zlacker

> If you're saying someone can't credibly criticize a language without having designed a language themselves

Actually I think that's a reasonable argument. I've not designed a language myself (other than toy experiments) so I'm hesitant to denigrate other people's design choices because even with my limited experience I'm aware that there are always compromises.

Similarly, I'm not impressed by literary critics whose own writing is unimpressive.

>>olddus+(OP)
Who would be qualified to judge their those critics’ writing as good or bad? Critics already qualified as good writers? Who vetted them, then? It’d have to be a stream of certified good authors all the way back.

No, I stick by my position. I may not be able to do any better, but I can tell when something’s not good.

(I have no opinion on Go. I’ve barely used it. This is only on the general principle of being able to judge something you couldn’t do yourself. I mean, the Olympics have gymnastic judges who are not gold medalists.)