Normally you would be expected to achieve two. Your product must be snake oil!

No need to search in pop culture, just use an English dictionary.

It is a type of swing dance. In context, it means to move in coordination with developers, as if in a dance.

If you can't even use a dictionary, turn in your nerd card.

Objective-C is very, very, very usable on any *nix platform. If you think it is only useful in Apple proprietary environments, that says a lot about you and nothing about Objective-C.

The only time there is any Apple-specific constraint is when you're using their libraries. That may be most often the case, but there is no reason that it needs to be on your own projects. Serious projects don't just glom onto whatever the nearest proprietary library is, they actually have to evaluate options and make choices. You can absolutely choose non-Apple libraries whenever you want.

A truer statement would have been: "Objective-C is mostly used on 1 platform for entirely social reasons."

And for non-sexists, we just think of it as polite, inclusive communication to attempt to balance any non-inclusive terminology, such as is required in a language like English that lacks gender-neutral pronouns accepted by popular publishing style guides.

Calling it "corpspeak" is as absurd and offensive as claiming it is "political" speech. Only politicians and executives are being polite for political reasons. Everybody else is doing it just to be polite. Polite-speak.

If you're targeting C++/Java developers with a new language, then if you're successful you do indeed get less interest over time from that group. Those who agreed left and joined you; those that stayed will like your offering less than average; the remaining non-converts become less receptive to you over time. This is true even assuming nobody ever changes their opinion; they either liked the new thing when they saw it, or not.

The case where interest "increases" is where they are saying, "awwww, how cute... but don't expect me to use it." They don't hate it, they're willing to talk reasonably about the shortcomings, but they're also probably never go to use it seriously. These people can be persuaded to agree it is less bad after making changes to be more like them, but they're not going to actually switch anyways.

You don't do much better on your technical complaints. Are exceptions a thing that is the same between languages now? No? No. The semantics are often quite different. You can't just assume it works the same in a new language as the old one. It is not predictable based on the naming. You have re-learn and memorize the semantics for every language. Naming a new set of semantics something different, that isn't already overloaded, increases jargon quality within their language, both for new people, and for people who use multiple languages. And it doesn't change the amount you have to learn; the familiar language doesn't mean you can skip parts because you know how it works in another language.

As for user-defined types, that is a specific feature that has advantages and disadvantages either way. There are real reasons to make the choices they did for the niche their language intends to serve. You don't attempt to make any case that their choice is somehow undesirable for that niche.

You really seem to not understand coding practices. Things like DRY, as an old-timer I can say yeah, I don't understand it either. We already had the teaching that code re-use is good. DRY just seems to take the lesson, adopt a pithy cliche phrasing of it, and then throw out the actual lessons and substitute a rule of thumb. Do you always want to avoid repetition? No, only the vast majority of the time. There are times when it is bad. How would a youngster who only grew up with DRY reconcile that? There is no provision in the way it is taught to determine when it is applicable. Easy to remember, sure. But if you can't remember you want to maximize code re-use, cliches aren't going to save you. The only way to use these sorts of modern ideas is to ignore them whenever they don't look useful, which actually means you can ignore them before you start, and just follow traditional best practices instead. Those will lead you to ask how much code re-use you want, and then implement it. Usually that prevent repetition, except where it wasn't desired. ;)

With interest. In dollars.

If only they had hired a single accountant to actually show up and calculate what they needed, right?

Their defense seems to be that they're a backwards country bumpkin with no economics degrees in government, who have been taken advantage of by these clever Germans who were plotting to... lose billions on unpaid loans. Those clever, clever Germans!

When it comes to credit, because it happened before and the creditor didn't get their money, that doesn't make it the status quo that can be expected. The expected result is actually lowering of credit outside the bottom of the range where loans would even be made at all, and the resulting status quo is that Greece is broke and can't borrow money. And to borrow money now, they have to make short-term payments of past debts, which is hard for them.

The amount of austerity they'd have to agree to in order to get more loans now, well, that is a lot more austerity than they would have had to accept before threatening default.

Trashing your credit is not useful when your financial plan is to run your whole country on borrowed money. If that is your plan, you have to put your credit rating ahead of everything else, because the plan is more expensive than just balancing your budget in the first place.

