That’s not realistic or “fair” - most Haskell projects will use a dozen or so extensions easily. GHC has been a platform for language experimentation for a long time; standardisation efforts keep on cropping up in annual surveys. (Eg, swapping in Text for String in base is long overdue, but it’s a hold over from days where FP pedagogy was seen as more important.)

That’s a good point. You can get away with that with a new language, but adding nullability as a non-default option would break existing code much like making things const by default in C++ would, I suppose.

Lombok had a bunch of great things that should’ve been part of the java language to begin with. They’ve slowly been folded in (so now you have to work out which @NotNull annotation you want) but the language does still improve.

The issue here is that the author of that post, and potentially the fictional author of the thing being lampooned, are not drawing a distinction between a tutorial (or an explanation) and a how-to.

https://diataxis.fr/

Either you want to get a task done, or you want to spend a lot longer learning how to work that out for yourself.

(Many tutorials will include small set of how-to-like instructions because emulating the actions of a master will improve one’s vocabulary of what can be done as well as how it is achieved.)

I’ve a couple of GP friend who used to describe “Dr Google” as their online colleague.

The point being, they were somewhat trained in interpreting risk as opposed to the stereotypical googler-of-symptoms. Once upon a time search engines were quite useful.

The neighbours’ seven-year-old suggested using a VPN to get around age checks. I don’t know if he knows what one is, but he’s definitely seen adverts for them.

I kind of expected a lot of this; I remember the sendmail 4 book from back in the day when O’Reilly had that, DNS and BIND, and Perl as the entirety of its corpus.