fasfsadfsa

Now that's pretty good. May I suggest if it's not there already to add it to the language FAQ?

> As for syntax, where does it say "don't use it"?

I was quoting the questioner in good faith. If I re-quoted something untrue, sorry. As for why people do things like that, yeah, seen that before and I can't explain it.

I agree it should not have ended that way.

There seemed to be valid questions like

> Things like ranges being `1..5` in one context but `1:5` in another

Is this true? Perhaps illustrate why "Slice expressions and range expressions [are] different was on purpose, as they are very different operations semantically". You should be able to clear that up easily by pointing to the language overview or something.

> but still having classic for loops which ranges almost completely obsolete

Is this unreasonable? And

> but why add the latter syntax to the language anyway, then tell people not to use it?

Same. If there are good reasons there should be good (and simple) explanations.

Questions like these should be an opportunity to clarify the whys of the language. Ignoring them is discouraging.

I don't feel you answered the questions fully. Telling someone to learn the language to get the rest of the answers isn't right and would put me off it because it suggests there aren't satisfactory reasons for the design. I'm sure that's not the case but still.

Is not consuming energy you don't need really lowering your standard of living? I mean, is being pressured into driving a 30mpg car vs a 20mpg car which serves your needs just as well - does that lower your standard of living?

If we don't reduce fossil fuel use will that negatively affect the ability of the planet to support humanity? If so, isn't that lowering your standard of living?