Could mean almost anything but what generativist linguistics (or whatever the latest label for the Chomskyan school) does, which continues to promote the notion that language is essentially algebraic, that "grammaticality" is binary, and so forth. It's simply not the case that Chomsky is "okay" with approaches to the study of language which are not in accord wiht his own. He repeatedly dismisses whole subdisciplines as "uninteresting," but in context those complaints don't mean "uninteresting to me," they mean "worthless."
>promote the notion [...] that "grammaticality" is binary
I don't know a single generative linguist who is committed to the claim that grammaticality is binary. And there is lots of published work in generative linguistics that explicitly does not assume this. Where are you getting this idea from, exactly?
>language is essentially algebraic,
Not sure what this means. If it just means that sentences have structure, then yes, generative linguistics is committed to this obviously true claim.
>He repeatedly dismisses whole subdisciplines as "uninteresting," but in context those complaints don't mean "uninteresting to me," they mean "worthless."
He's entitled to his opinion, no? It's not as if no-one ever criticizes his work.
I am not the original commenter, but - English is full of slang and borrowed concepts. And it has rules, but they aren't really enforced and there are many cases where the rules are explicitly broken. Every generation, we see new additions to the English language and removals of old/out of date phrasing.
When you look at it like that, yeah, it's kinda like JavaScript - not really object oriented and not really functional but borrows concepts from both, loosely typed (rules aren't really enforced), and there's a new library every month that drastically changes the language (slang, evolving with the generations).
I only speak English, so I'm not sure if other languages are like this.
"But despite the sneers, I kept hammering a theme in speech after speech and conversation after conversation that went sort of like this: “Instead of scratching only your own itches, why not scratch your girlfriend’s itch?"
Jesus. I am not a screaming social justice warrior. But really, is this trope of women being computational idiots going to last forever? Why does the community put up with it?
There are a MILLION other nouns that could fit into this sentence.
> “Instead of scratching only your own itches, why not scratch your girlfriend’s itch? How about your coworkers? And people who work at your favorite restaurant? And what about your doctor? Don’t you want him to spend his time doctoring, not worrying about apt get this and grep that?”
I'm guessing the line was born from an attempt to share Linux with his SO.
I'm not sure about the person you replied to, but it's the presumption that the reader is a straight male implicit in that question that bugs me. Unless the author is known for his bi/lesbian audience...
It's not that one thing or another makes it okay. There are more neutral ways to phrase it that don't needlessly exclude vast potential audiences.
> Instead of scratching only your own itches, why not scratch your partner’s itch?
> Instead of scratching only your own itches, why not scratch your lover’s itch?
> Instead of scratching only your own itches, why not scratch your sweetheart’s itch?
> Instead of scratching only your own itches, why not scratch your mate’s itch?
Depending on who you ask, at least a plurality of men are at least a little bi, but a double whammy of homophobia and biphobia keeps them closeted. Why make them twitch a little when a small change in wording solves the problem? Being a good for-public writer is all about maximizing your potential audience without diluting the message. "Girlfriend" rather than any of a slew of more neutral terms needlessly dilutes the message.
Personally, I would cut the question entirely since restricting the message to partnered people doesn't serve any purpose.
> ...that bugs me. Unless the author is known for his bi/lesbian audience...
OK, well you said it yourself. It bugs you unless the author has a bi/lesbian audience. So either you were wrong for saying that or you're wrong here. Which is it?
> There are more neutral ways to phrase it that don't needlessly exclude vast potential audiences.
In this situation, there was no vast audience that was excluded. However, in any case (thankfully) you're under no obligation to please every single minority group with your speech.
> ...restricting the message to partnered people doesn't serve any purpose.
Gee, I bet you're real fun at parties. It was one little line item out of a list of other situations. Try getting over it maybe?
Also, try being yourself instead of attempting to please every single other person in the world (and failing, since it simply cannot be done). Life is way easier and more fun if you just accept yourself instead of constantly trying to contort your personage to please others.
When I say things, they're coming from my point of view. Not yours or anybody else's. So, I might put something about "wives" in there since I'm married. (Oh, the horror!!!!!) You're being selfish by denying me my point of view and demanding that I not offend you in any small way.
What right do you have to demand that I couch everything in neutral terms??
Not a single one of your interpretations of my words was correct. Take a deep breath and read again, with the understanding that I'm not making a...
> complaint
It was a simple, honest, friendly suggestion on word choice from one writer to another. This was a professional courtesy, not the rabid screed you misread it as. What I did is constructive criticism, something I see lauded here a lot at HN, and with good reason. You misread it as something very different.
You can either read again, interpreting it in a reasonable manner, or you can take your own advice:
> Try getting over it maybe?
And move on. Either way, my participation in this thread is over. I'm not sure if you're the author of the piece, but you're behaving the way an inexperienced writer does the first time they receive anything other than praise, and I find it very annoying (which means you're probably not the author, given his credentials).
Is that a complaint or a suggestion? He is saying that it was a "friendly" suggestion and that I somehow interpreted it as a complaint.
It also clearly says that he would NOT be annoyed (i.e. it would be OK) by the author's words if the author is known for having a bi/lesbian audience. True or false?
There's really not much there to misinterpret. So, I look forward to hearing your own analysis. Thank you!
He's telling technical people to cater to people who aren't themselves. They aren't necessarily "computational idiots"; they just don't intimately know how or why a computer works. They don't write code, but they still need to use a computer to get a job done, preferably as quickly and efficiently as possible.
The paragraph before that excellently illustrates this point:
> There was a time when, in Linux circles, mere users were rare. “What do you mean, you just want to use your computer to type articles and maybe add a little HTML to them?” the developer and admin types seemed to ask, as if all fields of endeavor other than coding were inferior to what they did.
Stop being critical about things that don't matter, and start being useful.
> He's telling technical people to cater to people who aren't themselves.
> Stop being critical about things that don't matter, and start being useful.
Seems like indubitably's comment met both goals: being useful, catering to people who aren't the author. As someone very different from the author, I appreciated indubitably's comment.
Pretty rich coming from the complainer-in-chief of JS, the guy who advises not employing people who don't happen to agree with his personal take on how JS should be written.
But undefined is specific to Javascript… there are lots of other Javascript things that JSON doesn't handle either, like Set or Map objects. It's not intended to serialize arbibtrary JS objects — it's intended to serialize a useful least-common-denominator which has proven useful through experience.
