Every single language has parts that are a mess, or at least not perfectly designed. But that doesn't mean that languages all have an equal amount of mess. Python clearly has less mess than Perl. Rust clearly has less mess than C++. Zig clearly has less mess than C.
There should be a name for the "nothing is perfect so everything is equally bad" fallacy. It's surprisingly common.
> The Sophisticate: “The world isn’t black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It’s all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else.”
> The Zetet: “Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view . . .”
That's somewhat of misnomer. The root cause is that default arguments are evaluated during function creation rather than when the function called. And... this is invaluable for forcing immediate evaluation of otherwise late-binding closures.
What can be confusing is mixed lifetimes of nested generators using `yield from`. If any outer generator has a shorter lifetime, when it is garbage collected `yield from` will forward `close()` to the inner generator. Attempting to re-use the inner generator will result in a premature `StopIteration`. Iterators do not have `close()` and so are unaffected. This affects only `yield from` and not `for i in gen: yield i`.
Yeah that is definitely a footguns but I think calling it the ultimate footgun is overselling it. Perl implicitly casts between strings and integers. That's a waaaay bigger footgun.
January as 0 seems like a very definsible choice. Presumably they did it to match C. If anything the WTF there is that the day of the month doesn't start from 0.
Although I don't disagree with that statement it is not exactly what I was implying. I was implying that good languages eventually grow into bad languages.
Usually happens through tacking on new features and standard API functions without removing old ones. I wish modern languages would allow different modules within the same project to use different versions of the language and be more aggressive about deprecating/removing old features.
So like if you open a module and see "version 3.0" in the manifest you know for sure that this module is not using stupid feature X from version 1.0. While still being able to use "crucial library not updated since 2003" without much fuss.
Most languages these days don't dare to change core syntax behaviour in order to not break backwards compatibility.
Nonsense. There are plenty of good languages that have lasted a while, unless your standard for "good" is unreasonably high.
Java is probably the longest lasting language that I would consider good. Are there things that I hate about it? Of course. But it got a lot of things right - even things that more modern languages have done much worse at, like IDE support.
