Kind of a weird paper. 1. It uses formalism to try to deny that there is some competition for brain-share and number-of-users among programming languages, or r

Kind of a weird paper. 1. It uses formalism to try to deny that there is some competition for brain-share and number-of-users among programming languages, or rather around the communities around programming languages. 2. It ignores how C++ has, multiple times, semi-reinvented itself rather than "being C++", spurred by features, idioms or use patterns in other languages, and even managed to mostly "eat their lunch", for better or worse (e.g. the D language). 3. A call for "aiming for coherence", while ignoring how it sometimes contradiction with other principles, such as: "What you don’t use, you don’t pay for" (the zero-overhead rule); and failure to argue even for a balance. 4. "In committee, we frequently spend time on things that only a small number of people care about." <- but these are sometimes extremely important things, relevant to many, and in the future perhaps most programmers; and a small number of people care about them because most people aren't aware of their current or future importance. This is especially poignant where those things will only become important if the committee adopts them, and otherwise can be argued retroactively to never have been worthy of any discussion. etc. etc.