inskey_

I think the article to which the linked article is responding is a bit of a broken clock... that is, it's correct about operator overloading being detrimental, but their reasoning is incorrect.

The questions about allocation and garbage collection are irrelevant for the reasons you mention. But operator overloading allows problematic code for another reason.

`AddMatrices` is unambiguous; clearly its operands should be matrices, and they should be added according to matrix arithmetic rules (and, like you said, if the underlying code is buggy, it would also be buggy as an overloaded operator). The problem is that `+` is ambiguous. And if you're dealing with matrices, you're probably looking at code written by a math person, meaning it's going to be shorthand-heavy and the operands' names are unlikely to make the variables' types clear.

But at least in the matrix vs. scalar case, you have a similar set of axioms, so changing `x + m` to `m + x` should not alter the result regardless of the types. This is not so when people shove even more meanings onto a single operator, like `+` for string concat. String concatenation doesn't commute. Furthermore, different languages have different rules for "adding" one string and one number, so it causes needless friction for polyglots.

I'm not saying I prefer `concat(s1, s2)`, because I like my operators. I'm saying I prefer something like Raku's `~`. As an added bonus, you get automatic and consistent coercions. You know exactly what the operation is and how the operands will be treated when you see `~`, with no need to find the operand types.

In conclusion, operator overloading is a half-assing of full-fledged user-defined operators, and it encourages programmers to shove disparate functionalities (often with different axioms) into the same operator. Either let people write traditional functions, or give them the ability to create their own operators so they're not tempted to make a mess of the default set of operators.

I hate to say it, but I believe your confidence is severely misplaced. The indoctrinated airheads running the Fed are hardly the "best minds in monetary policy." This is the same central bank that stuck its head in the sand despite clear warnings approaching the 2008 financial crisis, then proceeded to overreact to appear as if they were doing something(1).

When is the last time the Fed's spastic behavior had a sure and long-term positive impact on the economy from the average person's perspective? I specify this perspective because the macro measures used by central banks are not always accurate indicators of the general welfare. Central banks are good for primarily one purpose, and that is ensuring the economic dominance of the groups controlling them. This has been their purpose throughout history(2), and I don't see that changing now. This most recent move is at best a platitude.

All that said, I agree with your sentiment that blanket statements, especially in the highly dynamic field of economics, tend not to be accurate or helpful.

(1) Danielle DiMartino Booth, Fed Up

(2) Look into the history of the Banque Royale of France 1716-1720 and the history of the Bank of England up into the 18th century. The long and short of it is these banks were used as mechanisms by the elite to retain control over currency systems which would otherwise have given too much power to the public for their liking.