Re-read your initial comment and my initial reply. You solely complained about a bad analogy and called the author totally clueless. Then I specifically called

Re-read your initial comment and my initial reply. You solely complained about a bad analogy and called the author totally clueless. Then I specifically called you out for not criticizing the language itself. I don't think you're being disingenuous at all. I think if you have complaints about the language you should express them directly. Attacking the author as a means to dismiss the language is lame. And if you're going to do that you should provide a lot more evidence than a vague, non-specific comment about a supposedly bad analogy. If you want to criticize the philosophy of the language (anti-OOP, amongst other things) that's great. But you didn't do that. Let me re-iterate: in the future you should avoid posts that attack the author rather than the idea, call someone totally clueless, and don't present actual evidence. It sounds like you have an opinion formed from a variety of factors. Next time I would recommend you criticize the language at face value. If you haven't spent enough time with the language because you've dismissed it based on a proxy heuristic then I would recommend simply not posting that comment on HN.