nowhere in the history of language has “there should be such a thing” meant or even implied “making such a thing is easy”

I know its hyperbole but you can’t possible back that statement up.

if anything it implies the opposite.

It doesn’t, but i agree it didn’t really imply the difficulty was high either.

I wasn’t saying the reply was correct, i was stating the intended meaning (at least as i see it).

To answer to your original post, design platforms with version control exist.

Some use git under the hood, some don’t, most don’t require you to understand git to use them.

Hopefully that saves you some time as now you don’t have to build the platform from scratch.

Downsides for sure, but it does work.

So, benefit of the doubt time.

That’s some mental gymnastics in there but let’s see if we can get it.

So the reply isn’t actually suggesting you create the platform for designers, they are pointing out that there is a lot more to competent platform/software design than it seems, so try it yourself and find out.

If it turns out you do in fact have the answers, great, we now have the platform you described.

Chances are you’ll find out just how difficult it is to do what you are suggesting and realise that implying someone could “just” create a platform for designers isn’t particularly realistic.

In the same way you can’t apply narrow definition for a word to all situations, when other more contextually correct definitions exist ?

(I mean, you can, but you probably shouldn’t)

You can’t just expand the meaning of a well defined word just because you like the vibe of it applying to the victim group of the day.

Also that is literally how languages change over time, so…yes, you can.

Though having a narrow definition of what a language can and can’t be does track with your general vibe so far…

It doesn’t seem like reason is going to win out here.

Somebody who picks a single narrow definition for a word and then applies that narrow definition to every instance even remotely related ( when other, more contextually correct definitions exist and have been pointed out ) isn’t working with a full deck, intentionally or otherwise.

You can’t reason somebody out of a position they didn’t reason themselves in to.

and this is exactly my point, the definition of the word generally points directly to it being killing in a fashion that is unlawful which rests on the applicable law in the context.

Nation state soldiers killing enemy combatants doesn’t fit this description in most circumstances. (There are of course rules and exceptions etc etc)

I’m not arguing the morality, I’m arguing the factual definition and it’s the reason why i said the language causes it’s own issues.

i consider this specific example to also be an issue of language, which is in itself a construct.

Murder as a word has meaning based in law, which is another construct.

If you were to switch out “murder” for “killing” the outcome remains the same (cessation of life by another party) but the ethical and moral connotations are different.

Some people use murder when they mean killing and vice versa which adds a layer of complexity and confusion.

Though all of that could just be me venturing into pedant country.