> in my eyes, Ousterhout's point wasn't to divide languages into two camps. But that is exactly what the word dichotomy implies. If he wasn't dividing language

> in my eyes, Ousterhout's point wasn't to divide languages into two camps. But that is exactly what the word dichotomy implies. If he wasn't dividing languages in camps, there is no reason why there couldn't be a single language to rule them all, and the dichotomy reduces to an observation of the programming languages available at the time, instead of a general, inherent characteristic of programming languages. Also, what is beautiful about not having a single language? A single language is, prima facie, much more elegant.