6 ms·

Please tell me exactly where the line is between bashing and criticism and then get the entire world to agree with it. I agree with you that there's a lot of b

Please tell me exactly where the line is between bashing and criticism and then get the entire world to agree with it. I agree with you that there's a lot of bad criticism out there, but you draw a distinction where none exists and overall your critique of criticism was did nothing to address fundamental issues. pg's disagreement hierarchy posted on here every couple of seconds is a much more thorough call towards constructive criticism and actually provides workable and useful advice. Here you're just going off and saying "wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have evil X in the world?" Sure, it would be nice if it was more civil. Did you want to actually make any real suggestions on how to bring that about? Going off and criticizing all criticism and rambling on about how we should all just focus on the positive attributes of all the languages we discuss is just downright lazy and populist.

jacquesm 17y ago
> Please tell me exactly where the line is between bashing and criticism and then get the entire world to agree with it. That's a rather high standard don't you think ? If the people on HN on average would agree with it that would be good enough for me. > I agree with you that there's a lot of bad criticism out there, That's good :) > but you draw a distinction where none exists and overall your critique of criticism was remarkably poorly written, not well thought out and did nothing to address fundamental issues. I apologize for my lack of writing skills and apparent deficiencies in my thinking faculties, since you leave out specifics I'll have to assume that you meant all of it. Let me try again: There are lots of languages out there, most of them were created out of some kind of need, they fulfilled a purpose or they wouldn't have existed. To blindly argue that one language is better than another out of either a personal attachment to some language or a perceived shortcoming in the intellect of those using it is counterproductive. Languages are like individuals, they come to life, have a period when they're in their prime and they will fade to obscurity, their best features will continue to live on in the DNA of those that follow it. If we concentrate on what's good in languages and we try to use that knowledge to improve our understanding and our toolsets then we are using criticism and comparison in a positive way. To simply tear down the tools 'the other guy/gal' is using is counterproductive, it will not change minds and in fact will leave all the participants with a bad taste. I think - after reading your comment, maybe mistakenly so - that we can do a lot better than that. > pg's disagreement hierarchy posted on here every couple of seconds is a much more thorough call towards constructive criticism and actually provides workable and useful advice. Here you're just going off and saying "wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have evil X in the world?" I don't know where you keep getting the world from I didn't bring that in, but, if you want to interpret it that way, don't you think it would be nicer if we didn't have evil X in the world? And given the option to change would you hold on to evil X even after a suggestion was made that could change the world for the better ? I'm not in PGs league, either as a programmer, a writer or a businessman, and I don't profess to be, but I'm allowed to speak my mind. > Sure, it would be nice if it was more civil. That's good, we agree again. > Did you want to actually make any real suggestions on how to bring that about? Once again my apologies if my writing isn't perfect, this is not my first language, I try my best. The suggestion was to analyze those languages that we apparently despise and to find their 'good bits' so we can implement those in other languages. This will help to remove the barriers between those languages and will make switching from one to another easier than it is today. > Going off and criticizing all criticism and rambling on about how we should all just focus on the positive attributes of all the languages we discuss is just downright lazy and populist. I thank you for your constructive criticism and hope that I've been able to address your points.
- djcapelis 17y ago
  > I apologize for my lack of writing skills and apparent > deficiencies in my thinking faculties, since you leave out > specifics I'll have to assume that you meant all of it. That was me being less than civil and less than constructive, I actually had edited my comments just before you posted this response. My apologies. > but I'm allowed to speak my mind. Oh, absolutely, but I'm also allowed to point out that nothing you said will advance the state of dialog forward and is little more than bemoaning that sometimes individuals go overboard from helpful criticism to unhelpful criticism. Just complaining that criticism exists really doesn't help anyone. Arguing for less of it, by the way, doesn't help anyone either. Arguing for better criticism is valid in my mind, but I don't feel like you did that here. And if you had, I would also have appreciated seeing you actually lay out a cogent and reasonable argument on what you felt was better criticism and how to achieve it. In my mind we'd be much better served here with an article entitled "How to criticize a language right" or something along those lines. > The suggestion was to analyze those languages that we > apparently despise and to find their 'good bits' so we > can implement those in other languages. Ah, this is not an unreasonable suggestion, but I took what you wrote to mean that you thought people should stop ever being negative about languages and only ever focus on the positives and to me that's just not right. I think any approach that advocates better criticism that doesn't allow someone to just be critical if they desire is flawed. Sure, when one can be balanced and review both the ups and downs of a language, that's nice. But I think it must remain perfectly valid for someone to simply focus on the areas they see as needing improvement. Especially in the cases where that person feels that the areas where the language is good have already been covered, are already evident or have been covered by people better equipped to cover them. (Unfortunately not everyone is equipped to point out both good sides and downsides to everything. Sometimes a specific person's view will yield interesting insight on the downsides of a language without yielding anything but relatively uninteresting insights about its upsides.)
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    > In my mind we'd be much better served here with an article entitled "How to criticize a language right" or something along those lines. If you write it I'll read it. On another note, I see from your self-censoring that you know the difference between bashing and criticism very well, witness the difference in your first and second versions of your original comment ;)

