|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible wrote:
> Well, I don't know. As I've written before, saying "X is flawed" is like
> saying "anybody who chooses X is stupid". There's a logical implication
> there.
I disagree. I can certainly say "this aspect could be better" without
implying that anyone who chooses it hasn't chosen it for the sum total of
all its features. Just like I can say I think C# is technically a pretty
good language without implying that Microsoft is a good company, or I can
say that Ada has a lot of support for programming safely without implying I
want to use Ada.
"We should find ways to make cars pollute less" doesn't mean "everyone who
drives is stupid." "Revolvers jam less than pistols" doesn't mean you can't
prefer a pistol for other reasons. It just doesn't follow outside fanboyism
that pointing out a single flaw in a product means you're wrong to choose
that product, especially in something so complex and non-fungible as
programming language choice.
> Certainly I get pretty hacked off when people tell me that Haskell is a
> stupid, irrelevant language. (Despite several obvious problems that
> Haskell really does have...)
I don't generalize like that, tho. Many do, but I discuss individual features.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |