[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.

[bborud]

I wasn't criticizing Python as a language. I think you let your gut reaction run away with you a bit.