If Greece is the "weakest" member, and dirt-poor Bulgaria and Romania are doing just find muddling through, and in fact doing much much better than when they joined, then this myth is busted.

There are lots of countries with less who are keeping their heads above water.

This nonsense about the "precedent" that would be set by an exit is absurd. The premise of Eurozone was never that it is inevitable and that countries don't have a choice. That is absurd! If that is your position, then refusing to kick Greece out would set an even worse precedent; that your invented premise had become true!

The premise was actually that if a bunch of countries use a common currency and manage it collectively then the fiscally responsible parties will tend to maintain control, and countries that want responsible management will benefit. Individual countries will be less able to manipulate their currency to screw over their neighbors. Like the whole gimmick of wanting to devalue currency to avoid debt repayment. That is just fraud! If the currency devalues naturally, okay, debtors pay less in real money and can celebrate. But intentionally devaluing currency to avoid debt repayment, that is not something you have some natural right to. That is straight-up screwing your creditors "because you can." So in the Eurozone system, you can't. It is just one less way to screw your neighbors. If Greece ends up getting kicked out, the very positive precedent will be, "these treaties are real, these rules are real, don't borrow what you don't indent to pay if you want to be part of the modern Europe.

This presumes that Greece could not be financially responsible. You consider it so impossible, it isn't even included in your equation.

What makes Greek collapse inevitable is simply their own selves, these irresponsible behaviors you claim are guaranteed when dealing with Greece.

The intent of the Eurozone treaties is to make those behaviors undesirable, so that countries won't do those things. If it is impossible for Greece to comply, it just means it was impossible for Greece to be a long-term Eurozone member. That actually implies those parts of the treaties are functioning as desired. This behavior is not being accepted, and so the system is working.

Devaluation only benefits if business people in other countries consider you to be stable enough in the 5-10 year range for them to enter into contracts on the time scale of a generation of new factory equipment.

Greece's threatening to commit financial suicide to try to manipulate their creditors is ill-considered, because it will scare off the people they would need to turn to in order to make lemonade. Plus, Germany doesn't need to negotiate for Greece's life; Grexit isn't the end-of-the-world the Greeks would like the world to believe. Just ask the UK if Europe can survive with more than one currency. ;)

Countries that go to the IMF expecting to have to make the sort of changes to their economy that Western nations would expect in order to consider them for a "payday loan" level credit offering will do just fine. Just like a "payday loan" if you can survive without it, you should, and clearly almost everybody that applies doesn't need it and will harm themselves by taking on credit. But what if a person really did have an unexpected lump expense, and they'll actually get back "on their feet" if they can just make it through the next round of payments? Rare, but possible.

The whole point of an IMF loan is to loan money to countries who have trashed their economy and credit so bad they can't get a normal loan. These aren't supposed to be charity, or bailouts; anybody applying would squander any charity provided. They already squandered their good money, so you know they wouldn't be responsible with free money.

If an IMF loan isn't going to force a country to do what it doesn't want, and be fiscally responsible, then there is no reason for these other countries to provide the money. Just look at Greece and how much the "bailout" money helped them; it basically did not help them. And it was a huge sack of change; I'll bet if Germany had kept that money, they would have spent some of it on investments that have a real return. They gave up real treasure, for Greece to squander it; and then blame Germany, demand more sugar-candy, stop their feet, and threaten to go home. Which is where they will have ended up in a few months as the "Grexit" starts to take shape. And then they'll realize, they didn't have a ball to take home, or even their own socks. They got all their swag on loan, and didn't pay.

You whooshed pretty hard on that one. Try again sober.

I reaffirm what I said. You missed the point. And no, I didn't use a term wrong.

You regurgitated some stuff, but didn't fill in the details I alluded to.

The older ones that are as I described are not NiMH, they were replaced by NiMH. Feel free to regurgitate another batch if you want to play again.

(NiMH just suck as to this discussion, they didn't need to be mentioned)

Protip: the UK doesn't have a 4th Amendment.

They have an "unwritten constitution." They believe this makes rights more resilient, because even if somebody tries to take them away, and uses a legal process, the courts might just give them back at any time without needing specific justification.

Americans generally discount that idea, but lots of legal experts do disagree on the results, both theoretical and actual.