Turing completeness is a thing. For a particular data transformation language A might be easier to write than language B. Language C easier to read. Language D easier to maintain, Language E less chance of a latent bug. And language F might be brainf&^k. As soon as you think about it as a data transformation and note you can write an interpreter an any language A,B,C,D,E... to execute any other of those languages source code it becomes obvious.
Turing Completeness is an important and interesting thing. It doesn't have very much to do with fitness-for-purpose of a programming language. Of course you can write * using +. That doesn't mean using one mightn't be significantly more appropriate to the problem at hand, or that returning error codes in a product type isn't the wrong call.
This is a discussion of the phrase "such a feature would be entirely impossible"
You're now explaining to me in response to my previous post that some languages are a better fit in certain dimensions to perform a data transform? I think this is a discussion that needs to end now.
I'd been addressing the snarky finishing line. The feature that was called "entirely impossible" was resumable exceptions. The difficulties are practical not theoretical, but it's not the difference between (r, err) and (Either r err).
Needed to stop but didn't for which clearly it is all my fault because someone is wrong on the internet!! Being snarky about features being only possible in $language is one of the few entirely appropriate uses of snark and you don't object to snark per se, do you?
Which feature of this discussed data transform is called "template meta-programming?" Excuse me, my bad, is called "resumable exceptions?" Or are resumable exceptions a language feature/idiom used with a particular choice of language to perform a data transform? Really. "The feature of using C++ is impossible with a different language selection." Come. On. It must rankle. It must.
Maybe this isn't just yet another "any criticism of a language boosterism piece must be met with fire and fury because I've invested time and want career payoff." Yeah maybe there's something else going on here but I genuinely can't see it. And it's a pattern also visible with rust boosterism articles (and I like rust too!) and clojure (again, it has some merit!) and even Haskell. Yeah, Haskell is fun! (No! Silence the Heretic. The emperor's threads are fine indeed! "Let me repeat what you just said but with me explaining it to you to show how stupid you really are." Yeah well I know I'm pretty stupid, often, but not so stupid as all that, yeah?)
As far as I can tell, no one said resumable exeptions are only possible in Haskell. That would be pretty silly, as they didn't even originate there. In fact, they indicated it probably would be possible-but-awkward in Java. What was stated was that it wasn't possible in Go, and that seems to be correct, and have nothing to do with Haskell's choice to return (Either a b) where it's appropriate instead of (a, b).
It's certainly the case that whatever you wanted to use resumable exceptions for is very probably plenty possible in Go. But no one denied that. It's also possible to implement a language that's like Go but has resumable exceptions, either in Go or by modifying the Go compiler, but not only is that a huge project (which may permit "entirely impossible" as hyperbole) but the result is quite arguably not even Go anymore.
