@StefanZeiger@Ciberon But if you watched the talk, you would have heard me say -- several times! -- that these are not the droids you are looking for, because those droids are trapped behind a bigger problem. Our proximate goal here is making the language more growable.
@sampullara This is why you should always wait 10 years before jumping on a hype train. There’s a good chance the train will jump the tracks before then.
@headinthebox You wouldn't be you without your accent. I think it's wonderful and I never have any trouble understanding you (well, sometimes I do, but not because of your accent.) You don't need this.
@tottinge The problems with "requirements" starts with the (terrible) word choice; the word is fundamentally one-sided, implying "externally imposed or demanded". (It wasn't always so; "requirement" comes from latin "requiere", which means more like "request" does today.)
@bluxte@piotrprz We did the same with the latest round of the structured concurrency API. The idiom works nicely but it needs a snappy name, because when someone sees Function<Builder,Builder>, it is not immediately obvious what they are supposed to do.