3 ms·

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 w

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.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > I never admitted any bad faith because I never argued in bad faith. Not so. You clearly stated that you were focused on my supposed "mania". That is an admission of bad faith. You know full well that even if it were true, it has no relevance to anything in this thread and is a fallacious diversion. > you immediately assumed the worst of the person I assumed nothing about the person until the person stated that he wanted to change the subject to talk about me. A random topic change is in bad faith, ad hominem is in bad faith, and bringing feelings to a discussion is in bad faith. > I will not engage in this discussion any further. Are you under the impression that this is a train station? You do not need to announce your departure. Logically, we understand you have stopped participating in the discussion when you stop participation in the discussion. This is another bad faith device. Do better.

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.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > I never admitted any bad faith because I never argued in bad faith. Not so. You clearly stated that you were focused on my supposed "mania". That is an admission of bad faith. You know full well that even if it were true, it has no relevance to anything in this thread and is a fallacious diversion. > you immediately assumed the worst of the person I assumed nothing about the person until the person stated that he wanted to change the subject to talk about me. A random topic change is in bad faith, ad hominem is in bad faith, and bringing feelings to a discussion is in bad faith. > I will not engage in this discussion any further. Are you under the impression that this is a train station? You do not need to announce your departure. Logically, we understand you have stopped participating in the discussion when you stop participation in the discussion. This is another bad faith device. Do better.