3 ms·

Are you implying that it's factually incorrect? Also, the word "silly" appeared in the BinaryIdiot's comment first. You have to be prepared for not exactly poli

Are you implying that it's factually incorrect? Also, the word "silly" appeared in the BinaryIdiot's comment first. You have to be prepared for not exactly polite responses when you do something like this.

nothrabannosir 11y ago
Incendiary language like "you obviously have no idea what you're talking about" is bad for the quality of your comment, and this entire discussion. Not everyone is capable of looking past personal attacks like yours. It is the first step to a flame war. You have something to say? Great. Just say it, no need to talk about how little the other person knows. Aside from "two wrongs don't make a right," do you really feel that this is comparable? I love the idea of type script but transpiling it down into a language that isn't as type strict just seems silly to me. And.. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. If you honestly, in your heart of hearts, feel that both statements are ballpark same level of cordiality, then ok.
- klibertp 11y ago
  No, to be honest - and I really expected you to drop this argument, which is why I didn't bother elaborating earlier - it was an emotional response from my side. The first version of my previous comment didn't focus on the word "silly", it read something like this: "it may not be right to call the other person ignorant, but, for this particular person, it felt soooo good!" Just as you say, we're human, which is why "not everyone is capable of looking past personal attacks". Moreover, what we regard as "personal attacks" varies from person to person. Personally, I felt insulted by the specific kind of ignorance displayed by BinaryIdiot in his posts in this thread. I know I shouldn't have and I don't think the downvotes are undeserved. On the other hand, I obviously have my reasons for feeling that way; judging by the font color of many BinaryIdiot's posts I wasn't the only one. I read through all the posts in this thread before posting. BinaryIdiot talking about how he experienced "transpiling languages" in the form of CoffeeScript and so he knows everything there is to them... That was excruciating. Him talking about compilation and compilation targets was similarly painful. One of the versions of my first reply to you read: "I've been hurt in enough ways and enough times [by people behaving like that] to develop a little bit of aggressiveness towards them." In all honesty, the point about how compilers work was just an excuse. I suppose what I really wanted to do was to tell BinaryIdiot how wrong he is about some things, and how irritating it is for me personally (especially today!) to see him talking about programming languages, compilers, and whatnot without first investing any time on research. Well, it's still wrong and I should have just ignored the whole thread.
  - nothrabannosir 11y ago
    Ok, I think you have a point and I blew the thing out of proportion. Sorry for that.

nothrabannosir 11y ago

Incendiary language like "you obviously have no idea what you're talking about" is bad for the quality of your comment, and this entire discussion. Not everyone is capable of looking past personal attacks like yours. It is the first step to a flame war. You have something to say? Great. Just say it, no need to talk about how little the other person knows. Aside from "two wrongs don't make a right," do you really feel that this is comparable? I love the idea of type script but transpiling it down into a language that isn't as type strict just seems silly to me. And.. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. If you honestly, in your heart of hearts, feel that both statements are ballpark same level of cordiality, then ok.

klibertp 11y ago
No, to be honest - and I really expected you to drop this argument, which is why I didn't bother elaborating earlier - it was an emotional response from my side. The first version of my previous comment didn't focus on the word "silly", it read something like this: "it may not be right to call the other person ignorant, but, for this particular person, it felt soooo good!" Just as you say, we're human, which is why "not everyone is capable of looking past personal attacks". Moreover, what we regard as "personal attacks" varies from person to person. Personally, I felt insulted by the specific kind of ignorance displayed by BinaryIdiot in his posts in this thread. I know I shouldn't have and I don't think the downvotes are undeserved. On the other hand, I obviously have my reasons for feeling that way; judging by the font color of many BinaryIdiot's posts I wasn't the only one. I read through all the posts in this thread before posting. BinaryIdiot talking about how he experienced "transpiling languages" in the form of CoffeeScript and so he knows everything there is to them... That was excruciating. Him talking about compilation and compilation targets was similarly painful. One of the versions of my first reply to you read: "I've been hurt in enough ways and enough times [by people behaving like that] to develop a little bit of aggressiveness towards them." In all honesty, the point about how compilers work was just an excuse. I suppose what I really wanted to do was to tell BinaryIdiot how wrong he is about some things, and how irritating it is for me personally (especially today!) to see him talking about programming languages, compilers, and whatnot without first investing any time on research. Well, it's still wrong and I should have just ignored the whole thread.
- nothrabannosir 11y ago
  Ok, I think you have a point and I blew the thing out of proportion. Sorry for that.