I suggest "modern" here is part of a stronger claim. That if a language doesn't do X, it is not "modern": It doesn't reflect current understanding of best pract

I suggest "modern" here is part of a stronger claim. That if a language doesn't do X, it is not "modern": It doesn't reflect current understanding of best practice, reasonable expectations, etc. It's a failure of due diligence, not an engineering tradeoff. For example, languages of a certain generation didn't have community archives. Python was born at the transition, and suffered for years with multiple dysfunctional ones. Ruby got gems because of that "don't be Python" cautionary tale. A language of the current generation, putting forth that older story of "people can just put up their code whereever, and no doubt someone(s) will likely make a list(s) of those" might reasonably be described as "not modern". Software engineering, and language design, reflect a great deal of "you say we've known how to do this better for years... but, well, shrug". Ratcheting up the bar on "modern" seems one way our community achieves its oh-so-slow progress. With an emotional vibe of "open sewers on streets, regardless of their historical precedence, low build cost, and current prevalence, are something we just shouldn't be doing nowadays."