3 ms·

I'm sorry, but I'm not actually sure what you're trying to express here. My initial interpretation is that this is a level beyond typical nitpicking, but I'm n

I'm sorry, but I'm not actually sure what you're trying to express here. My initial interpretation is that this is a level beyond typical nitpicking, but I'm not sure how that follows?

kstenerud 5y ago
"A new type of shell" is a bit of marketing text to express the fact that this shell doesn't follow in the footsteps of most other shells (bash, zsh, fish, etc) in terms of treating things as blobs of text (which allows for a number of innovations). The fact that the author even states that it's partially inspired by Powershell demonstrates that he's aware of the similarities (and has in fact cribbed many ideas from it). Calling his marketing line "disingenuous" comes across as very petty nitpicking that adds nothing of value to the discussion.
- rincebrain 5y ago
  Ah, I see. Thank you for explaining. The part that bothered me was not that they described something that shared some concepts with PowerShell as "a new kind", but that I did not see any illustration of entirely novel features in the examples that followed. As a sibling comment remarked, they feel I'm quite mistaken, and there are very positive distinctions illustrated in the examples, but I took a look at them again, and it's still not clear to me what they mean. I think I don't see why it's unreasonable for something which advertises cross-platform support to be compared to common shells on all those platforms, not just originally-*ix ones? That is, I think it's totally reasonable for you to think the tagline is justified solely by the differences in those shells, even if I disagree, but I don't see why you think it's unreasonable for me to hold this view?
  - kstenerud 5y ago
    It's not a question of precision, but rather one of convention. In this case, the convention is that a marketing line glosses over huge swaths of reality in order to give a simple and compelling narrative (people like things to appear simple, even if they're not - and even if they KNOW they're not). So calling out imprecisions and inaccuracies in this context reflects poorly upon you because everyone is already aware of the unspoken assumptions being made, and take criticisms about things already covered by the assumptions as unnecessary and irritating pedantry. As in a "Yes, we KNOW that it's not technically 100% accurate, please stop being annoying." sort of response. From my impression of your word choice and sentence structure, I'm making the assumption that you have autistic traits, which is why I'm explaining in more detail and on a social level.
    - rincebrain 5y ago
      I appreciate you attempting to explain.
      - wccrawford 5y ago
        FWIW, I don't think "it's marketing" is a valid excuse for them saying things that aren't true. It's not a "new kind of shell" because it's mimicking things that already exist. The author even knows about those things and cites them. I do not accept the idea that it's okay to make false claims to create a narrative, marketing or otherwise. And I'm not on the spectrum.

I'm sorry, but I'm not actually sure what you're trying to express here. My initial interpretation is that this is a level beyond typical nitpicking, but I'm not sure how that follows?

kstenerud 5y ago

"A new type of shell" is a bit of marketing text to express the fact that this shell doesn't follow in the footsteps of most other shells (bash, zsh, fish, etc) in terms of treating things as blobs of text (which allows for a number of innovations). The fact that the author even states that it's partially inspired by Powershell demonstrates that he's aware of the similarities (and has in fact cribbed many ideas from it). Calling his marketing line "disingenuous" comes across as very petty nitpicking that adds nothing of value to the discussion.

rincebrain 5y ago
Ah, I see. Thank you for explaining. The part that bothered me was not that they described something that shared some concepts with PowerShell as "a new kind", but that I did not see any illustration of entirely novel features in the examples that followed. As a sibling comment remarked, they feel I'm quite mistaken, and there are very positive distinctions illustrated in the examples, but I took a look at them again, and it's still not clear to me what they mean. I think I don't see why it's unreasonable for something which advertises cross-platform support to be compared to common shells on all those platforms, not just originally-*ix ones? That is, I think it's totally reasonable for you to think the tagline is justified solely by the differences in those shells, even if I disagree, but I don't see why you think it's unreasonable for me to hold this view?
- kstenerud 5y ago
  It's not a question of precision, but rather one of convention. In this case, the convention is that a marketing line glosses over huge swaths of reality in order to give a simple and compelling narrative (people like things to appear simple, even if they're not - and even if they KNOW they're not). So calling out imprecisions and inaccuracies in this context reflects poorly upon you because everyone is already aware of the unspoken assumptions being made, and take criticisms about things already covered by the assumptions as unnecessary and irritating pedantry. As in a "Yes, we KNOW that it's not technically 100% accurate, please stop being annoying." sort of response. From my impression of your word choice and sentence structure, I'm making the assumption that you have autistic traits, which is why I'm explaining in more detail and on a social level.
  - rincebrain 5y ago
    I appreciate you attempting to explain.
    - wccrawford 5y ago
      FWIW, I don't think "it's marketing" is a valid excuse for them saying things that aren't true. It's not a "new kind of shell" because it's mimicking things that already exist. The author even knows about those things and cites them. I do not accept the idea that it's okay to make false claims to create a narrative, marketing or otherwise. And I'm not on the spectrum.