling is superb, talent is widely available, it is performant, there are libraries for pretty much everything, and it's a great language.
Oh and by the way, LLVM is 100% c++.
Saying it is too dangerous and complicated is absurd. It is easy to write safe code in C++, having been doing it for almost 30 years.
You are throwing around lots of assertions - challenge you to back them up with real data.
I know there used to be several .net groups in the area. Consider learning an environment that has local exposure. That may be the case with python, but I don't python.
Also, if you're going in to CS, why bother with the cert from SLCC? you already have a BA - just jump in to CS.
If your time table is a few years, jump on that second degree in the meantime.
I also disagree with one2know - almost any cs degree is enough to get a job these days, and UVU is has a decent program.
Iirc AGPL states that basically you must make the source to your entire application available to users, both the client and server side. I believe many misinterpret this to mean your entire application must be open sourced publicly, but this is not entirely true. If a corporation develops something using AGPL code and none of their users are external to the company, then they are under no obligation to distribute their source (or they must distribute it to themselves, which is effectively the same thing).
