Now I don't agree with his points exactly either. But you and I know full well what he meant when he said "Esoteric Languages". Arguing with people by intentionally misinterpreting their statements just makes you look stupid and it lowers the tone of the whole discussion.
> Arguing with people by intentionally misinterpreting their statements just makes you look stupid and it lowers the tone of the whole discussion.
Yes, because purposefully using terms which don't apply to the subject just to insult other people or degrade languages you don't like clearly doesn't.
I never thought the word esoteric would raise any eyebrows. I have no idea how it can be interpreted as an insult. It's meant as the opposite of mainstream; languages you won't find at IBM. I hope you don't work there, otherwise you might feel insulted again!
> It's meant as the opposite of mainstream; languages you won't find at IBM.
Then what you're looking for is "non-mainstream". Or maybe "suit-incompatible". And FWIW IBM has a lot of Python stuff in their developerworks site and newsletter. And given Erlang comes from Ericsson, not exactly a small company, it's hardly "suit-incompatible".
Ah, I see. That definition doesn't fit the situation though. I was using the dictionary definition, and the original article used the word esoteric in the same context as I did.
