[refresherd]

Oh, if I were invested in C++ I would be worried! And it sounds like the committee members should have some takeaways, for sure.

But I'm not a member of that community. Bringing up one problem (C++ committee interaction) doesn't mean that is the only problem that was brought up.

She has trouble communicating because she's very scrupulous, same as lots of other engineers - some people are responding to that problem.

She wants another language that fits her criteria - some people are responding to that problem.

[junon]

I don't personally equate "scrupulous" to "[having] trouble communicating", nor do I really consider it a "problem". They are mutually exclusive.

Also, from a language design point of view, they have very strong opinions about language design and heavily criticize the design of all modern languages. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Programming language design is a field of CS. People are allowed to obsess over it. It'd be a shit world of people didn't obsess over specific fields of science. I can't believe I have to explain this.

The people here aren't arguing with the statements about language, but instead for the author even having opinions about languages at all. That's incredibly demeaning and dismissive.