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