On Sunday, 15 June 2014 at 16:20:28 UTC, Xinok wrote:
Location: Italy
Qualifications: Rendering Engineer
https://www.blogger.com/profile/01477408942876127202
Given that he lives in Italy, it's safe to assume that English
is not his first language. But rather than consider what he has
to say or dispute his arguments, you completely dismissed his
point of view because his level of writing doesn't meet your
standards. Furthermore, you unjustly called him a
"sophisticated idiot" and "narcissistic cunt". You've only
shown yourself to be the ignorant one.
Agreed, this culture of, be perfect or I won't listen to you is
annoying. Natural language is not a well specified language like
programming (where the computer truly can't do anything but
exactly what you tell it).
Natural language is only useful as a means for communication. If
your only concerned with the grammar and ignore the
communication, you've missed the point. (This is coming from
someone who's worked on getting a computer to understand that
communication and respond appropriately. Note: proper grammar
does not remove ambiguity).
Instead, concentrate on what was communicated and write a retort
for that. For example:
In his referenced 2011 post he says that a new C++ is needed
because no one fully understands it. In this post he says D is of
no value because no one needs to fully understand C++.
He obviously doesn't understand the value of putting meta
programming into the hands of the common programmer, and I
believe D does this even though it can get more complex.
Also in the 2011 post, D should have been listed in all three
section, Scripting, High-level, System. This suggests he doesn't
really see D as bridging the gap and uniting all layers.
