> In the meantime, there's nothing stopping you from using the agent to write the code that is every bit as high quality as if you sat down and typed it in yourself.

You can only speak for yourself.

If you have well defined boundaries, you can move the stack to an arbitrarily large chunk of memory before the recursive call and restore it to the system stack upon completion.

I have a personal aversion to defer as a language feature. Some of this is aesthetic. I prefer code to be linear, which is to say that instructions appear in the order that they are evaluated. Further, the presence of defer almost always implies that there are resources that can leak silently.

I also dislike RAII because it often makes it difficult to reason about when destructors are run and also admits accidental leaks just like defer does. Instead what I would want is essentially a linear type system in the compiler that allows one to annotate data structures that require cleanup and errors if any possible branches fail to execute the cleanup. This has the benefit of making cleanup explicit while also guaranteeing that it happens.

I personally would prefer to hear more about what is uniquely good about Odin semantically or syntactically than more ad hominem attacks on the intelligence of the critics of the language, which I have seen in multiple recent pieces by this author.

Communism is neither the opposite of laissez-faire capitalism nor the only alternative.