Article discussing Go, could well be D

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff at dilacero.org> wrote in message 
news:ist8n0$1952$1 at digitalmars.com...
>
> You still didn't need to pass judgment on what is notable or not in their 
> later careers.

Why the hell can't I? Is there some "thought police" I don't know about?

*He* passed judgement on the guy's earlier career. And *you* said "Maybe 
because he has done things of note since?" so clearly, *you're* passing 
judgement on his later career.

Oh, I see, passing judgement is only ok when the verdict happens to be 
"thumbs up"...

If you're unimpressed with something then that's "passing judgement", but if 
you are impressed then that's not a judgement at all. What the hell did I 
step into, some "New Age/Flower Child"-Bizarro-World where only "positive 
uplifting" ideas are valid ones? Bunch of hippocritical bullcrap.

> It's enough to say that dismissing D as being "irrelevant" without 
> justification is the problem.
>
> Also, there's nothing wrong with taking a look at a C-like language 
> because the inventors were heavily involved with the original C and Unix 
> environments. Much like people are encouraged to look at D because of 
> Walter's past work with a C++ compiler and Andrei's C++ experience. As a 
> way to pique interest, it's valid. However, that should not be a 
> determination of a language's actual merit.

Perhaps, but that's not the full extent of the situation here. He labeled D 
as "stay[ing] in the spheres of irrelevancy", and the *only* conceivable 
reason for him to have made such an assesement is that D lacks Go's "Google, 
Pike, and Thompson". I'm not allowed to be annoyed by that and voice my 
reasons?