[ablesearcher]

When did evidence-backed criticism become synonymous with trolling? Also, which statement exactly was angry? (Let alone rubbish? Or, gasp, vomit?)

It seems you want all Elm news to be positive Elm news. So does the language's author. In fact, when addressing the announcement re: Hacker news, he wrote this:

"Just an FYI, if you go to a HN post via direct link and vote on it, those votes either do not count or are used as demerits because it indicates that people are trying to artificially boost things. I guess getting a kickstarter to the top of HN can be worth a lot of money, so they try to protect against voting rings."

(See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/elm-dev/NQxML4HA4X8 )

Civility is important. But so is the honest, unfettered exchange of ideas.

[rlander]

Well, for starters, use your real name, like the rest of us, not a throwaway account.

I guess if your issues were legitimate, we'd see a post on the mailing list, not an open attack on Richard's credibility.

For the record, this is evidence-backed criticism:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10081955

Yours is just trolling.

[ablesearcher]

Let's proceed in reverse order:

1. You don't get to define evidence-backed criticism to be only the criticism that you appreciate.

2. I didn't "attack" Richard. I pointed out an inconsistency with other recent statements that he has made, that bear on the credibility of his current advice.

3. I'm not sure how my identity is relevant to my ideas. But the reason I don't post under my own name has to do with requirements of my job. (I'm not a programmer by trade.) I can't have social media accounts. In any event, this isn't a throwaway account. These are, in fact, my first posts to HN.