I agree with you on all counts, but it's worth highlighting that the parent did not call the designers dumb, but rather the situation and implementation. I kno

I agree with you on all counts, but it's worth highlighting that the parent did not call the designers dumb, but rather the situation and implementation. I know it can seem like a distinction without a difference, but I think it's fair to critique work. I think they could have been more articulate and considerate towards the designers, and have some empathy that many people have worked very hard on it, and did their best in the problem/solution space they were working with. I just think it's important that people stay objective on if the quality of the people themselves is in question. It's not ok if it is, but I don't think it was here. now people that don't check how malloc() returns being blanketly labled as lazy is an example of it being about people. people don't ignore the possibility of a nullptr return from malloc because they're lazy. They ignore it because it's hard -- even if you do catch it, there's very little that you can actually do. You can't dynamically allocate...so I hope you've got enough stack space to do what you've gotta do. And even then, you have to be able to propagate that there's no memory all the way up the stack as it unwinds...and check every single allocation. The cpp world is mildly better in that it can throw std::bad_alloc...but if you have something that winds up doing an allocation in a destructor, I imagine that's not a fun time. Most of the time, there's not really a better thing to do than crash -- and there's not a lot of incentive to put any work into it. It's not something that should be happening on any sort of regular basis.