I've noticed that many languages struggle with HTTP in the standard library, even if the rest of the stdlib is great. I think it's just difficult to strike the right balance between "easy to use" and "covers every use case", with most erring (justifiably) toward the latter.

Anecdotally, I've had a relay fail on when I inadvertently pulled more amps through it than it was rated for, so it's definitely possible.

> Good tools don't hide complexity behind a curtain, they eliminate the need for it.

Good tools absolutely hide complexity behind a curtain. The faucet example at the beginning, that tool is hiding a whole industry's worth of complexity. The trade-off is that it only does one thing. If you want to do something more complicated e.g. build a water park, you either have to deal with that new complexity yourself or hope someone else builds the infrastructure you need.

I can sympathize with the author that the web isn't as easy to create on as they envision. That would be cool. But so would flying cars. Those aren't impossible either, but both require a whole lot of "plumbing" that hasn't been built.

But they want you to think of it as alive. They're anthropomorphizing it.

Maybe this is why I never really got Bradbury. When I read scifi, I can't help but consider the logic of the world that's being described, and Bradbury's worlds aren't really logical (e.g. who would live on such a strict timetable? wouldn't all the singing and rhyming be annoying? how is the house still being powered?). But it makes a lot more sense if the point is to convey feelings. Kind of like an impressionist painting I suppose.