So, this choice is not super obvious to me. If it was called the moon race or whatever, I'd get it. But in this case it just feels like making up rules after the fact to make sure you "win".

EDIT: I just realized you might be saying this sarcastically. I'm really bad at picking up on that sort of stuff, and apologize if that's the case.

This comes at a cost, namely that of reading five extra characters in a function signature, and I could kind of imagine (truly!) how that gets in the way for some people. There is a cost of writing the five characters as well (and like the author mentions, in a poorly designed codebase, this may have to go down the call stack), but code is read more often than written, so in a sense this is negligible.

Like the dynamic vs static typing debate, I feel like this ultimately boils down to context and personal taste, and some amount of intelligence as well. I'm impressed by the amount of stuff the dynamic typing / non-async crowd is able to keep in their working or long term memory while coding. I don't have that kind of mental bandwidth, sadly.

Having said all that, this argument is disingenuous in that it completely ignores the fact that the async keyword tells you something useful (rather than some made up nonsense like color), and most of the argument basically boils down to "if you ignore the benefits, this syntax has no benefits", and I really don't respect that as an argument.

Secondly, when someone new asks me what web framework to learn, I tell them React. And the main reason, every time, is that this is more likely to get them a job, i.e., inertia.

We got here somehow. Clearly, React didn't get here purely on momentum, and must have done something less poorly than the other frameworks. But I think it's hard to deny that inertia plays a big role in its current popularity.

> Disclaimer: I maintain depsguard

I don't concede that the act of sharing this code is stealing, of course. The act of helping one's fellow man is a good thing. You've made your stance clear, and the very cogent and fairly conclusive arguments people have made against your stance don't seem to land, and I have no interest in repeating that exercise (and neither do you, I'm sure).

But this phrase stood out to me, and in particular that you would choose food as an example. You could've used any other example, like a new hat, or a baseball bat, a tricycle, a mirror, and so on. But you chose food, something people need to survive. Is the case of stealing food not at all morally ambiguous to you? What about the case of a young mother stealing diapers she can't afford?

And some attached pdf that I could have an LLM generate in a minute I wouldn't call a source. I'm talking about a source in the sense of journalism -- something I cannot find for this story.

Oh, it's an analogy. This is a frequently used rhetorical device where you take a similar analogous setup (maybe hypothetical) to elucidate certain aspects of a situation you're considering.

These responses talking about Apple's bottom line kind of feel like this convo:

> Cigarettes are bad, they cause cancer. Philip Morris shouldn't be selling them

> Yeah but they sell so many cigarettes! Isn't that great?

- Not realizing it's a very concrete theorem applicable in a very narrow theoretical situation, and that its value lies not in the statement itself but in the way of thinking that goes into the proof.

- Stating it as "pick any two". You cannot pick CA. Under the conditions of the CAP theorem it is immediately obvious that CA implies you have exactly one node. And guess what, then you have P too, because there's no way to partition a single node.

A much more usable statement (which is not a theorem but a rule of thumb) is: there is often a tradeoff between consistency and availability.