All the nuance is hidden at the end! And not signposted earlier. The example confusion, too thinly justified by common sense and analogy to C++, points to benefit of understanding intermediate compilation stages & how the language understand itself descriptively.

The slippery slope, descriptive, from example confusion to general concerns shows more about the value of learning about design of the language locally relevant to your current problem, than a more indirect solution.

It would serve the case and conversation better, to collect lists of people posting about these issues. Instead of picking a bait title & speaking to it the issue not being relevant.

Despite the title, I agree with the author

> There's no need to change that...[not having a specification] yet. But in ten years, I might feel differently.

I hope he's gotten the engagement & attention he wants.

I'm curious what caused the C++ standard to evolve, what caused there to be so many competing compilers -- their cost, and lack of adequately free, open, and bleeding edge development?