5 ms·

No, it's not strange. What you wrote can be interpreted as manipulation. It's the same as replying to question "Who uses Go besides Google?" And you would reply

by lossolo 10y ago

No, it's not strange. What you wrote can be interpreted as manipulation. It's the same as replying to question "Who uses Go besides Google?" And you would reply that almost everyone use it, because everyone is shipping their apps with Docker. You see manipulation here? I don't know if intentionally or not but you did exactly the same.

dbaupp 10y ago
FWIW, a common argument in favour of C and C++ is how it is used by pretty much everything that one runs on a computer, in exactly the same sense of "use". I think you're tilting at windmills: some people mean "use" to mean "ship" and others "write", and neither are that unreasonable.
- lossolo 10y ago
  I wasn't the first one that made that claim. And I don't know the author of the comment that made it and I am not involved with anything that author do - something you can't say yourself in context of person you are defending. I've asked couple of people about that question without suggesting the answer and all of them agree with interpretation that it's about writing software in language A, not using third party tools written in language A. Example of usage outside of company like in question from arstechnica: "Outside of Google, companies like Wrike, Workiva, Blossom and others have also been using Dart to develop their products, so there is definitely still a Dart user community outside of Google, too." This is how everyone interpret that question.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
burntsushi 10y ago
"Manipulation"? Really? Please. > And you would reply that almost everyone use it, because everyone is shipping their apps with Docker. Seems reasonable. Docker is a pretty compelling data point for the viability of Go for writing systems tooling. This argument still seems strange and very petty.
- lossolo 10y ago
  > "Manipulation"? Really? Please. > This argument still seems strange and very petty. Those are not an arguments for anything. What I wrote still stands. It's clear that author asked which company use (writes) Rust besides Mozilla, not which company integrate third party tools that was written in Rust - it's logical.
  - burntsushi 10y ago
    > Those are not an arguments for anything. Well, you cherry picked my comment. I had other thoughts---specifically disagreeing with your analogy---but I guess that wasn't important to you? If you (or anyone else) had a different interpretation than me, then that interpretation should have been immediately clarified by the link I provided and subsequent clarifying comments. Readers can decide for themselves whether it "counts" or not because they have all the information. > I thought you are not part of "rust evangelism strike force" but seeing what you are writing now, I need to reevaluate that opinion. Questioning biases is important. I encourage everyone to form their own conclusions. I personally think questioning my character and my intellectual honesty over what I said in this thread is extraordinarily petty.
    - lossolo 10y ago
      > If you (or anyone else) had a different interpretation than me, then that interpretation should have been immediately clarified by the link I provided and subsequent clarifying comments. Purposely interpreting something differently while there is social majority consensus on interpreting it the other way looks like having an agenda, especially by someone that is heavily involved in topic in question like you are. > I personally think questioning my character and my intellectual honesty over what I said in this thread is extraordinarily petty. We are not bug free. When more than one random person questions my behavior same way I do not find that "extraordinarily petty", maybe there is something to it, maybe I should look at it. I am human, I have faults, denying that is another fault. > Questioning biases is important. I encourage everyone to form their own conclusions. I agree with you here. Anyone reading this discussion can make their own conclusions, some already did and were vocal about it - that's why we have this discussion in the first place.

by lossolo 10y ago

dbaupp 10y ago

FWIW, a common argument in favour of C and C++ is how it is used by pretty much everything that one runs on a computer, in exactly the same sense of "use". I think you're tilting at windmills: some people mean "use" to mean "ship" and others "write", and neither are that unreasonable.

lossolo 10y ago
I wasn't the first one that made that claim. And I don't know the author of the comment that made it and I am not involved with anything that author do - something you can't say yourself in context of person you are defending. I've asked couple of people about that question without suggesting the answer and all of them agree with interpretation that it's about writing software in language A, not using third party tools written in language A. Example of usage outside of company like in question from arstechnica: "Outside of Google, companies like Wrike, Workiva, Blossom and others have also been using Dart to develop their products, so there is definitely still a Dart user community outside of Google, too." This is how everyone interpret that question.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

burntsushi 10y ago

"Manipulation"? Really? Please. > And you would reply that almost everyone use it, because everyone is shipping their apps with Docker. Seems reasonable. Docker is a pretty compelling data point for the viability of Go for writing systems tooling. This argument still seems strange and very petty.

lossolo 10y ago
> "Manipulation"? Really? Please. > This argument still seems strange and very petty. Those are not an arguments for anything. What I wrote still stands. It's clear that author asked which company use (writes) Rust besides Mozilla, not which company integrate third party tools that was written in Rust - it's logical.
- burntsushi 10y ago
  > Those are not an arguments for anything. Well, you cherry picked my comment. I had other thoughts---specifically disagreeing with your analogy---but I guess that wasn't important to you? If you (or anyone else) had a different interpretation than me, then that interpretation should have been immediately clarified by the link I provided and subsequent clarifying comments. Readers can decide for themselves whether it "counts" or not because they have all the information. > I thought you are not part of "rust evangelism strike force" but seeing what you are writing now, I need to reevaluate that opinion. Questioning biases is important. I encourage everyone to form their own conclusions. I personally think questioning my character and my intellectual honesty over what I said in this thread is extraordinarily petty.
  - lossolo 10y ago
    > If you (or anyone else) had a different interpretation than me, then that interpretation should have been immediately clarified by the link I provided and subsequent clarifying comments. Purposely interpreting something differently while there is social majority consensus on interpreting it the other way looks like having an agenda, especially by someone that is heavily involved in topic in question like you are. > I personally think questioning my character and my intellectual honesty over what I said in this thread is extraordinarily petty. We are not bug free. When more than one random person questions my behavior same way I do not find that "extraordinarily petty", maybe there is something to it, maybe I should look at it. I am human, I have faults, denying that is another fault. > Questioning biases is important. I encourage everyone to form their own conclusions. I agree with you here. Anyone reading this discussion can make their own conclusions, some already did and were vocal about it - that's why we have this discussion in the first place.