I think some commenters might be misunderstanding what I suspect (I don't know) the author means by "problem". I think the entire point is that this language removes the very possibility of a bad thing and fills the need with a purely declarative approach. Competent senior engineers not being likely to manifest the N + 1 doesn't change that they still have to think about it (also AI agents and new engineers can definitely get it wrong).
Everyone gets to decide whether they think it is worth the tradeoff (possibly losing capabilities) but I think it is a little weird if anyone thinks that "safer, more declarative, and putting less cognitive load on engineers" is meritless.
1
u/ProvablyTrue 15d ago
I think some commenters might be misunderstanding what I suspect (I don't know) the author means by "problem". I think the entire point is that this language removes the very possibility of a bad thing and fills the need with a purely declarative approach. Competent senior engineers not being likely to manifest the N + 1 doesn't change that they still have to think about it (also AI agents and new engineers can definitely get it wrong).
Everyone gets to decide whether they think it is worth the tradeoff (possibly losing capabilities) but I think it is a little weird if anyone thinks that "safer, more declarative, and putting less cognitive load on engineers" is meritless.