Guess what? I consider that a bad thing too. But you're still reading things into my comment other than what I said. (1) Rails had insecure defaults which en

Guess what? I consider that a bad thing too. But you're still reading things into my comment other than what I said. (1) Rails had insecure defaults which encourage bad programming (2) pthreads has an API which - at least, in its designer's view - fails to sufficiently discourage bad programming. (3) The post I was originally responding to was suggesting that it would be in some way an unusual mindset ("startling" was the actual word used, I think) for a library author to wish to discourage bad uses of his library. I think otherwise. Rails was pretty much the first (recent, well-known) example that came to mind where a library author had (imo, anyway) not sufficiently discouraged bad uses of his library. That's all. I make no argument about the comparative size of the communities,nor the comparative intellectual smarts of their members, nor the reach/impact of the design decisions that the library authors made in each case. That's all I said. Library authors can and do and should design their libraries to encourage their consumers to do the right thing, and this should not be startling.