"Welcome to Bloggers and the Principle of FUD. Take this post with a pinch of salt."
Actually every time somebody uses the term "FUD" I have to take THEIR comment with a huge sack of salt.
Can't you just state your counter-claims without resorting to accusing the other guy of a conscious attempt at misguiding people?
Also, "FUD"? Really? Someone posting on some Ruby shortcomings (or anything) is spreading "fear", "uncertainty" and "doubt"? Because you just had to use a relic term of the 90's desktop wars against Microsoft, right?
I read the post, and haven't felt any particular fear.
Matter of fact, I was rather enlightened by some of the examples.
Also I take offense to the silly line of argument here:
> "You can pick up almost any programming language, not learn it properly, and then pick holes in its various inconsistencies or flaws".
Really? One picks holes "in its various inconsistencies or flaws" if he has not "learned [the language] properly"?
What sense does that make? A language either has "various inconsistencies or flaws" or it has not.
If it has --and you don't argue that Ruby hasn't--, one has EVERY F*N right to "pick holes" at them. And this has nothing to do with "not learning the language properly".
If the language has "inconsistencies or flaws" what does "learning it properly" mean? To learn to work around them?
Actually every time somebody uses the term "FUD" I have to take THEIR comment with a huge sack of salt.
Can't you just state your counter-claims without resorting to accusing the other guy of a conscious attempt at misguiding people?
Also, "FUD"? Really? Someone posting on some Ruby shortcomings (or anything) is spreading "fear", "uncertainty" and "doubt"? Because you just had to use a relic term of the 90's desktop wars against Microsoft, right?
I read the post, and haven't felt any particular fear.
Matter of fact, I was rather enlightened by some of the examples.
Also I take offense to the silly line of argument here:
> "You can pick up almost any programming language, not learn it properly, and then pick holes in its various inconsistencies or flaws".
Really? One picks holes "in its various inconsistencies or flaws" if he has not "learned [the language] properly"?
What sense does that make? A language either has "various inconsistencies or flaws" or it has not.
If it has --and you don't argue that Ruby hasn't--, one has EVERY F*N right to "pick holes" at them. And this has nothing to do with "not learning the language properly".
If the language has "inconsistencies or flaws" what does "learning it properly" mean? To learn to work around them?
That's a bizarre definition of "properly".