That's pretty sweet, I'll remember that trick. The `range` trick was another one that took me some time to realize, there are lots of neat sugary things in Go l

That's pretty sweet, I'll remember that trick. The `range` trick was another one that took me some time to realize, there are lots of neat sugary things in Go like this :) > I think it's less that folks prefer run-time checks on principle than that they simply don't yet have in hand great ways to strengthen compile-time safety while meeting their other goals Agreed, that sentence was a bit unclear from me. I did mean that they're okay with losing compile time safety over other benefits. > All in I love this--I tire a bit of posts that are like "I wrote a toy program [or not even that]; here's Why Everyone Else Is Wrong" (because anyone could give an opinion that informed given a day or two, and hot takes are getting old). But it's cool to see someone who, by virtue of working on Rust (and seeing it evolve) has unusual perspective on tradeoffs and seems to have written, you know, pretty thoughtfully and maturely about them. Aww, thanks :D