> (being apparently useless to the working programmer is not a value judgement)
Except I never said that.
You seem to be very confused about what I wrote and frankly seem to have an axe to grind. I suggest you read it again.
Mine was a point about articles advocating for FP, not about FP itself.
> So you have some kind of opinion about FP.
No, I don't, which is why I was reluctant to being baited into this discussion in the first place. Clearly I should've followed my instincts.
I have an opinion about the author's interpretation of the Why FP Matters essay, and I have an opinion about the structure and delivery of their message. I have an opinion about articles advocating for FP. I don't have a strong opinion about FP itself.
That's the difference between critiquing the content of an argument vs the structure of an argument.
Yes that's a subtle distinction.
> And even though you had a handy reference in “Why FP Matters” that you referenced yourself.
Did you actually read the article? Because I did.
The article cited that essay, not me. My criticism is in the author's interpretation of that essay.
> FP is certainly not a Rorschach test compared to your obfuscated and indirect style of writing on this specific topic.
And now it's getting personal. This will be my last response in this conversation. Carry on arguing without me if you like.
Except I never said that.
You seem to be very confused about what I wrote and frankly seem to have an axe to grind. I suggest you read it again.
Mine was a point about articles advocating for FP, not about FP itself.
> So you have some kind of opinion about FP.
No, I don't, which is why I was reluctant to being baited into this discussion in the first place. Clearly I should've followed my instincts.
I have an opinion about the author's interpretation of the Why FP Matters essay, and I have an opinion about the structure and delivery of their message. I have an opinion about articles advocating for FP. I don't have a strong opinion about FP itself.
That's the difference between critiquing the content of an argument vs the structure of an argument.
Yes that's a subtle distinction.
> And even though you had a handy reference in “Why FP Matters” that you referenced yourself.
Did you actually read the article? Because I did.
The article cited that essay, not me. My criticism is in the author's interpretation of that essay.
> FP is certainly not a Rorschach test compared to your obfuscated and indirect style of writing on this specific topic.
And now it's getting personal. This will be my last response in this conversation. Carry on arguing without me if you like.