On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 at 07:44:09 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 at 16:19:19 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 at 15:31:30 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
We know that you think D is a toy language, although you also
say that you aren't calling it a toy language.
That's a rather manipulative assertion.
That's a statement about intent that is based on a poor
reading. And my statement - whatever you may perceive its
intent to be - is based purely on what you have said (both that
D is a toy language - in your view this being an entirely
factual assertion - and that you are not calling D a toy
language).
http://forum.dlang.org/search?q=ola+toy&scope=forum
I am tired of your manipulative mind games.
From
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected] :
«I said "if D is a toy language". That is not calling it
anything. But it is, like Rust, a toy language by academic use of
the phrase which is not a pejorative term, but an affectionate
term in my book. The pejorative term is to call a language a
"hack". C++ is a hack. String mixins is a hack. Etc.»
