I read the whole article before posting my comment (which is currently top voted, at least it looks like that to me, so maybe that's what you're objecting to). It's quite possible I've missed something, or a lot of things, but your comment isn't helpful determining that... You just said to read the whole thing again. Ok, but what specifically have I got wrong?

Not OP, but I can tell you why your comment seemed armchair-psychologist-y to me. The issue is saying "it doesn't seem like her problem is actually X, it seems like it's Y." You read a short article written by someone who, based on the tone and explanation up top, was not in the best frame of mind.

The bigger issue with your comment from my perspective though is that you said "But it seems to me that they're still some way off from understanding their condition", which to my ears is just demeaning. Someone posts an article about leaving a community, with a lead in explaining their state of mind as of writing it, and your response comes down to "sounds like you don't understand your condition you were recently diagnosed with".

Personality disorders are hard, they don't go away and they can take years to get a handle on. When the top response to your article where you mention your disorder is someone saying you don't understand it, it becomes that much harder.

Well, nothing in your comment gave me the impression you were referring to anything in particular. But I was honestly trying to understand what your point was. Really, it just comes across as unspecific rant, so I think I was being pretty generous.

What in my comment is "unspecific"? Most of the comments here are speculating about the author's mental state, claiming they must have self-diagnosed this issue (which isn't true), or that they just need to find another language to write apps in (missing the point they were an active contributor to the spec and cared deeply about this language). Very few of them are actually addressing the content of the article itself, instead dismissing the author as either insignificant to the cause or just being whiney, etc.

I have quite a few comments here pointing that out to people. If you didn't get much worth out of my comment, or if it was obvious, perhaps you weren't the intended reader.

Fully agree, without people like her the committee only gets poorer.

Oh, if I were invested in C++ I would be worried! And it sounds like the committee members should have some takeaways, for sure.

But I'm not a member of that community. Bringing up one problem (C++ committee interaction) doesn't mean that is the only problem that was brought up.

She has trouble communicating because she's very scrupulous, same as lots of other engineers - some people are responding to that problem.

She wants another language that fits her criteria - some people are responding to that problem.

I don't personally equate "scrupulous" to "[having] trouble communicating", nor do I really consider it a "problem". They are mutually exclusive.

Also, from a language design point of view, they have very strong opinions about language design and heavily criticize the design of all modern languages. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Programming language design is a field of CS. People are allowed to obsess over it. It'd be a shit world of people didn't obsess over specific fields of science. I can't believe I have to explain this.

The people here aren't arguing with the statements about language, but instead for the author even having opinions about languages at all. That's incredibly demeaning and dismissive.