I mean, him first? I definitely implied this, but admittedly others on this thread have made this more explicit: he doesn't really say anything here; he leans o

I mean, him first? I definitely implied this, but admittedly others on this thread have made this more explicit: he doesn't really say anything here; he leans on other canned RAII-bad arguments without addressing Lina's points seriously and in good faith, presuming that she's "completely unaware of the downsides of RAII", that the code she's writing is going to have performance problems, that she - someone who's actually worked on the Linux kernel! - doesn't know about a completely imagined intolerance for RAII in the kernel. And as I mentioned, he was kind of a jerk about it too. I think I gave this post the response it deserved. I know we want to live in a world where everyone rigorously logically defends every position all the time, but in life - especially now, in the world of the internet where everyone has a soapbox - we have to apply heuristics of credibility to make this manageable. "Some guy with limited experience who's paid to promote a programming language" has vastly less credibility than "Linux kernel developer who reversed engineered the M1 GPU" - he needs to come out with a very robust argument for us to take him seriously; instead he posted FUD. I certainly don't think great devs are infallible. As a particular example - Hickey's a great dev. But I think Hickey's criticism of type systems in "Simple Made Easy" is a flawed argument. I've spent a long time thinking about why it's flawed. If I were to write a blog post about why it's flawed, though, I'd do my best to engage with it seriously; not just presume he doesn't know what he's talking about, presume his code is going to be riddled with type errors, link to some Haskell 101 and call it a day.