For example my python interpreter imports my custom List and Path classes and I could just do the following to get the same result:

List(List(Path("filepath").read_text_file().splitlines()).group_by_key(lambda x:x).items()).map(lambda x:(len(x[1]),x[0])).sorted()

and if used often enough, it could made an utility method:

Path("filepath").read_sorted_by_most_common()

So I find it shortsighted to reject someone based on that without giving them a chance to explain their reasoning.

I think generally people really underestimate how much more productive you can be with a good utility library.

But fraud prevention is not free and has negative returns at some point.

I dislike it when people use "the optimal amount of fraud isnt zero", because it is wrong and makes the underlying problem harder to understand, which is that people like to overoptimize a single desirable property(fraud prevention) without considering other desirable properties(like ease of use and a low rate of false positives for legit transactions)

> While potentially useful, it introduces strange-looking new syntax without making the pattern syntax any more expressive. Indeed, named constants can be made to work with the existing rules by converting them to Enum types, or enclosing them in their own namespace (considered by the authors to be one honking great idea)[...] If needed, the leading-dot rule (or a similar variant) could be added back later with no backward-compatibility issues.

second: you can use case MyObject() as obj: print(obj)

Thats not true ( https://quatr.us/romans/roman-kitchens-houses-ancient-rome.h... ).

Rich romans did have kitchens, poor people could not afford one and instead made food in their appartment room or bought food from streetvendors or takeout food from thermopolia.

There was likely no demand for food delivery as poor people couldnt afford it and rich people had slaves to make their food.