I didn't mod it down, but it seems intentionally shortsighted. I use both C# (for work) and Clojure (for fun) regularly; I'm a big Lisp weenie, and even I don't feel like I'm having a "far better" programming experience with Clojure than with C#. The language is somewhat better, but the tooling is somewhat worse, in my opinion.
Saying those things are "far better" is just flamebait. If you're going to write such criticism, it's up to you to justify your statements, not up to other people to defend against a non-existent argument.
EDIT: Stop modding me up, holy shit. This is off-topic and it's not important. Why do you want to highlight this self-evident comment so much that you're giving it a bunch of points? If I could have just messaged jacques instead of posting, I would have done that.
"I don't feel like I'm having a "far better" programming experience with Clojure than with C#. The language is somewhat better, but the tooling is somewhat worse, in my opinion."
That does make sense. When it comes to things like, say, desktop application development, Clojure probably isn't there yet, even though it's backed by all the Java libraries. C# and .NET, on the other hand, were designed with this purpose in mind (among other things). If I had to write a Windows desktop app, I probably would choose C# over Clojure any day, even though I like Clojure better as a language. But, as they say, programming languages don't operate in a vacuum...
Which is great, because you actually provide some arguments. Downmodding like that to me is like trying to muzzle someone, as though by downvoting you can somehow prove they're wrong, whereas you can only really show someone is wrong by bringing a counter argument, preferably a solid one.
To encourage counter-arguments, one ought to make the original argument concrete and objective. Making a post to argue against a paragraph of snubs and the unsupported statement that X is just a "far better programming experience" than Y feels to me like getting trolled, not like having an argument.
Yes, but your own counter argument is based on a feeling, that's not much more solid than what Ricardo said to begin with, it is also unsupported, or at best anecdotal.
None of this based on objective facts or stuff that you could measure. His truth to me is as good as your truth.
But he got modded in to the ground and you got modded up.
I know. I didn't intend mine as a counter-argument, but just as background for why I felt it was flamebait -- I have experience that indicates to me it's not credible to just uncategorically state that one is "far better." Like I expressed, it doesn't seem like there was much of an argument to make a counter-argument to.
I wouldn't have modded me up, either; in fact, I would have modded me down, because this whole discussion is off-topic and doesn't deserve attention. I think the majority of moderation on here seems awful and is rarely even vaguely proportional to the quality of the comments, and I agree that this is an example of awful moderation. So you're arguing with the wrong fellow.
EDIT: I amended my comment above to be irritating and sarcastic toward people who modded me up.
Saying those things are "far better" is just flamebait. If you're going to write such criticism, it's up to you to justify your statements, not up to other people to defend against a non-existent argument.
EDIT: Stop modding me up, holy shit. This is off-topic and it's not important. Why do you want to highlight this self-evident comment so much that you're giving it a bunch of points? If I could have just messaged jacques instead of posting, I would have done that.