>>12,15,17,24
You know why >>10,18 is so far winning the argument? You have no counter-argument. Proof it with code, show him how to properly implement his complaints. Better yet, benchmark your implementation with others (i.e. $ time, syntax comparison, etc.) programs, and show him he has no place to talk.
this convinces me otherwise, and many other benchmarks I run: benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org
>>28
Lol, backwards compatibility and pragmatism of a language does not legitmize technical aptitude, reposibility, or superiority. For spoken/written languages better options are Lojban > Latin > Greek > Esperanto > Korean > Mandarin Chinese. Of course I assume we know why Engrish is still the dominant ``technical language,'' so no need to expand on that.