> But in this case, they are hurting their users far more than they are helping. How could you possibly make an assertion like this without knowing why they ma

> But in this case, they are hurting their users far more than they are helping. How could you possibly make an assertion like this without knowing why they made said choice[1]? Per the article, they didn't do it for fun, or to avoid exceptions (as you point out, more like defer exceptions). FTA: > As I understand it, it’s because Pony forces you to handle all partial functions. Defining 1/0 is a “lesser evil” consequence of that. Do you know enough about Pony's language design and decision process to support your claim that this decision (and all its second-order consequences) is hurting users far more than helping them? [1] On the off chance that you are familiar with the tradeoffs Pony made and do know what you're talking about: care to clarify?