jacquesm 17y ago

> Please tell me exactly where the line is between bashing and criticism and then get the entire world to agree with it. That's a rather high standard don't you think ? If the people on HN on average would agree with it that would be good enough for me. > I agree with you that there's a lot of bad criticism out there, That's good :) > but you draw a distinction where none exists and overall your critique of criticism was remarkably poorly written, not well thought out and did nothing to address fundamental issues. I apologize for my lack of writing skills and apparent deficiencies in my thinking faculties, since you leave out specifics I'll have to assume that you meant all of it. Let me try again: There are lots of languages out there, most of them were created out of some kind of need, they fulfilled a purpose or they wouldn't have existed. To blindly argue that one language is better than another out of either a personal attachment to some language or a perceived shortcoming in the intellect of those using it is counterproductive. Languages are like individuals, they come to life, have a period when they're in their prime and they will fade to obscurity, their best features will continue to live on in the DNA of those that follow it. If we concentrate on what's good in languages and we try to use that knowledge to improve our understanding and our toolsets then we are using criticism and comparison in a positive way. To simply tear down the tools 'the other guy/gal' is using is counterproductive, it will not change minds and in fact will leave all the participants with a bad taste. I think - after reading your comment, maybe mistakenly so - that we can do a lot better than that. > pg's disagreement hierarchy posted on here every couple of seconds is a much more thorough call towards constructive criticism and actually provides workable and useful advice. Here you're just going off and saying "wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have evil X in the world?" I don't know where you keep getting the world from I didn't bring that in, but, if you want to interpret it that way, don't you think it would be nicer if we didn't have evil X in the world? And given the option to change would you hold on to evil X even after a suggestion was made that could change the world for the better ? I'm not in PGs league, either as a programmer, a writer or a businessman, and I don't profess to be, but I'm allowed to speak my mind. > Sure, it would be nice if it was more civil. That's good, we agree again. > Did you want to actually make any real suggestions on how to bring that about? Once again my apologies if my writing isn't perfect, this is not my first language, I try my best. The suggestion was to analyze those languages that we apparently despise and to find their 'good bits' so we can implement those in other languages. This will help to remove the barriers between those languages and will make switching from one to another easier than it is today. > Going off and criticizing all criticism and rambling on about how we should all just focus on the positive attributes of all the languages we discuss is just downright lazy and populist. I thank you for your constructive criticism and hope that I've been able to address your points.

djcapelis 17y ago
> I apologize for my lack of writing skills and apparent > deficiencies in my thinking faculties, since you leave out > specifics I'll have to assume that you meant all of it. That was me being less than civil and less than constructive, I actually had edited my comments just before you posted this response. My apologies. > but I'm allowed to speak my mind. Oh, absolutely, but I'm also allowed to point out that nothing you said will advance the state of dialog forward and is little more than bemoaning that sometimes individuals go overboard from helpful criticism to unhelpful criticism. Just complaining that criticism exists really doesn't help anyone. Arguing for less of it, by the way, doesn't help anyone either. Arguing for better criticism is valid in my mind, but I don't feel like you did that here. And if you had, I would also have appreciated seeing you actually lay out a cogent and reasonable argument on what you felt was better criticism and how to achieve it. In my mind we'd be much better served here with an article entitled "How to criticize a language right" or something along those lines. > The suggestion was to analyze those languages that we > apparently despise and to find their 'good bits' so we > can implement those in other languages. Ah, this is not an unreasonable suggestion, but I took what you wrote to mean that you thought people should stop ever being negative about languages and only ever focus on the positives and to me that's just not right. I think any approach that advocates better criticism that doesn't allow someone to just be critical if they desire is flawed. Sure, when one can be balanced and review both the ups and downs of a language, that's nice. But I think it must remain perfectly valid for someone to simply focus on the areas they see as needing improvement. Especially in the cases where that person feels that the areas where the language is good have already been covered, are already evident or have been covered by people better equipped to cover them. (Unfortunately not everyone is equipped to point out both good sides and downsides to everything. Sometimes a specific person's view will yield interesting insight on the downsides of a language without yielding anything but relatively uninteresting insights about its upsides.)
- jacquesm 17y ago
  > In my mind we'd be much better served here with an article entitled "How to criticize a language right" or something along those lines. If you write it I'll read it. On another note, I see from your self-censoring that you know the difference between bashing and criticism very well, witness the difference in your first and second versions of your original comment ;)