> Just saying "well those programmers should write more tests" is silly when you could say, well why not tests and write code that is naturally hardened against

> Just saying "well those programmers should write more tests" is silly when you could say, well why not tests and write code that is naturally hardened against foot guns. I don't think off-by-1 errors are that big of a foot gun, compared to, like, having a null as part of the language, or pointers, or about a million other things. > I was referring to mental overhead Gotcha. I still think that "linear step-by-step" thinking like "you take stuff out of a bucket, and then do stuff to it" is easier to parse than map-reduce, which requires you to have a "big picture" view of the whole process.