I actually read this the opposite way from the way the rest of you ([ ] appear to be [ ] are ) reading it.
No language dodges all of these checkboxes - or even 70% of them, really. I mean, just look at the "Unfortunately, your language (has/lacks)" list. A language which correctly had or lacked all of those as appropriate (jeezus - jut determining what the correct combination is would light half the blagoblag on fire...) would obviously be quite sucky.
The point, then, is that no language can make it through this checklist - and no language should have to. If your objection can be found on this checklist, and you don't have anything significant to add, then your feedback isn't really helping, is it?
Your feedback
[ ] Can be expressed as a linear sum of items on this checklist (see "trash can")
I think the point might be that if you don't pay attention to, and think hard about why your language may/may not fail certain of those checks, then you're doing it wrong.
No language dodges all of these checkboxes - or even 70% of them, really. I mean, just look at the "Unfortunately, your language (has/lacks)" list. A language which correctly had or lacked all of those as appropriate (jeezus - jut determining what the correct combination is would light half the blagoblag on fire...) would obviously be quite sucky.
The point, then, is that no language can make it through this checklist - and no language should have to. If your objection can be found on this checklist, and you don't have anything significant to add, then your feedback isn't really helping, is it?
Your feedback
[ ] Can be expressed as a linear sum of items on this checklist (see "trash can")
[ ] Cannot be expressed as such (see "internet")