Jonathan Blow

Yes, it is plainspeaking about it's purpose, so why should I go down the rabbit hole and try to explain it again, given the limitations of Twitter, if you obviously already think your depiction in your talk is truthful to what you can read on the site?

The most charitable conclusion I can come to here is that what we are really talking about, again, is a failure of generational knowledge transfer.

No, I never even addressed your thesis. I just pointed out that you take a very uninformed standpoint on sth and explain it wrongly and with extreme rhetoric ("devil", "the worst") so that it fits your narrative. Reminds me of certain people + makes it hard to take you seriously.

Also, your dismissive and partly immature tone here reinforces my impression to not take you seriously, even though I think you give some interesting points in your talk. Still, I don't get the feeling that you are interested in a meaningful discussion. That's fine, so long.

I would say it's even the name, "language *server* protocol". The objection is that there is absolutely no reason for that to be exposed as a server, HTTP-server with JSON-RPC no less. Could you even imagine how complex this would be if you made it into 5 servers communicating

amongst themselves? I sincerely hope you can appreciate the danger of an entire generation believing that replacing something so fundamental and simple as synchronous function calls with asynchronous HTTP-requests to a JSON-RPC HTTP-server is somehow desireable and good. It's not

The one thing I didn’t mention in the talk, too, is that once you have N servers, the claim “this insulated your program from a crash” is clearly untrue, because have fun trying to recover when some guy in the middle of that web dies and restarts.