Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.dewrites:
Eric B. Bednarz wrote:
>[...] The only thing that keeps me from considering you and Thomas Lahn
to be jQuery’s most effective – albeit somewhat unintentional –
ambassadors in this NG is having read its source code myself;
accidental readers are unlikely to share this advantage.
That argument is fallacious as it is based on the false assumption that
discussing the shortcomings of a piece of software attracts a majority of
relevant users to exactly that software.
No it isn’t. It is based on the true assumption that name-calling for its
own sake serves no particular purpose other then egotainment (there’s
nothing wrong with that in the context of Usenet, as far as I am
concerned, but it is only amusing for people who are sufficiently
interested in the topic at hand already). It’s not only about what you
say, but how. And if you do not know that how you say something can have
the opposite effect on your environment, well, than I’d think that’s
lack of experience (David Mark has pointed out repeatedly that it is
lack of interest in his environment in his case, so I willingly take his
word on that).
If you like to know, last year I have been looking for convincing
(external) arguments against (the popular) general purpose libraries in
this NG and I couldn’t find any for the target audience. At least, not
in the broad sense, by – more or less – complete thread (‘the community
has spoken, professionally’). Just like in this thread, there’s usually
just Richard, very verbose, very accurate, very professional (which is
to say, sharp, but not ridiculous, and also very lonely at all of that),
and, implicitly, very expensive, or there would be more of the same
quality. And a lot of noise.
