I think if you read what he wrote less ungenerously (e.g. as if you were reading a mailing list post rather than something intended as a bulletproof philosophical argument), you’ll see that his implicit point—that he’s just talking about the reaction to Scala in particular—is clear enough, and—and this is the important point—the eventual discussion is productive in terms of bringing up ideas for making Scala more suitable for its intended audience. Given that his post inspired just the sort of discussion he was after, I do think you’re being a bit harsh on him.
I don’t know that we disagree. I will cheerfully agree that Martin’s email was relatively measured, the discussion it kicked off was productive, and that his tone was neither bitter nor toxic. That doesn’t detract from my point—that as far as I can make out, his perception of relative attack frequency is heavily selection-biased, and he’s unaware of this danger. It is true that in this case the bias did not lead to toxic consequences, but I never said it did. The bias itself here is remarkable.
If my being a bit harsh on him basically consists of my not saying the above in the original comment, I’ll accept that; I could’ve noted in passing that the discussion that resulted was at the end largely a friendly and productive one.
I think if you read what he wrote less ungenerously (e.g. as if you were reading a mailing list post rather than something intended as a bulletproof philosophical argument), you’ll see that his implicit point—that he’s just talking about the reaction to Scala in particular—is clear enough, and—and this is the important point—the eventual discussion is productive in terms of bringing up ideas for making Scala more suitable for its intended audience. Given that his post inspired just the sort of discussion he was after, I do think you’re being a bit harsh on him.
I don’t know that we disagree. I will cheerfully agree that Martin’s email was relatively measured, the discussion it kicked off was productive, and that his tone was neither bitter nor toxic. That doesn’t detract from my point—that as far as I can make out, his perception of relative attack frequency is heavily selection-biased, and he’s unaware of this danger. It is true that in this case the bias did not lead to toxic consequences, but I never said it did. The bias itself here is remarkable.
If my being a bit harsh on him basically consists of my not saying the above in the original comment, I’ll accept that; I could’ve noted in passing that the discussion that resulted was at the end largely a friendly and productive one.