this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2026
1 points (57.1% liked)
Programming
26579 readers
103 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Jfc that's a bit of a stretch. You basically just said "you are wrong to use those features, and if you don't use those features then my solution is great". Like yeah, no shit, if I wanted a toy language I'd go back to using Logo.
For-fucking-real?
Ahh, yes, file-based programming, the most usable and ergonomic pattern for cross-cutting concerns. /s
The most I'll give you there is that it's used more frequently than it should. But it is far and away the best abstraction for bare-metal concurrency without a runtime. Your "dead end" comment reeks of writing off an entire language feature because you don't understand it or why it solves problems no other language feature solves as well.
Normally I'm open to discussing the merits and comparing drawbacks to certain approaches, but of course I'm going to be cross if you dump a bunch of confident horseshit on me. Like, wtf man??
I spent the necessary effort to experiment/work with the various approaches to form an opinion, and your main counter argument is largely ... being sarcastic, trying the hardest to misunderstand things to ridicule them and being generally offended?
Let's end this here, your comments are a poor use of my time.
Statements like "async is a language design dead-end" is the confidently correct misinfo that I'm talking about. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously if you authoritatively present your opinions as gospel.
Should I instead have interpreted it as "async is a language design dead-end, and by dead-end I mean overfitted standard for the problem space?" Because I really have to be charitable and put words in your mouth to paint your argument in a good light.