3 ms·

The idea that he follows the litmus test is of questionable factuality given that the author’s own Objective-J language would have failed it. It is likely that

The idea that he follows the litmus test is of questionable factuality given that the author’s own Objective-J language would have failed it. It is likely that the litmus test came from his experience creating Objective-J. However, the Swift project began in the same timeframe, so even if we understand these things now, Objective-J shows that we didn’t back then.

troupo 3y ago
> given that the author’s own Objective-J language would have failed it. Did the author mention Objective-J? > It is likely that the litmus test came from his experience creating Objective-J. So, your "fact check" is "it is likely"?
- randomdata 3y ago
  The author doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I have no idea what the second statement is trying to say.
  - troupo 3y ago
    The author's point maybe valid regardless of his work. The second statement is not n the context of this thread, I didn't look at the username and thought you were the original commenter I answered to :)
    - randomdata 3y ago
      The author's assertion is that he uses the described qualities as a litmus test when deciding if a new language is justified. But him creating Objective-J calls him using that litmus test as described into question. Again, it seems likely that his experience with Objective-J and it failing on those fronts is why he has come to think that way. If that is the case, then why would Apple magically have had the foresight he and his team lacked?
      - troupo 3y ago
        You have a weird obsession with Objective J that was never mentioned or alluded to in the linked thread.
        randomdata 3y ago
        He talks specifically about when he chooses to create a new language. "I generally view that initial list (with some other items) as a kind of litmus test of whether it makes sense to write a new language:" Therefore, Objective-J is the language that passed the test for him. But what did it actually bring to the table other than some interoperability with existing Apple APIs, which allowed direct use of Interface Builder? Which, as it happens, is also the same primary design goal Swift had. The answer is: Nothing. Other projects at the time showed you could achieve 90% of same using plain old Javascript, despite Objective-J being clearly the better language, with already had a strong and mature ecosystem that was good enough. And therefore Objective-J should have never passed his litmus test. Thus, his claims that he follows the litmus test is false. Or, more likely, has only become true in recent times due to his experience with Objective-J and how it failed on those fronts. But if that's the case then it is not clear how it applies to Apple as there was no reason for Apple to know any better back then either. > You have a weird obsession Where do you find relevance in this logical error?
        troupo 3y ago
        > Therefore, Objective-J is the language that passed the test for him. Did he say that? Did he say he applied this test when he was creating Objective J 15 years ago? Did he say that Objective J passed this test? Could it be that he applied his own experience, and experience of other languages and came up with the list as the result? > Where do you find relevance in this logical error? I find relevance in your weird obsession with the fact the author created Objective J 15 years ago and this somehow invalidates the points he's making. I mean, you've now spent several comments and the last comment exclusively talking about Objective J. This is bordering on mania.
        3y ago

troupo 3y ago

> given that the author’s own Objective-J language would have failed it. Did the author mention Objective-J? > It is likely that the litmus test came from his experience creating Objective-J. So, your "fact check" is "it is likely"?

randomdata 3y ago
The author doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I have no idea what the second statement is trying to say.
- troupo 3y ago
  The author's point maybe valid regardless of his work. The second statement is not n the context of this thread, I didn't look at the username and thought you were the original commenter I answered to :)
  - randomdata 3y ago
    The author's assertion is that he uses the described qualities as a litmus test when deciding if a new language is justified. But him creating Objective-J calls him using that litmus test as described into question. Again, it seems likely that his experience with Objective-J and it failing on those fronts is why he has come to think that way. If that is the case, then why would Apple magically have had the foresight he and his team lacked?
    - troupo 3y ago
      You have a weird obsession with Objective J that was never mentioned or alluded to in the linked thread.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        He talks specifically about when he chooses to create a new language. "I generally view that initial list (with some other items) as a kind of litmus test of whether it makes sense to write a new language:" Therefore, Objective-J is the language that passed the test for him. But what did it actually bring to the table other than some interoperability with existing Apple APIs, which allowed direct use of Interface Builder? Which, as it happens, is also the same primary design goal Swift had. The answer is: Nothing. Other projects at the time showed you could achieve 90% of same using plain old Javascript, despite Objective-J being clearly the better language, with already had a strong and mature ecosystem that was good enough. And therefore Objective-J should have never passed his litmus test. Thus, his claims that he follows the litmus test is false. Or, more likely, has only become true in recent times due to his experience with Objective-J and how it failed on those fronts. But if that's the case then it is not clear how it applies to Apple as there was no reason for Apple to know any better back then either. > You have a weird obsession Where do you find relevance in this logical error?
        troupo 3y ago
        > Therefore, Objective-J is the language that passed the test for him. Did he say that? Did he say he applied this test when he was creating Objective J 15 years ago? Did he say that Objective J passed this test? Could it be that he applied his own experience, and experience of other languages and came up with the list as the result? > Where do you find relevance in this logical error? I find relevance in your weird obsession with the fact the author created Objective J 15 years ago and this somehow invalidates the points he's making. I mean, you've now spent several comments and the last comment exclusively talking about Objective J. This is bordering on mania.
        3y ago