[claytongulick]

It is potentially uninformed, possibly mistaken, but not disingenuous.

We're supposed to assume best intent.

Accusing someone of being "disingenuous", "horribly uninformed" and "short sighted" for providing an different opinion isn't doing that.

I learned something from the post. I learned that these enhancements are already mostly being codified in the language.

That influenced my opinion on the subject.

I assumed that the 13 lines of code comment was in the context of js, not (for example) a c parser, where it's pretty normal for 13 lines of js to translate to hundreds or potentially thousands of lines of C code.

The post was informative and respectful.

The name-calling response was not.

[arinlen]

> We're supposed to assume best intent.

No one with the faintest understanding of what a parser is and does would ever claim that any of these changes could ever take 13loc to implement.

If they are ignorant and still feel compelled to pass false claims on how significant changes are instead trivial just to try to downplay the real world challenges, they are undoubtedly being disingenuous.

[xpe]

The commenters above (who I agree with) are suggesting the following, I think:

Rather than write this:

> This take is disingenuous and horribly uninformed and very shortsighted.

Write this instead: "This take is horribly uninformed and very shortsighted."

Think of this way: we're asking if you can find ways to not assume bad faith in another party.

> If they are ignorant and still feel compelled to pass false claims on how significant changes are instead trivial just to try to downplay the real world challenges, they are undoubtedly being disingenuous.

From the Apple dictionary:

>> disingenuous: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does: he was being somewhat disingenuous as well as cynical.

[Brian_K_White]

So it's at best disingenuos or ignorant, merely not necessarily both.