Sort of in the middle, id games always felt tight. The engines were immersive not only because of graphics, but basic i/o was excellent.

Go particularly is a sort of fixed ceiling project.

Ian recently had a really pleasant error handling proposal that nonetheless wasn’t going to change the core philosophy of error handling, or memory arenas are another area where the current tradeoffs are fine and not worth reengineering, etc.

IMHO Go is in excellent shape as far as hitting needs when it’s a good technical fit - it’s supposed to be a really stable language - and paradoxically this also may mean not everyone who’s been involved would have the same job description in the future.

That’s fine. A lot of really excellent Go team members have come and gone over the years. Russ and Ian may be some of the late leavers in a sense, so I really, really appreciate their dedication and followthrough. The culture they stewarded has payed off for the community and the kinds of upcoming things that look promising are less about the core language, more about improving and maintaining the standard library.

Petulantly, I’d observe Trump hates or doesn’t believe in knowledge economies. He’s delivering pain to a lot of people in my circles.

For all that, a strategic goal of ensuring trade is sustainable is probably worth sane discussion.

There’s also a regression-to-the-mean problem, the systems really shouldn’t optimize just for the easier cases. I wonder if that’s a direct tradeoff, I think maybe it is with the kinds of things I see used to tweak out hallucinations.

The author makes a great case for machine-interpretable standards but there is an enormous amount of work out there devoted to this, it’s been a topic of interest for decades. There’s so much in the field that a real problem is figuring out what solutions match the requirements of the various stakeholders, more than identifying the opportunities.