On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:16:07 -0500 Nick Sabalausky <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:17:26 -0500 > Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 1/21/13 2:01 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > > If I were a savvy businessman (read: no ethical fiber) > > > > Now that came out of left field. > > > > I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by lifting that > (arbitrary?) part of my sentence out of its full intended context: > > "[portion actually quoted here], I would manufacture a line of fire > alarms advertised as being 100% silent[...etc...]and sell them > exclusively to programmers." > > The point, of course, being that preferring to forgo the safety and > static checks that a static language provides is comparable to > preferring silent fire alarms (Ie because they're both good things > to be explicitly warned about, and deliberately silencing them is > shortsighted and ill-advised). You seem to have latched on to some > insignificant detail there and misinterpreted it, though I'm not sure > exactly what or how. > > You're not suggesting that trying to sell non-working fire alarms > would be *ethical* are you? I wouldn't think so, but I'm not really > sure what your point is. > Is it just that my metaphor was too wild/obscure/unclear? Sometimes my metaphors do get a little obscure/silly/unclear, I do try to avoid that, though perhaps not always successfully.
