SPBS

It’s true, the title should have said “Python-like”

I'm firmly in the Go camp too but this just reads as unnecessary glazing

> Go solves this through unyielding consistency.

What? Why is the word "unyielding" used here? What was the point of generating this AI article on the google blog post?

> In a decade or so Go the awkward things about Go will have multiplied significantly and it'll have many of the same problems Python currently has.

The stdlib packages are far better designed in Go than in Python. “The standard library is where packages go to die” is literally not a thing in Go, in fact quite the opposite.

> Early in the development process, when testing the incomplete application, I remembered that Subversion (the version control system after CVS, before Git) had a –dry-run option.

> I remembered how helpful that was, so I decided to add it to my command as well.

He mentions the reason he added it, and it's a compelling enough story to be true.

> And as a consequence, C# can pack the value types directly in the generic data structure, instead of holding references to heap-allocated objects.

> This is very important both for cache locality and for minimizing garbage collector pressure.

How is C# just not straight-up faster than Java then? Instead of both language punching around the same weight on benchmarks? Doesn't cache locality like, have a huge effect on performance?

the page is really laggy on Edge, kills any interest in wanting to explore more (strangely, it's much snappier on Chrome)

No. Scrollbars are besides the content, AI-generated content is the content. An article absolutely deserves to be called out if the author has the gall to AI-generate it and then share it on HN (or elsewhere).

I always do this. There's usually one field that you can put at the start that never changes. But the field at the end will keep changing as you add more fields to the SELECT list.

   SELECT
      a
      ,b
      ,c
      ,d
   FROM
      Customers
   ORDER BY
      b
      ,c DESC

> appeals to HN and nobody else

Your argument is that writers do this because of "economics", but to the detriment of readers. I don't see how this extends only to HN readers. It applies to all readers in general.

This is awful. The alternative isn't "no name", it's a full and unambiguous name (even if it's a mouthful). If you can't come up with a good short name, stick with the long one.