This is a perfectly valid response if this was LTU or comp.compilers, but here on hacker news only a small percentage of us are actually in a position to "fix our language implementation".
Know your audience! If you are talking to language users (not makers), this comment just... well,
> If you are talking to language users (not makers)[…]
In a sense, each time we write a function or an object, we are language makers. Too bad we don't considers ourselves as such, because makers actually bend the languages to their needs, rather than the other way around. Users limit themselves to a limited, defined, approved set of techniques (like function and object definitions).
I think any programmer worth it's salt should try and consider himself a bit of a maker. Not to play the Sorcerer's Apprentice, but at the very least to have the idea to call an actual Sorcerer for help.
This is a perfectly valid response if this was LTU or comp.compilers, but here on hacker news only a small percentage of us are actually in a position to "fix our language implementation".
Know your audience! If you are talking to language users (not makers), this comment just... well,
>> made yourself look like an ass.