[tdumitrescu]

What a bizarrely arrogant (condescending) way to formulate arguments.

"It is okay to feel provoked by this statement. As pointed out previously: you have probably invested a lot of time in Python. You will be inclined to justify and defend that investment. I would urge you to take some time to think about this and try to calm your urge to come up with counter-arguments. Let it sink in and try to be open to the possibility that this is how many users experience software written in Python."

[j0hnyl]

Negging your readers might not be the best way to get your point across...

[bborud]

And yet, if you look at the reactions, it precisely anticipated how people would react and asked them to try to try to be open to the possibility that the blog posting had a point.

Did you consider I might have a point and that it might be helpful for people to think about it a bit before just going with their gut reaction?

[wnolens]

If your point was strong, people would have listened. But it wasn't, so you had to make a meta point which came off as condescending.

Instead of reading that sentence above and having the gut reaction of not feeling understood, try and be open to the possibility that you didn't make a very strong argument or perhaps didn't communicate it very well.

[bborud]

I'm certainly open to not having communicated my point well. But it was never going to be the kind of point that would be easy to get across since people want to see any criticism of language choice as a language shitpost.

[pwinnski]

You took a very specific complaint about toolkits in the embedded systems space and generalized it to an expanded argument about any and all tooling, much of which have requirements that run directly counter to yours.

So yes, I don't think you communicated your point well. An essay about the brittleness of current embedded systems toolkits which suggested that much of the brittleness could be due to the use of Python in those toolkits, that might have been better-received--but wouldn't have gotten the attention a splashy "Please do not use Python for tooling" did.

Perhaps if you'd spent less time predicting what your essay would provoke, and more time thinking about why your essay might provoke that, you'd have written a better essay.

[bborud]

Actually, I haven't seen anyone make a compelling argument that counters any of the things I point out. I've mostly seen people either suggest workarounds or being upset that someone would suggest Python isn't the best thing since sliced bread.

You keep harping on about the last point. Which makes me think that you really felt that it hit home with you.

[pwinnski]

> You keep harping on about the last point. Which makes me think that you really felt that it hit home with you.

Yeah... your communication skill is pretty bad on both ends, it turns out: out and in.

I'm a Go developer who has used Python for scripting, and for teaching my daughter about programming. I don't care to defend Python as a language, but I do care about clear communication, which you continue to lack.