It went on and on with its point but I didn't notice anything more illuminating than the rhetoric he was peppering into his arguments half-way through.
I think Chuck's argument still just trumps this guy: Language will always have problems. You always need good process no matter what language and you can find a tool to help you get over whatever "holes" some older language might have. No amount of cursing lazy-people-unwilling-to-enter-the-21st-century or referencing WWI will make the "you need ze one language zhat does zit all" argument that much better.
Process and tools will always have problems. You will always need a good language no matter what process or tools you use. No amount of touting of process will make the "you need ze one process zhat does zit all" argument that much better.
Believe me, I know there will never be a perfect language. But this idea that we only need process is tantamount to a claim that there will be a perfect process which will solve all the problems that a better language could solve. That won't happen.
Why would you choose a crappy language and a good process when you can have a good language AND a good process? Is there something about having a good language that prevents you from having a good process?
It went on and on with its point but I didn't notice anything more illuminating than the rhetoric he was peppering into his arguments half-way through.
I think Chuck's argument still just trumps this guy: Language will always have problems. You always need good process no matter what language and you can find a tool to help you get over whatever "holes" some older language might have. No amount of cursing lazy-people-unwilling-to-enter-the-21st-century or referencing WWI will make the "you need ze one language zhat does zit all" argument that much better.