4 ms·

That is a lot of words to say "I have a fetish for intellectual babble". I didn't say that the type of speech alone is enough to dismiss the argument. I am say

That is a lot of words to say "I have a fetish for intellectual babble". I didn't say that the type of speech alone is enough to dismiss the argument. I am saying that resorting to terms more complicated than needed hinders communication. If "words are tools for thought", OP is using the wrong tool and you are jerking off to someone who is employing a (overtly fancy) chisel to sand a block of wood. (And yes, I did read up on the terms. His criticism is still vague and does not seem rooted in actual experience as a programmer, teacher or programming language designer.)

maxbond 4y ago
> (And yes, I did read up on the terms. His criticism is still vague and does not seem rooted in actual experience as a programmer, teacher or programming language designer.) This being precisely why I found it to be a fresh and interesting viewpoint; I've heard a lot from programmers and language designers on this topic, I hadn't heard from linguists before. I found their use of different tools of thought than I had seen applied to this area intriguing and it made me see things in a different way; you seem to have interpreted this as "using the wrong tools" because they weren't the ones you were used to. This is exactly what I was saying; you're limiting the conversation to an insular set of perspectives. You've bought my premise about what you're saying, and in lieu of justification you've provided some cheap insults. I'm glad we understand each other.
- rglullis 4y ago
  Different perspectives are interesting if they can be used to solve the problem at hand. > I hadn't heard from linguists before. Are you sure? Larry Wall, creator of Perl, is a linguist. His education certainly guided his decisions when designing the language. He certainly had different "tools of thought" compared to other programmers at the time, and it shows. You can hear him multiple talks and read books from him about the topic, and none of them are filled with out-of-context, unnecessary jargon.

maxbond 4y ago

> (And yes, I did read up on the terms. His criticism is still vague and does not seem rooted in actual experience as a programmer, teacher or programming language designer.) This being precisely why I found it to be a fresh and interesting viewpoint; I've heard a lot from programmers and language designers on this topic, I hadn't heard from linguists before. I found their use of different tools of thought than I had seen applied to this area intriguing and it made me see things in a different way; you seem to have interpreted this as "using the wrong tools" because they weren't the ones you were used to. This is exactly what I was saying; you're limiting the conversation to an insular set of perspectives. You've bought my premise about what you're saying, and in lieu of justification you've provided some cheap insults. I'm glad we understand each other.

rglullis 4y ago
Different perspectives are interesting if they can be used to solve the problem at hand. > I hadn't heard from linguists before. Are you sure? Larry Wall, creator of Perl, is a linguist. His education certainly guided his decisions when designing the language. He certainly had different "tools of thought" compared to other programmers at the time, and it shows. You can hear him multiple talks and read books from him about the topic, and none of them are filled with out-of-context, unnecessary jargon.