4 ms·

I don't see what is unreasonable about prodding for the "why" of the reasons you gave (which was basically the point of asking what your company wanted to optim

• the_af 5y ago
  > I don't see what is unreasonable about prodding [...] Yes, I can see that you fail to acknowledge the unreasonability of your prodding. Time to change your tack, maybe voice an opinion of your own, on the actual article, and expose yourself to critique? Maybe drop the condescending tone and try to avoid the cross-examination? It's against the rules on HN. > I do not see what kind of comment we can have except the meta-commentary. I can't help you with what you "don't see"; I cannot make you fix your blind spots. I've already told you your meta-commentary is unwanted. I do not welcome it, it's unhelpful, and every single assumption you've made has been wrong (and smug) so far. It's not my job to present my case to you, you're not doing a consultancy here, nor do you demonstrate particular expertise on the subject. I foresee another pointless reply of your own. I'll let you have the last word. Bye.
  • rglullis 5y ago
    > maybe voice an opinion of your own In regards to "type hinting/type checking" in Python, my "opinion" is somewhat similar to automated testing: "use it when it can help increase your confidence about the soundness of your program and its design, but don't rely on it as a guarantee of it being bug-free." In regards to the article, my opinion is that if you want to claim "disappointment" with a language your expectations should be aligned with the language developers and the general motivations of the community at large. Another opinion is that if the author took the time to understand these underlying motivations there would be no "disappointment" and consequently no article, perhaps? > expose yourself to critique Hum, that's interesting. I don't think of "expressing an opinion" as something that "exposes oneself to critique". Maybe I am too accustomed with the idea of "keeping my identity small" and "strong opinions, loosely held", that it's natural to me to differentiate an "attack" on the argument vs the person? Any chance is this why you are so defensive? > try to avoid the cross-examination? It's against the rules on HN. First, not rules but guidelines. Second, you have been responding with passive-aggressive insults and retorts which also makes for unpleasant conversation. Third and most important, there is no cross-examination. I am not challenging your motives or trying to invalidate you as a way to invalidate your opinion. The "prodding" is because I don't think your argument has any merit yet, but perhaps this could change if you provided some underlying reason? > I've already told you your meta-commentary is unwanted. It's not lost on me that I when I asked "what you would like to change about python's type hinting without changing the language, and what is wrong about python's type checking that is not just a matter of improving the tool", you completely ignored it and preferred to continue with this grating back-and-forth. Anyway, you are right when you say it's time to lay this one to rest. I hope the next one gets to be more enlightening to both of us.
    • the_af 5y ago
      > First, not rules but guidelines. Second, you have been responding with passive-aggressive insults and retorts which also makes for unpleasant conversation. You continue nitpicking! You would do better if you followed those "guidelines". Indeed this conversation has been unpleasant, but it's all on you. You have been condescending and insulting. I suggest you focus your energies on better enterprises next time, maybe engage with the article itself instead of picking on others. It will do you good. > The "prodding" is because I don't think your argument has any merit yet, but perhaps this could change if you provided some underlying reason? Surely you can see there's nothing to gain by explaining myself to someone who thinks "my argument doesn't have any merit" (and who doesn't think that's insulting) and who keeps misrepresenting everything I say? I just said something, shared by many others, and you felt triggered by the opinion: that's fine, I don't want to convince you of anything, nor do I feel like being "educated" by you. > Maybe I am too accustomed with the idea of "keeping my identity small" and "strong opinions, loosely held", that it's natural to me to differentiate an "attack" on the argument vs the person? Well, you haven't done a good job at it, then! What do you hope to gain, at this point? Are you waiting for me to "see reason"? That's not going to happen. Surely you see sooner or later dang will intervene here and tell us to shut it down? re: insulting, passive-aggressive behavior: I re-read our exchange from the start. I was polite, even agreed with you sometimes ("I'm nodding in agreement, why do you think I think otherwise") while your tone kept getting more condescending with each reply, failing to accept my agreements and prodding in what I guess you felt was an "educational" tone. Honestly, hand on your heart, do you believe your responses were made in the best possible tone and were the best way to conduct an honest conversation? Do you believe the default position of "this argument has no merit, but maybe if this person explains his team's and company's motivations to my satisfaction I might change my mind" is a mindset that is conducive to amicable conversation? I think, if you're honest, you should admit maybe a tiny bit of misbehavior here. I also read replies you've made in other articles and you seem more reasonable. I'll chalk it up to you not being able to let go at this point, and so you must bite and nitpick at everything I say. I really think you should let it go, make your peace with not being able to convince me of your point of view, and move on to other enterprises.
      • rglullis 5y ago