But those are far better topics for a discussion about idiomatic Go. I would rather see how to deal with lack of custom default values or error handling rather than how many spaces one should place after a punctuation mark.

We can't be talking about code that is or isn't idiomatic Go if we're arguing about features people are unhappy Go doesn't have.

That seems to be the exact context where we should be talking about idiomatic Go. You expect feature X and you are unhappy that Go doesn't have it because it's now harder to do Y. So here is an idiomatic Go way to do Y. Or that's why you should do Z in Go instead.

I want to write `framework init` or something like that and get the whole scaffolding done for me so that I can focus on business logic. I don't want to waste time integrating auth, OTEL logging/tracing/monitoring, SQL dynamic query building, parsing & validation, config management, i18n, unit/integration/e2e testing, routing, http/ws/grpc support, openapi generation, A/B testing, task queuing, background jobs, cron jobs, request control (deadlines, rate limiting, health checks), database migrations, live reloading.

I love that I at my workplace I can use a service template that wires everything together. And I don't understand why people want to do boring solved tasks over and over again.

> Who’ve decided that the decision should be deferred to them and not me or someone else?

The people through the process of democracy, where you also have a say as a voter and potential candidate. Property rights is a legal construct, created by the state. A technology if you will. Part of the rules of that construct is that property can be taxed for public provision purposes.

> The people through the process of democracy, where you also have a say as a voter and potential candidate.

“The process of democracy” is hand waving. There is a complex web of institutions and traditions that reinforce themselves. What country would be more “democratic”: the one where people can vote for one of several handpicked candidates or the one where they can impose their will through community organizing and strikes? The one where billionaires own media and put forward their agenda or the one where the media landscape is dominated by self-sustained media co-ops?

> Property rights is a legal construct

That’s the main issue I have with your view. Property rights are a construct as much as the legal system is a construct, democracy is a construct, the state is a construct and “the rules” you appeal to are a construct. There is no any primacy of the state and the government.

A lot of what you say is true, but in my opinion you are romanticizing right-libertarianism. I’m pretty happy to not have to continually and physically defend my possessions from my will-to-power neighbors. To me the life you describe sounds like The Road by Cormack McCarthy (spoiler: it isn’t fun)

Also, nothing prevents you from checking the host server-side according to arbitrary logic and putting it into the CORS header dynamically.

Nothing prevents this, but the client must still emit preflight checks (an extra round-trip) for every endpoint, and again if headers need to change.

How does economics bend over backwards to hide the “fundamental theorem”?

Every intro to macroeconomics basically starts with a simplified conceptualisation of production as a function of labour and capital. Then it describes returns to labor and capital and so on. People who own capital get paid for that capital. It’s quite literally Economics 101.

Sounds better than spending whole life in an office.

It's a fine generalisation because it's assumed that people eat 1-2 eggs for breakfast, not 20. "Something like LD50" can't help because it is literally another generalisation that may not apply to you personally: eggs are mostly fine unless you have an eggs allergy or problems with cholesterol or whatnot.

At least at US restaurants, a "small" omelette is three eggs and larger ones more, though. And likewise for servings of scrambled eggs. Pretty much the only case where 1 or 2 eggs are the norm is when ordering fried eggs (and those are generally accompanied by bacon, potatoes, toast, etc.)

That doesn’t really change the point though.

There might be longterm malnutrition problems if you’re solely eating eggs in mass quantities (since 20 eggs for a 50 kilo person would be hitting near your daily caloric intake just in eggs), but for most people this isn’t a concern.

Having 5 eggs for breakfast (not as an omelette, which obviously has other stuff in it) every day would probably improve most people’s health.

Or, you know, when eating at home. Breakfast is the meal I'm least likely to eat out for, and I don't think I'm alone.

Well, “think of the other points as (fixed point) + (small perturbation) and reduce your work to handling the perturbation” is literally how modern economic models (DSGE) are studied and then used for public policy.

`createspecialString` is seven lines long though.

Then split it. All pure functions are easily decomposed into the most primitive units so even the most dogmatic ass hole can't talk shit.

   createSpecialString = createFormattedString . createNewString

   createFormattedString = 
       Capitalizefirstletter .
       MakealllowerCase .
       AddNumberSuffix .


   createNewString(y) = 
       removeLetterA .
       removeLetterB .
       ConcatwithWord(x)

Or put it all on one line.

      createspecialString(y) = Capitalizefirstletter . MakealllowerCase . AddNumberSuffix . removeLetterA . removeLetterB . ConcatwithWord(x)

The amount of lines becomes off topic once you get into this style. It's a completely orthoganol concept as it's completely irrelevant to readability and modularity.

Lines doesn't makes sense for pure non imperative functions. Lines ONLY make sense for imperative functions because each line represents an instruction.

Well, the most interesting thing about purely functional composition would be the ability to un(de)compose them, inlining the bodies until the resulting function is large enough to be worth the effort of reading it.

Exactly you have the lowest level primitives. You can arbitrarily compose them however you want forming arbitrary layers of abstraction from a tree of compositions.

In the first example there is one layer. In the second there is 2 layers of abstraction formed by composing the primitives into a tree.

Semantic drift is not "incorrect".

At first it's a mistake, then eventually it's not.