> Language greatness is pretty subjective and task specific. There are some languages I will never declare great
If greatness is subjective AND task specific, then the languages you will never declare great could be considered great by others for the tasks they perform. And by your own admission if they were great subjectively AND for a particular task, that would make those languages great. But, you still claim that you would never declare them great?
> Interviewer: How long have you been doing it?
> Carpenter: Ten years.
Now if that were 20 years, instead of the rock it would be a complex, slow hammering machine that employed tumbled-smooth colored rocks.
Those rocks would pulled from a shared quarry at the point in time when they were needed.
The new way to provide such rocks would be to order a large truck carrying the rock hammering machine and a set of subcontractors you'd previously had to train by showing them videos on an old VHS tape player. However, the truck would still need to be loaded after each materialization for the job. The truck usually would contain the same supplies, but sometimes some of the rocks would be replaced by scorpions.
Whether or not to use the truck at a job and which trucking company would be a point of debate. Google Building Co. would make the best fleets of trucks with laser targeting systems that made sense to the highly-intelligent, fluffy bears that worked there. Microsoft Building Co. also had two versions of trucks: the old truck that was much slower but worked with existing technology and the new truck which worked if you used a Danish truck and better smaller rocks that few people could find. All of their workers swore like sailors. A subcontracting team all wearing red baseball caps worked with both companies, but supplied their own equipment that was all transparent, and you could either pay for it or not, depending on whether or not you got it from someone else they gave it to.
Nate Kurz? Who is this guy anyway? While he might appear to have 40018 or higher karma on Hacker News, how does that give him the authority to drag Nicholas Gibbs' name through the mud, and for what? A temporary spot at the top of the HN comments for what could be one of the sanest things I've ever read by Nicholas Gibbs? Nate didn't even have to convince anyone to allow him to publish this drivel. All he had to do was post his comment to HN, and then, based on his karma, he was not only allowed to disparage Nicholas Gibbs, who was chosen to be published by TLS, but he was able to disparage TLS in the process!
You might end up with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isrd7E5nzIQ
Or perhaps something much, much worse like electronic crack.
You could argue that we've already achieved that: http://nypost.com/2016/08/27/its-digital-heroin-how-screens-...