4 ms·

For the record, ignorant does not equal stupid, being a master does not mean you are old, and ignoring negativity (which I should have done here) does not mean

by sesteel 12y ago

For the record, ignorant does not equal stupid, being a master does not mean you are old, and ignoring negativity (which I should have done here) does not mean I refuse to listen to you. I was simply trying to convey that the rocket has left the launch pad and people will be exposed to the language professionally whether they like it or not. I am finally free of feeling like I need to defend the language to others. It is somewhat liberating.

coldtea 12y ago
>For the record, ignorant does not equal stupid, being a master does not mean you are old, and ignoring negativity (which I should have done here) does not mean I refuse to listen to you. Ignorant might not mean stupid literally, but it still means "you don't know about programming languages" in the context of the comment, which is also bad. Being a master might not mean you are old, but the masters we're talking about here (Brian et al) are ALSO old. And saying that you're "ignoring negativity" if you ignore complaints about Go means that you're labelling them as whining or coming from "negative types" instead of accepting the possibility that it can be actual valid criticism.
- sesteel 12y ago
  Thank you for trying to educate me on what I meant by my own comment. Contrary to what you might think, ignorant, in the context of my comment does not mean "you don't know about programming languages" and I know this because it was my comment. I was simply referring to people not having the same professional experiences such that they would appreciate a language like Go. The crux of the issue is that Go is a local min in a field of possibilities, you may value differently the attributes of various programming langauges which would lead you to some other alternative or local min. I am not passing judgement on others for doing so, but also please be brave enough to admit your ignorance as to why some of us settled where we did with Go. I willingly admit I am ignorant as to why people think other languages are a good idea for general use.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >Thank you for trying to educate me on what I meant by my own comment. Contrary to what you might think, ignorant, in the context of my comment does not mean "you don't know about programming languages" and I know this because it was my comment. What one means and what one writes/communicates can be two totally different things. The "I know because I wrote it" is a valid argument regarding intent, but doesn't hold the same power regarding what the written thing means to others who read it. >The crux of the issue is that Go is a local min in a field of possibilities, you may value differently the attributes of various programming langauges which would lead you to some other alternative or local min. Why would one want a "local min" though? If anything one would prefer the global maximum or at least a local maximum. Or is the "min" meant in some dimension that one would actually want to minimize?

by sesteel 12y ago

coldtea 12y ago

>For the record, ignorant does not equal stupid, being a master does not mean you are old, and ignoring negativity (which I should have done here) does not mean I refuse to listen to you. Ignorant might not mean stupid literally, but it still means "you don't know about programming languages" in the context of the comment, which is also bad. Being a master might not mean you are old, but the masters we're talking about here (Brian et al) are ALSO old. And saying that you're "ignoring negativity" if you ignore complaints about Go means that you're labelling them as whining or coming from "negative types" instead of accepting the possibility that it can be actual valid criticism.

sesteel 12y ago
Thank you for trying to educate me on what I meant by my own comment. Contrary to what you might think, ignorant, in the context of my comment does not mean "you don't know about programming languages" and I know this because it was my comment. I was simply referring to people not having the same professional experiences such that they would appreciate a language like Go. The crux of the issue is that Go is a local min in a field of possibilities, you may value differently the attributes of various programming langauges which would lead you to some other alternative or local min. I am not passing judgement on others for doing so, but also please be brave enough to admit your ignorance as to why some of us settled where we did with Go. I willingly admit I am ignorant as to why people think other languages are a good idea for general use.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >Thank you for trying to educate me on what I meant by my own comment. Contrary to what you might think, ignorant, in the context of my comment does not mean "you don't know about programming languages" and I know this because it was my comment. What one means and what one writes/communicates can be two totally different things. The "I know because I wrote it" is a valid argument regarding intent, but doesn't hold the same power regarding what the written thing means to others who read it. >The crux of the issue is that Go is a local min in a field of possibilities, you may value differently the attributes of various programming langauges which would lead you to some other alternative or local min. Why would one want a "local min" though? If anything one would prefer the global maximum or at least a local maximum. Or is the "min" meant in some dimension that one would actually want to minimize?