At 2022-08-28T15:52:55-0400, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2022, at 2:56 PM, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > How about next July, when JSON is as exactly old as the Bourne shell > > was when JSON was deployed? > > I do not find "well *actually* JSON is old too!!!" to be particularly > persuasive, either.
It's a perfectly valid rejoinder to a claim that the format is too novel to be seriously considered. That you don't regard it as persuasive is consistent with your protest not being a rational one in the first place; one doesn't get reasoned out of what one wasn't reasoned into. > I should have foreseen that the offhand "of the month" jab would > get undue attention compared to my actual objection, which is against > giving one data format uniquely first-class support. That's on me. That's right. Don't pad your brief with makeweight objections, particularly when their ultimate weight is feeble. > Sick burn, pal. Excuse me while I take out my dentures or whatever. Fortunately for you, I reckon that even with mushmouthed enunciation, the kids wont't have any trouble understanding that you want them to get off your lawn. Why stomp on the newbies' ideas with two feet when one will do? Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
