D popularity

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:27:10 -0800
Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 1/21/2013 6:16 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:17:26 -0500
> > Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> 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.
> >
> 
> I think he suggested the quote equated being a savvy businessman with
> having no ethical fiber.

Ok, it was a misunderstanding of a minor detail then. That's not what I
was saying.

The "selling silent fire alarms" would clearly require a lack of ethics
(either that, or at the very least a major deficiency in
one's understanding of the purpose and usage of fire alarms - but
that's getting even more pedantic). Or, if you wanted to be very
euphemistic about it, or if the ethics were beside the main point being
made (as was the case above), you *could* refer to it as "savvy
businessman" even though that would quite obviously be only *part* of
the truth and therefore somewhat of a mischaracterization. Hence the
sidenote of "read: no ethical fiber".

IOW: If I mention a red ball, I'm not calling all balls red.