| > If it's allowed for anyone to come up with any new idea they want, then it has to be equally allowed for others to criticize. Never disputed this. > It's no longer better ergonomics if you can't use it at all because half your endpoints don't support it Incompatibility != lack of ergonomics. People use new and incompatible frameworks all the time. It could be argued that JSON had better ergonomics at a time when XML was more popular, in spite of impedance mismatch with other APIs. Similar could be said of what's happening with python 3 vs python 2 the last decade. How do standards improve without breaking anything? > But calling them "haters" is not a valid defense of the idea. From reading the article, it seems like people were particularly cruel, well beyond constructive criticism into straight up ridicule: > But he went even further: Mitchell took the time to make a parody project of JSON5 [..] even making fun of me by name. OP was gracious about it however: > I reached out to Mitchell as part of writing this post [..] I assumed he regretted it in retrospect, and I harbored no grudge or ill will towards him. > Mitchell confirmed this assumption to be true and offered a genuine, sincere apology. Thank you, Mitchell — I appreciated that a lot. He doesn't appear to take personal affront, so I think his use of the term 'haters' is playful, but I think also fair when you consider that even those mocking them felt bad about their conduct. |