I love that there are people who say things like this totally seriously.
I've worked on very large, complex, mission critical systems my entire career. Medical devices mostly. If you're not catching these sorts of errors early then you aren't modeling and testing your software correctly (or at all). All of the objects in the world aren't going to prevent you from writing bugs and crappy code. OO is no panacea and we've known that for quite some time now. I don't want to use a library which is limiting because it thinks it is doing me a favor.
I don't think I'm infallible (straw man much?), but I do think that dead simple errors such as this would be caught by any amount of actual testing. That said, I wouldn't be against a better design. Why doesn't this library provide a way to add arbitrary headers? Oh, right, that would still involve using a string. Gasp, no, that shouldn't be allowed. We have to protect the poor users of our library. Yeesh.
You can't always protect a programmer from themselves while still allowing the flexibility/power needed to get shit done. I'd rather use the map than some overly architected and frustrating library. I have a problem with abstractions that get in my way.
