I don't think it would require a "perfect meritocracy" for languages that are found "beautiful" and "enjoyable" to succeed if they are also "practical" and have accessable tooling.

What makes languages popular is clearly multidimensional, where astehctics are certainty one dimension (even ugly languages get updates over time if there's enough energy behind the project) but so is timing, tooling, investment, community, etc.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that whatever beautiful nature is/was there wasn't enough. In terms of weight of importance, or degree of agreement.

Idk I'm not a Zionist, but it's clearly what's happening.

You're not helping the air quality if all you do is move it around inside.

If you start from the fact that people haven't adopted it, maybe it's not as beautiful or enjoyable to most developers.

But I really don't like the trend of some folks "need a clean history" and then disabled merge commits.

It's like they are saying "cool snap shot system you got there, id hate for it to be use to take a bunch of incremental snap shots with specific notes attached to each one. Why don't you let me bundle those all together real purdy like and no one has to know it took you 20 commits to fix that decade old bug."

I have literally never heard a reasonable claim that needing a "clean main branch" is more useful in a retro or bisect.

Maybe other folks know of a concrete example?

I remember running KDE3 and it consumed too much ram for too little stability. Much worse desktop experience than today.

We eventually hit a bug in a combination of certain images, docker desktop (not even supported by us), and permissions. The error looked related to the connections, so I suggested the pooler be bypassed as a test. They ignored the suggestion for two weeks until it was the last thing to test.

Sure enough bypassing the pooler helped stabilize the connection from harbor during image uploads.

Now I need to talk to them about properly vertical scaling PG before we try and run two with replication, in the same kube cluster, in the same physical data center.

Speaks volumes to the local economy and support networks.

That said, my preference is to use the tools built into my editor and available on the CLI or web to assist and fix formatting and syntax. You get instant feedback on incorrect formatting, and I generally find that synthetic scope mistakes (regardless of method) are eliminated.

Not the first time I've come across great recommendations in the comments of HN!