Respectfully, it's not clear to me what you're saying. You're clearly displeased with both the author of the article and with myself, but beyond that, I'm not sure what your thesis is.

▲

potatopan 5 hours ago | parent [-]

We give features of a profession terms so we can refer to them independently and make reasonable discussions that don't confuse people as to which traits we think something that is neither Java nor Python (and so need not match either of them on every dimension) should have.

For example, I hate Java because of OOP, but strong typing can make a lot of bad in a language tolerable. Does the writer of the article agree with me? They don't seem able to understand whether they do.

▲

hombre_fatal 3 hours ago | parent [-]

In a comment about nailing the jargon, kinda ironic that you probably meant to say static typing rather than praise Java for its mediocre strong typing.

	▲	potatopan 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Technically maybe yes, but that would confuse me with some of my colleagues that like explicit static types. I like type inference systems but loath type confusion.