|
|
|
|
|
|
by mistrial9
2955 days ago
|
|
|
things that immediately come to mind:
- GVR founder, involved and opinionated.. argues against the TONE of the communication ! during a fairly ordinary technical discussion of language implementation. Certainly a trained compiler implementor can carefully measure and then show becnhmarks on function dispatch.. but the concern raised has to do with maintainability of the code, more than raw performance. Dont you see? GVR is a humanist and social leader here. Ecosystem participation does matter, as well as raw tech specs. Hardcore math or performance languages are zillions of times faster, and how many users are there.. how many libraries.. * The fashionable inner-circle of the current economic winners, making the academic who "works for so-and-so" an immediate authority. Think for yourself! Wealth-makes-leadership leads to some sick outcomes, frankly. Sure, some academic compiler writer knows his function call stats, but that doesnt suddenly make the years and years of participatory work by many hands, less relevent. This is not populist, but rather pragmatic. * Comparison to yet-another Python 3.x development. Great! Python evolves.. but lets not throw out a stable binary system with well-understood characteristics.. and that is.. Python 2.7 very interesting peek into the phenomenon of this language |
|
|
The LWN piece says "Guido van Rossum, who loudly objected to Shapiro's tone, which was condescending, he said".
That sounds appropriate.
In your experience, do most people presenting an 'ordinary technical discussion' use a condescending tone? If so, I'm glad I don't work in your organization.
Otherwise, when should people complain when speaker is disparaging most of the people in the audience, even if accidentally?