Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Throughout the article, OP seems baffled that people have aesthetic preferences. Well, yes, of course we do I think Bill is astonished not really that people have aesthetic preference but that anybody's real preferences could be different from his. He supposes that, at most, these are false beliefs they should reject to reveal that their sincere preference is identical to his, the only correct preference.
Hello again. That's not my position in the slightest. The point of the article is to express how people will shallowly and naïvely judge something. It might be naïve conception of "aesthetics" but it's not even a good one. It has nothing to do with people disagreeing with me, I have seen people dismiss numerous languages (not just my own) based on that declaration syntax. Things like "why does Rust not use `type name…
I can't possibly tell? The surface aesthetic impression is only that.