Add blogpost for 0.12.0-RC1 and 0.11.0

[biboudis]

No description provided.

[odersky]

Looks very good!

[LPTK]

Previously, one had to place the desired method in the trait with the receiver object to extend, as part of the parameter list. The infix-ness of the method was being restored by manually writing the implicit class, resolving implicitly that extended object.

This paragraph is extremely obscure. I believe what you meant to say was just:

Previously, one had to place the desired methods in an implicit class.

But that doesn't even mention why Dotty extension methods are a big deal and make type classes easier (they use the implicit scope).

Would a PR be welcome to change that?

[smarter]

Yes.

[biboudis]

Yes, of course @LPTK!

If possible rephrase the sentences above still indicating the verbosity of the previous approach and also adding the missing bit of info about the implicit instances enabling the extension method(s).

Thanks!