The docs could use some cleanup, by which I mean "throw away all the stupid jargon". How does one publish this homepage with the term "width-bearing" on it? This is not a term of the trade. It's not even "little known" or "niche", it has literally zero Google hits outside this project's documentation. (This post will be the first one.) "Fixed-width type" is right there.

The term "extensions" is also weird. It seems to be used for two things: One, "libraries" (any standard types and functions they wanted to include but don't inherit directly from the CLR's library). Two, a "Go-shaped" (*sigh*) "extension" that is both a "library" (some trivial functions like `len`) and also changes the language by adding channels and some new syntax! Wow, syntax can be imported with an import statement! But only this specific syntax, with this specific import!

And this is "opt-in", and an extension. But... it's right there. It ships with the language. It is in the language. That's not what an extension is to normal humans. And opt-in, sure. I guess I wouldn't have to use it. Just like every other language feature I don't feel like using?

One surefire way to spot LLM writing (beyond the usual signals that savvy people are trying to hammer out of their bots) is to look for a predilection for these awkward compound adjective words. "Width-bearing primitives," "implementation-grounded specification," "data-shape ergonomics."