In a more generous interpretation, there was silence, _then_ people said something. That makes sense.

But "That silence is the story." is still a pretty telling non-sequitr, and it doesn't seem like the kind that comes from sloppy editing.

The punchy "Thing. Thing. Thing." is used constantly. We see it constantly in this article:

> 852 pages. Win16 API in C.

> Message loops. Window procedures. GDI.

> One OS, one API, one language, one book.

But those are minor sins. But in the end of the article, Snover states that Microsoft pitched C++ in 2012. That's so incorrect! The contents of this blog post are at least partially falsified.

Plus, the thesis statement is nonsense:

> When a platform can’t answer “how should I build a UI?” in under ten seconds, it has failed its developers. Full stop.

"Full stop" is a pretty heavy thing to end a nonsense statement with. How an inanimate software platform can "answer" things is not implicitly obvious, either. Is it a human representative? Are they the docs? Is it through a good UI?

The post is about Petzold's / Reccold's "Programming Windows", but it is apparently 852 pages, so that certainly wasn't answered in under 10 seconds either.

He immediately said they never did make a decision, so probably that indecision.

Having said that, this article feels like AI slop to me. Couldn’t get through it.