This is a good example of C# light-touch on language design. Async/await creates a state machine out of your methods but that's all it does. The language itself delegates entirely to platform/framework for the implementation. You can swap in your own implementation (just as it possible with this union feature)

> So I bring this up as a case of how supporting multiple platforms and runtime scenarios does indeed add some layer of complexity.

I agree that's true. A language that doesn't support multiple platforms and runtime scenarios can, indeed, be simpler. However that doesn't make the task simpler -- now you just have to use different languages entirely with potentially different semantics. If your task is just one platform and one runtime scenario, the mental cost here is still low. You don't actually need to know those other details.

But I'm not sure that's really a problem. Does the OP expect everyone to use an entirely different languages every single context? I have web applications and desktop applications that interact with Office that share common code.

Even `dynamic` is pretty nice as far as weird dynamic language features are concerned.

Interestingly enough `.ConfigureAwait(bool)` is entirely the opposite of `dynamic` -- it's not a language feature at all but instead a library call. I could argue that might instead be better as a keyword.

In the places where that is a thing, I've never needed to care. (Which is kind of the point)

I honestly have no idea where you would get this idea from. C# is a pretty opinionated language and it's worst faults all come from version 1.0 where it was mostly a clone of Java. They've been very carefully undoing that for years now.

It's a far more comfortable and strict language now than before.

He maybe never had a strategy for Windows but he wasn't hired to have a strategy for Windows.

Honestly, if you are using Gmail as your primary email I could probably ruin your entire year. I could just try and hack you (not even successfully) and Google will just shut down your entire life rather than attempt to work out who's right.

Disagree. Programming language for human to communicate with machine and human and human to communicate about machine. Programming language not native language of machine. Programming language for humans.

Otherwise make good point.

If your business runs on some obscure piece of software for which updates are neither cheap or easy, you're not going to buy Windows if it doesn't run that software.

Name and shame doesn't work because the developer isn't part of the transaction.

That's not it at all. If an app can run arbitrary code then it can run other apps and that can by-pass the app store. They are specifically trying to prevent something like Wechat on the iPhone. It's not about security, it's about money and control.

Right now if you have two broken MacBook Neos, one with a broken motherboard and the other with a broken screen, you can make one working MacBook Neo without even needing to solder anything in just the time to takes disassemble both and reassemble one (which has been demonstrated in minutes).

We define the rules of the game and companies that can best implement those rules will succeed. That is capitalism.

Forcing a particular trade-off on everyone is entirely the point. It's the point of car safety, it's also the point of minimum warranties, electrical emission regulations, safety standards, etc.

Again, why not? It's not mandating design, just minimal standards for repairability that should be obvious. If Framework and Lenovo can do it and Apple can do it on a $600 laptop, why can't everyone do it?

You didn't say why this is a bad solution. The government mandates that cars get safer every year and fatalities are down 78% from the 1960s. Whenever government regulates things to benefit people, people tend to benefit.

> One of the things macbook users praise the most is "build quality", which often means the solidity of the device, lack of flex, etc.

It seems like the Macbook Neo has a lot of those properties as well for a very inexpensive device that is extremely easy to repair.