[benschulz]

This seems like an uncharitable reading of the post.

> They talk about the importance of purity for automatic optimizations but in the real world there’s all sorts of practical reasons for needing to debug production compiled code

I imagine they're talking about their defaults. One can commonly reconfigure how different build profiles work.

> Also blaming the users of your language for your language not being able to meet their needs isn’t a good look.

Isn't that what the whole post is about though? They even say the following.

> Returning to earth: we may be academics, but we are trying to build a real programming language. That means listening to our users and that means we have to support print debugging. The question is how?

[vlovich123]

> What do you mean turning off the fuel for the engines crashes the plane? I thought you said this was a safe airplane?!

Things like this - they're painting users of programming languages as the ones being unreasonable.

> I imagine they're talking about their defaults. One can commonly reconfigure how different build profiles work.

From the article:

> We don’t want published packages to (a) lie to the type and effect system, or (b) contain print debugging statements > As a result, using dprintln in production mode causes a compilation error.

There is no documentation about the existence of build profiles or how they might work. I think you're reading too charitably.