This can be difficult though. For example, there is a frequent phenomenon on HN where certain posts arise for purposes of cheerleading the specific programming

This can be difficult though. For example, there is a frequent phenomenon on HN where certain posts arise for purposes of cheerleading the specific programming languages Nim and Julia. A ton of the comments, disguising as good natured, that give more or less unqualified praise to these languages are actually mostly bullshit, eapecially two very specific strands of discussion, which are usually about Nim or Julia capabilities compared with Cython, and to a lesser degree sometimes Julia’s multi dispatch templating patterns. It is so hard to wade through those comments and follow down every link and cultish argument or counter-counter-argument, meanwhile you’ve got people claiming that perfectly reasonable criticisms of those languages are themselves the “real” bullshit. It turns into such a convoluted mess that everybody is certain that everybody else’s claims are the bullshit and that their own claims (which other people think are the bullshit) are genuinely refuting bullshit. By the end of it, a strategy like yours becomes very hard because the time complexity of the research task gets intractable even for a small subset of claims. Like literally once I had to go and read a ~30 page published research article to learn that a certain Julia differential equations library happens to use a particular multi dispatch templating pattern to offer a way to treat uncertainty modeling as a built-in, domain-specific construct, but that this was not some type of advantage of Julia or anything (since you could do literally the same thing at the same level of abstraction in Cython), and nor was it even a required aspect of the differential equation domain problem, it was just a sort of extra feature that worked out in that library, but which could be implemented (arguably more simply) without any of the multi dispatch behavior at all. Blerg. I had to wade into all that, ten levels deep in some nested conversation with hard to believe one-sided support of Julia, all just to learn that one single point could be refuted!