>My point lies more in the '20 years' part of the argument, that in all that time we couldn't get these wrinkles ironed out.
Javascript has the requirement of backwards compatibility. The limitation is not technical. It's disingenuous to suggest it's so simple to replace these things or it's extremely naive.
Look at the recent HTTP redirect article for example. Something as simple as redirects have been implemented incorrectly for a long time. Browser vendors are well aware of it, but they cannot change the behavior because it will break every existing site that expects the broken behavior.
You should be more impressed with the things that last 20 years, not embarrassed. It means they were actually engineered well enough to be a good general solution.
I don't see tinco saying it is simple to replace these things. Where do you see that? I suspect you're unconsciously framing tinco's position this way...
Another possible way to interpret the 'ashamed' statement is that tinco is simply saying we should be trying harder to move forward when we are using such old technologies with such warts. Why can't we get rid of the warts? We should try harder. Perhaps this is what tinco is saying? I think at least equally plausible to the naive position you're projecting onto tinco...that it's 'simple' to replace these things.
Kudos to Neovim for making the effort! It is certainly appreciated.
Javascript has the requirement of backwards compatibility. The limitation is not technical. It's disingenuous to suggest it's so simple to replace these things or it's extremely naive.
Look at the recent HTTP redirect article for example. Something as simple as redirects have been implemented incorrectly for a long time. Browser vendors are well aware of it, but they cannot change the behavior because it will break every existing site that expects the broken behavior.
You should be more impressed with the things that last 20 years, not embarrassed. It means they were actually engineered well enough to be a good general solution.