3 ms·

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.
        randomdata 3y ago
        > Could it be that he applied his own experience, and experience of other languages and came up with the list as the result? It is almost certain. I said that in the first comment and every single one that followed. > I mean, you've now spent several comments and the last comment exclusively talking about Objective J. I repeated the same thing several times because what I said was not understood by the recipient. Communication can be difficult and a different phrasing helps people here in good faith to understand what wasn't clear on an earlier attempt. As Objective-J was present the first time, it was necessary to include every time, else the message would have changed. While you got the benefit of the doubt, with you now admitting that you are here in bad faith, what did you hope to gain from that?
        troupo 3y ago
        > with you now admitting that you are here in bad faith I never admitted any bad faith because I never argued in bad faith. However, this claim of yours perfectly describes how you approached the thread in the first place: you immediately assumed the worst of the person, assumed that person is arguing in bad faith, and presented your own negative bias and dislike as fact. Since you are actually arguing in bad faith, I will not engage in this discussion any further. Adieu.
        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.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        > Could it be that he applied his own experience, and experience of other languages and came up with the list as the result? It is almost certain. I said that in the first comment and every single one that followed. > I mean, you've now spent several comments and the last comment exclusively talking about Objective J. I repeated the same thing several times because what I said was not understood by the recipient. Communication can be difficult and a different phrasing helps people here in good faith to understand what wasn't clear on an earlier attempt. As Objective-J was present the first time, it was necessary to include every time, else the message would have changed. While you got the benefit of the doubt, with you now admitting that you are here in bad faith, what did you hope to gain from that?
        troupo 3y ago
        > with you now admitting that you are here in bad faith I never admitted any bad faith because I never argued in bad faith. However, this claim of yours perfectly describes how you approached the thread in the first place: you immediately assumed the worst of the person, assumed that person is arguing in bad faith, and presented your own negative bias and dislike as fact. Since you are actually arguing in bad faith, I will not engage in this discussion any further. Adieu.
        3y ago