I'll be honest with you, this kind of stuff alienates and scares people away. You're not doing a great job of improving the message and outreach of fp.
Conversation
Hmmm. Thanks, food for thought. I stand by "objective": countless beginners have found it perfectly suitable, in no small part thanks to the good work of people like you. There's no wiggle room there. I don't see how my ego's fingerprints are on this one, though
1
3
The form is part of the message.
1
Help me out here, what's the problem - "objectively"? More hedging or softening required? I'm not trying to attack or persuade the author, I'm trying to encourage us (the FP community) to improve our comms, which I think is what you're saying too; perhaps my eye has a log in it
1
1
It positions you as an Infallible Judge of Things which is probably not what you wanted.
1
1
Thanks for your feedback, in any case. I'll have a think
2
1
I'd probably agree with the above sentiment that expressed. But I think the critique could have also initially been worded in a more friendly, empathetic way.
1
1
Thanks Brendan.
1
1
Ultimately the axioms and notation we choose to base our work on are based on experimentation and intuition. There is probably a landscape of 'better' and 'worse' formal systems that could be tested, but we're a long way from being able to design experiments for that.
1
I guess I just want to see more flexible thinkers, with a sense of taste and aesthetics. The question I want to know is: how do we be open to newcomers that we don't have all the answers, but also not confuse them with too many options at the start?
1
And also at the same time sating their natural desire to want to get to use 'industrial languages' that 'real programmers use'. I think it takes some careful psychology and wording to navigate that. But you probably have more experience at that .