[weberc2]

If you're going to be pedantic, you might at least be strictly correct. There is no existing term that would distinguish it from Go's prior state, so there is no misuse nor "useless invention". Even if there were and you were correct, this would still be pedantry at its finest.

[solidsnack9000]

> ...would still be pedantry at its finest.

Why would correct use of terminology be "pedantry at its finest"?

What people are concerned about is intellectual dishonesty. The presentation does not go to much effort to show, for example, why the term "mid-stack inlining" needs to be introduced for Go. Do other languages not have this kind of inlining? Does comparing and contrasting other implementations just not matter?

[weberc2]

> Why would correct use of terminology be "pedantry at its finest"?

Because you're debating terminology when the wrong term caused no one confusion, thereby detracting from the actual conversation.

> What people are concerned about is intellectual dishonesty.

There's no cause for this concern.

> The presentation does not go to much effort to show, for example, why the term "mid-stack inlining" needs to be introduced for Go.

Sure it does; see slides 3-6.

> Do other languages not have this kind of inlining? Does comparing and contrasting other implementations just not matter?

Perhaps the author omitted it from his deck because it's impractical to cover the whole breadth of inlining in a deck that's already 35 slides long. Perhaps he simply didn't think to include it. There are a lot of likely explanations for why this wasn't included besides nefarious motives. You sound paranoid.

[solidsnack9000]

> There's no cause for this concern.

Well, why do you think we are bringing it up, then? Due to some nefarious motive?

[enneff]

My take: it's because of an unnecessarily cynical worldview coupled with a misunderstanding about the intended audience of the presentation.