Ocaml can be as imperative as you need it to be. Or as functional.

It has no dogmatic inclination towards functional. It has a very pragmatic approach to mutation.

True, but writing imperative code in OCaml feels quite right. Maybe it's just me, but it always feels significantly clunkier than the functional equivalent. I've had things I've been implementing and though "this works be easier to express imperatively", and almost invariably I've gone and rewritten the code to be functional because of how ungainly the imperative implementation ended up being. It feels a bit too much like somebody embedded a subset of Rexx or Pascal awkwardly into an otherwise perfectly reasonable functional language

We have moved all our stuff to Bruno nowadays.

Emacs/Tramp does that for me.

Hell, I have always wanted a '67 mustang. Time to ditch modern cars and get one.

I particularly hate the 'modern' trend of have a large touch screen tablet instead of all the knobs and buttons.

Fair enough, though fwiw automobile makers seem to have taken note on the pushback to the touch screen controls, and 2025MY vehicles are actually starting to shift away from touch screens and back to physical controls again.

Even some motorcycles have electronic throttle control now a days. When you twist the throttle, it doesn't pull a cable anymore.

Its all controlled by electronics now.

I am assuming/hoping that testing from Boeing/Airbus is far more stringent than that of Jeep !

Boeing doesn't exactly have the best reputation.

Yep. Another long time rectangle user. I use multiple desktops (Spaces) and arrange windows ( browser window, emacs frame, iterm widow) for each task.

This makes context switching bearable when working on several things.

Couldn't agree more. Quick feedback is so important, it requires its own post.

When I want to try/fix something, if the setup itself takes hours, I lose heart and move on.

Thats why I love lisp (or anything with a decent Repl). Instant gratification.

Does the build work on Mac OSX?

Casual python user here. I wasn't aware of this controversy.

Why was there a backlash for this operator? (looks kinda neat). Was it breaking things?

I am not a keyboard warrior who got caught up in the nonsense, but I think some people were simply annoyed at adding syntactic sugar for very marginal benefit. “There should be one way to do things” mantra.

I have a long list of grievances with Python, but the walrus situation would never crack my top ten. Put effort into removing cruft from the standard library, make typing better, have the PSF take a stance on packaging. Anything else feels a better use of time.

Whatever, it won. I will never use it, but when I see it will have to scratch my head and lookup the syntax rules.

It was against many people's aesthetic sense. Including mine. But in theory it can be ignored completely, and in practice it is barely ever used (and indeed nobody forces you to add more uses).

You may be interested in https://learning-python.com/python-changes-2014-plus.html for a sense of what some old-timers' aesthetic sense is like. (I agree with many of these complaints and disagree with many others.)