That kind of articles are bad for the image of the D community


Nick S:
No. Just...no.

I'm honestly *really* tired of general society's (seemingly?) increasing intolerance FOR intolerance.

Some things ARE bad. Some ideas are dumb ideas (ie without merit). Some features are bad features. Some products really are crappy products. Calling it out when you see it, using a frank explanation of your reasoning, isn't bad, it's productive.

Excellence is incompatible with tolerating mediocrity or what is appalling, and what I have seen is that there are aesthetic aspects to creative endeavours not conventionally thought of as having an aesthetic element, and it is in the nature of such things that one cannot and should not tolerate what one perceives to be ugly in a creative endeavour. If one is driven mostly by ROI rather than high feelings, one doesn't get to excellence. So it is my belief that dealing with creative people means dealing with a certain ... intensity.

That (on the aesthetic aspects of technical fields) is not just my opinion, but also (I think) that of a certain Mr W Bright, judging by his comments on how good code should look and on good aircraft design, although he presented this in his usual low-key manner. I was looking for a language that was beautiful, as well as powerful, and for whatever it is worth, this was a factor of high appeal with D.

It's also the view of Feynman, not to mention many great minds of the past. Ie it is limiting to insist on data before forming a strong opinion about something (which is not to say that one may not change one's mind in the face of contrary data).

"You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity. When you get it right, it is obvious that it is right—at least if you have any experience—because usually what happens is that more comes out than goes in. ...The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. Others, the inexperienced students, make guesses that are very complicated, and it sort of looks as if it is all right, but I know it is not true because the truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought." - Feynman via Wikiquote (but the same idea comes across in his books).

To discourage dissent, objections, or complaints is to rob ourselves of potential improvement. *That's* what critique and complaints and objections ARE: Recognition of the potential for improvement. There *cannot* be progress and improvement without first identifying existing faults. If nobody ever identified and voiced criticism of punchcards, for example, we'd all still be stuck in the world of 1950's computing.

Excellently put. (And, I would add, a constructive draw towards what is generative - not just fault-finding).

It's not as if "the D crowd" doesn't critique itself and it's own language just plenty, so it's not like there's any hypocrisy here. And I'm certainly not willing to accept that programmers should be viewed as being part of distinct mutually-exclusive factions based on some single-language allegiance. I'm a D guy. I also happen to be a fan of Nemerle. And both languages have things I hate. So scratch the "it's the D crowd" idea.

Interesting - what should I read about Nemerle, and what is it best at ?

And seriously, the article in question barely mentions D at all.

So no, this is NOT some sort of "D community piece attacking another language" as some comments seem to imply. It is merely an isolated critique of one language by someone who happens to be *using* the given language.

There are some very interesting psychological dynamics in the reaction to this kind of piece. For me it was key that although it was clearly written in a humorous tone, and hurriedly, he seemed to speak from the heart - it is refreshing to see such work even when one doesn't agree with it.

BTW since when has linking to something been an endorsement of it?

Reply via email to