Re: A rant on certain peoples manners.

On Jun 10, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Kurtis Rainbolt-Greene wrote:

> Dear Jan-Paul,
> 
> I would have written a response correcting many of the points where
> you misunderstand, misinterpret, or plain straw-man my argument.
> 
> I was going to point out that just because Io has big problems,
> doesn't mean it's a bad thing to point out the non-huge problems.
> 
> 
Not if those are known. And they are known.
What we tend to do when we have a problem we look into the ML archives and every point (beside that : :: ::: thing) came up there several times.
Keyword args were discussed there for years, Sequence flaws, debugger flaws, flux flaws.

> I would have also suggested that maybe you're incorrect when you think
> I haven't joined the community, worked with the language, or that the
> first thing I've said is about the syntax issues I see.
> 
> 
I read everything you said in the last 2 months, and too many threads you started on too many mediums ended with you acting like a jerk,
screaming "you don't understand anything, you suck!" and running away.
Also your programming style is as if you were writing a ton of other languages with Io code, just not Io.

> I could have also written about how you simply do not understand the
> Lisp Curse concept.
> 
I find this lack of arguments simply to be a lack or arguments,
you can't always assume that other people "don't get things"  i.e. are stupid, when they simply disagree on your point, which is the main reason your post end in flame wars.

Btw having to reimplement every datastructure that is not a struct in ever Plattform that uses C did not really hinder the languages success.

> 
> All of these things I could have responded too had I thought you might
> actually read them.
> 
I also read every post in the last two months to check if this wasn't only a small misunderstanding, that you are generally a nice guy who got up on the wrong foot.
But all the threads either end in flames, or, and I don't know which is worse, you ask a question, 3 people answer, and you don't write anything back. 

> But I know that you wont because your response to
> my "riding along as the white knight in his shiny armor saving the
> Language from Doom" is to post a passive aggressively titled email
> with attacks on me as the main crux for your argument.
> 
It is not passive agressive, it is agressive.
You are being a jerk and these emotional discussions waste time and I personally would like that to stop.
Also you got to stop taking criticism too personally this will hinder you in live.

And this is really important, this email is not about arguing against your points,
its about telling you that if you behave this way on every small community you will not get happy.
You are currently perceived as a jerk, if you want we can all be silent about it, not answer to your mails or get inevitably annoyed.
Or I tell you that honestly, and you think about how you actions are perceived by this community and if you wan't to continue on this path or maybe choose a different one acting differently.

> 
> Perhaps I misunderstood the accepted tone of this message board. I had
> perhaps erroneously assumed that it would be a place where debating
> the argument was valued over insulting the person. As it's happened
> twice now I think I'll just avoid this form.
> 
You seem to miss a crucial point here, we are professional enough to say in each others face "that idea sucks" and still carry on discussing,
but we discuss it and accept different viewpoint.
Because this is what Io is about, personal freedom and different ideas.
For example when somebody takes the time and posts you some code that _solves_ a particular problem, you say, "thank you :)" or "thanks, but I still think that this doesn't solve it also your solution is severely flawed because of" and not "you don't get  problem x !!1!11!!".

Also what irony that you ask for a different tone on the mailing list.
We never had a problem with flames, never never never until you came along declaring everybody else was stupid.
Which is basically not accepted tone, therefore this thread.


Also I am by no way an angel, I like to say "this sucks" in this community as much as you do,
but somehow I managed to not pull the discussion into the gutter, because when ranting,
you have to accept other peoples points, especially if those people spend a shitload of time with these problems.
This is what I mean by becoming humble, knowing that other people are spending time for you and being grateful about it.

If you have to say "you don't get it" it almost always means "I don't get you".


> 
> Cheers
> 
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Jan-Paul Bultmann
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Kurtis,
> >
> > Saying Io needs more literals and syntax and everything, because other languages need them is like saying it needs gotos and label because assembly needs them.
> >
> > Also to quote David Ungar the creator of the Self language, ambiguity gives us power. So it is ok, if Object map does different things than List map. And it is also perfectly fine if [] does ten things in ten contexts.
> >
> > The "core developer" are btw aware of most flaws, Sequence is a monstrosity with way too many methods, method names should be full unicode and the operator table is overly complex.
> >
> > But you only have to take a look at the github page to see that these are things of least concern.
> > Of more concern is if Io builds tomorrow or is free of segfaults. Something which is awfully hard to achieve with only 2-4 people and a codebase of this size. This tiny tiny tiny community also means that there is a very small likelihood of a community split as you seem to fear.
> > (Something which hasn't killed lisp contrary to popular believe but made it adapt to many platforms, while still having a low adaption burden for programmers.)
> >
> > But what really bothers me is that you lack that humbleness that developers normally gain after they reach a certain age or level of wisdom.
> > Instead of joining the community, listening for a while learning the ways and style of the language, meeting the people (who are awfully nice btw), and then contributing, the first thing you say is "do we really need that = in assignments".
> >
> > Yes, yes, we do need = in assignments and the idea of replacing it with nonsense characters is incredibly stupid, and wasting everybodies time.
> > Something one will totally forgive and not mention because "hey, be kind to the new guy, he's a new guy".
> >
> > But it becomes even more bothering, when you shout into the public, look at this shit, I can do it 10 times better, look at all these things I introduced that I learned from things I did in the past.
> > The problem is this not only reflects bad on Io, because some of the poo sticks to the wall. But more importantly it will make you look like a complete dick.
> > Because everybody who wrote Io code for more than 2 weeks embracing the concepts and not fighting with all his might against them, will notice that the whole thing is pretty well thought out. Sure it has its flaws but those are known (see above).
> > Unlike most "grab-bag-languages" as David calls them, Ios cogs, while they could need some grease again, and more mechanics, are made to fit pretty good into each other.
> >
> > • The lack of syntax allows you to write macros and higher order functions, without worrying to much about a translator (operator table is bad enought).
> >
> > • The reimplementable [ and { allow you to use both list literals when you do list processing [1,2,3] and Obj-C Bridge calls [foo:[bar]] when you speak with Obj-C, when you fix them to one, you're stuck, and who's to decide what is more important.
> >
> > • Coroutines go well with the actor model.
> >
> > • And assignment looks the way it does because of math ( := ) and differs in = and := because of the way slot assignment is handled in locals.
> >
> > • Also if you use do in places besides major prototype definitions or need nil values you're doing things wrong.
> >
> > And you complain about how you can easily define macros and extensions to make your live easier, because they are not buildin?
> > Did the thought ever occur that other people have other needs and also have the chance to implement their solutions this way?
> > Yes, I for example find your list literals silly and use Obj-C so does Steve and a lot of other people, yet we didn't force you to use them for that ,but left you the choice for having them as list literals, didn't we?
> >
> > All those things which you would have learned had you actually joined the community, not riding along as the white knight in his shiny armor saving the Language from Doom all on his own.
> >
> >
> > Because while you might be that white knight one thing is for certain,
> > you will accidentally slay the princess and marry the dragon.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jan
> >
> >
> > A commentary rant on this(and everything else): https://gist.github.com/2848173#comments
> >
> > 
> 
> --
> Kurtis Rainbolt-Greene, Hacker
> Difference Engineers, LLC
> 643 Magazine St. #102
> New Orleans, LA 70130
>