I really don't get this. I'am fully on the side that limitations may increase design quality. E.g I accept the argument that Haskell immutability often leads to good design, I also believe the same true for Rust ownership rules (it often forces a design where components have a well defined responsibility: this component only manages resource X starting from { until }.)

But having a performance boundary between components, why would that help?

E.g. This algorithm will be fast with floats but will be slow with complex numbers. Or: You can provide X,Y as callback function to our component, it will be blessed and fast, but providing your custom function Z it will be slow.

So you should implement support for callback Z in a different layer but not for callback X,Y, and you should rewrite your algorithm in a lower level layer just to support complex numbers. Will this really lead to a better design?

Like it is natural to pay the same price for something we both order from China, and in the same time it is also completely normal that we will pay different prices for potatoes at our local market.

/When I tried Clickhouse, I managed to segfault it with NULL pointer dereference error. Ok it is anecdotal, and maybe I just had bad luck, same could happen with Postgres etc etc... But anyway: it can be a deciding factor. (And they fixed it quickly - issue 7955 on github) /

https://tools.suckless.org/tabbed/

Even then, you can learn the keywords and standard library function names easily - but to name things, that needs a different level of language knowledge.

So teaching in mixed languages is a good compromise. And it is also very helpful to immediately distinguish between things that were already there, and things have been defined in the actual program. I remember this being a helpful feature to learn language/stdlib by simply reading others code.

The more I think of it: it would be good to get back this kind of easy differentiation (maybe with IDE extension?) now...

On the other hand Scratch have localization support, and lack of syntax errors - maybe the two largest blockers for smaller children...

But it just reiterates his first example using breakfast instead of university...

'The first example is of a visitor to Oxford. The visitor, upon viewing the colleges and library, reportedly inquired "But where is the University?"[3] The visitor's mistake is presuming that a University is part of the category "units of physical infrastructure" rather than that of an "institution".'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox

1. certain (genetic) diseases lowers both intelligence and attractiveness

2. I vaugly remember some theory from the early time of population statistics (Galton maybe?), that if successful men (which may correlate with intelligence) tend to marry beautiful women - then on the long run we can expect attractivenes and intelligence to correlate more - but have not heard if it was ever empirically verified or not...

(Do not know if it is original or some old joke: I have heard it from hungarian stand-up comedian Tibor Bödőcs - who is btw basically the only comedian left who dare (or talented enough to get away with) criticizing every side of the political spectrum here - nowadays mostly Orbán of course...)

Anywho is:

they could be someone with states of mind, bending over endless amount of paper, paging, writing and deleting symbols on them with their pencil for some time (or forever)

Otherwise how could anyone invent rules?

It would be so great to get out some general&universal results starting from this setup... ;)

Ok. But I guess the proper common terminology would be "corrosives" for those.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosive_substance

I remember, when I was a child I asked my parents (both are chemists), about what the most powerful solvent is. To my suprise they answered: water.

Wow, that can be true, it is everywhere, I tought...

It is somewhat a point of view question, considering that there are different categories of solvents - it is like asking a biologist about the most dangerous animal: human - of course! But that can't be true, humans are everywhere and I'm still alive.

These kind of suprises happens if you do not specify the questions exactly (Dangerous to what and how? Solving exactly what kind of things?)

edit: it is natural to think, that something is mild and friedly (in general) - if you are made of that...

I play patchwork and Azul regularly and like them.

(And this "left -> bad" or "right" -> good (or both) association is as (or more) prevalent in languages of the world as the "dark -> bad" association)

After I've changed to alacritty, which does not supports tabs, I could easily recreate my old workflow with "tabbed".

(I've never heard of suckless previously, I just knew that I want some generic X11 tabbing SW (and I was sure it must exists somewhere, so have put a lot of effort in googling) - maybe I should check the other things there too...)

(But ok, thats maybe just me - thought this is a common experience, and I just wouldn't like to sit behind a pilot doing the same...)

e.g. Would anyone take a plane that has modal cockpit buttons?

I would be interested to see now a feral cat/capita - Covid-19 growth rate chart.