You're not replying to the same person. In a separate comment, I asked for a clarification on that specific part of their comment. The other pros, they're not part of what I asked about.
In the comment I replied to you, I'm just stating that you're bringing up something that's not in discussion.
Sorry for the misattribution, my mistake. Nevertheless, the fact remains that https is a part of the standard library and one of the elements that the op finds unique about Go. It is unambiguously part of the conversation, and the ostensibly negative comment that focuses on static linking is missing the point.
But I didn't even make the assumption that I was right on that understanding. I simply asked for more detail. Which was so that either I would learn something new, or the parent would.
> https is a part of the standard library and one of the elements that the op finds unique about Go.
Where do they say that it being part of the standard library is unique? I don't even see the words "standard library" mentioned.
EDIT: Look, this back and forth seems kind of pointless. This started with a statement about Go being unique for being able to be statically linked and talk HTTPS. If a language can be linked to compiled libraries, static or not, it's surely able to at least use libcurl, so I and the other commenter you replied to took it as Go is unique for being able to link statically. I assumed they meant, ignoring C/C++, static linking is rare, which I found interesting. I found other languages and asked for clarification. That's all.
I just addressed this question more directly on your other comment.
I do not agree that it is incumbent upon a speaker to anticipate the listeners knowledge, so I do not think it is a reasonable expectation that every qualifier be included. It's simply not practical. But I do think this is an interesting conversation you bring up.
In the comment I replied to you, I'm just stating that you're bringing up something that's not in discussion.