I disagree - if its a template
that is commonly used, someone only has to dissect it once.
Regardless, what exactly is tricky to disect or falacious about this template? The rebbutal is basically:
* go is trying to optimize for different things
* go makes no secret that its trying to optimize for different things
* some people like the things that go optimizes for (and some people don't).
* [with an implied] if you intentionally used a tool that made choices you don't like, and its not a secret they made those choices, is it really the tool's fault or your fault? Its like ordering ice cream and being mad the ice cream is cold.
If the original argument was more phrased as the types of design choices go makes are bad, it would probably be more palatable (but also less interesting, because whether worse really is better is flame war that has been going on for decades)
You're too optimistic about defusing tricky BS. And I was deliberately avoiding making a claim about the article, only about the idea that the existence of a template to "dismiss" your argument implies anything about your argument. It does not.
I think there are 2 senses of the word argument here. After all, how good your argument is (i.e. how good a job you do at convincing people of your view) has no bearing on how good your argument is (i.e. how true it is).
When i claim that failing to address a criticism that is so common it has a template form and thus should easily have been anticipated, makes for a bad argument, i mean in the first sense not the second. To be clear, by a template i mean a template response that people believe in good faith - like what was used in this discussion. I don't mean a template for making an ad hominem attack or something bad faith along those lines. But ultimately if there is some "tricky bullshit" that is commonly believed in good faith by the audience, then yes an argument that doesn't defuse it is a bad argument.
Regardless, what exactly is tricky to disect or falacious about this template? The rebbutal is basically:
* go is trying to optimize for different things
* go makes no secret that its trying to optimize for different things
* some people like the things that go optimizes for (and some people don't).
* [with an implied] if you intentionally used a tool that made choices you don't like, and its not a secret they made those choices, is it really the tool's fault or your fault? Its like ordering ice cream and being mad the ice cream is cold.
If the original argument was more phrased as the types of design choices go makes are bad, it would probably be more palatable (but also less interesting, because whether worse really is better is flame war that has been going on for decades)