If they had included Chuck Moore, he'd be the only one on the list.

You don't list DaVinci along side Tom Kinkade. You just don't.

Even matching all of your criteria, that would be one massive list.

I don't. It's just a silly filler article, after all.

Your hatred for this cartoon version of feminism you've imagined has blinded you to reality.

I think I'd put Knuth on the bottom, just because his code is virtually impenetrable.

Readability is undervalued.

Well said. There are some really great developers out there that you'll likely never here about. Roland p on Atariage, for example, deserves a mention for his Ballblazer 2600 work. Really, a lot of the hobbyists there top-notch.

I'll bet you'll find quite a few well-above-average developers in communities like that.

128 bytes? That's child's play.

Somehow, I don't think the parent was actually wrong...

I'm sure there are.

But, it's obvious that you can't identify them.

Resig falls squarely in to the "incompetent" category, by any measure.

Right. Because unnecessary complexity is what makes a language great...

Let me guess, you only program in whitespace and brainf*ck?

That wasn't the parent's complaint.

Total fail. Javascript is not Java, C#, etc. Google "prototype-based programming" or put your ACM DL subscription to good use.

You made an awful lot of extra work for yourself.

My sarcasm detector is going off, so forgive this reply if I'm off:

There really are tons of "good examples of on the web of HTML5 and JS providing fast, standards-based 3D." Do a quick search.

LOL!

Too funny. It's like you're a time-traveler from 2005.

So you agree with me then. Great.