Article discussing Go, could well be D

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff at dilacero.org> wrote in message 
news:ispo9o$f4e$1 at digitalmars.com...
> On 06/08/2011 03:55 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> It's not that I have anything against Pike or Thompson. I don't. I
>> just think that as dumb as it is to use ad hominem reasoning in the
>> first place, it's even dumber to invoke it in such an anachronistic
>> way.
>
> Then don't do it yourself. Your Pike bashing was uncalled for. The
> author didn't say anything about Pike except to mention him as one of
> the original developers. If he was gushing over the man or saying Go is
> worthwhile because of him, then you'd have a point.

Once again, I wasn't Pike-bashing. You're misinterpreting my words and 
assuming I did. Billions of people, obviously myself included, have never 
done *anything* of real significant note whether recently or 800 years ago. 
And everyone knows that. So how the heck can saying "some guy who did 
something significant 40 years ago and hasn't done a damn thing of note 
since" even *possibly* be taken as an insult? So what if he hasn't? Most 
people don't do a damn thing of note their entire lives. I'll probably never 
do a damn thing of note my entire life (even as much as I try). Who cares? 
It's just fact (well, aside from the definition of "noteworthy" being a bit 
vague). The only thing my statement *could* rationally be taken as is that 
I'm just simply *not* praising him. Not praising someone is hardly the same 
as insulting them (unless you consider them some deity).

Again, my entire point for even bringing it up was that the association with 
"Google/Pike/Thompson" (plus all the "buzz" around the language, which all 
boils down to little more than "It's Google/Pike/Thompson!" anyway) seems to 
be his only real reason for giving Issue 9 a real chance and dismissing D 
outright. Which is, yes, anachronistic ad hominem reasoning. And considering 
the actual realities of both D and Issue 9, I can't think of anything else 
besides that "buzz/fame factor" for why he would reject D as being so much 
more "irrelevant" than Issue 9.