I wrote 362 words on why language rewrites are a faulty indicator of language quality with multiple examples and anecdotes, and you hyper-fixated on the very first sentence of my comment, instead of addressing the substance of my claim. In what alternate universe is that a good faith argument? If you were truly arguing in good faith you'd restate your position in whichever way you'd like your argument represented, and then proceed to respond to something besides the first sentence. Regardless of how strongly or weakly you believe that "native representations win out", my argument about misusing language rewrite anecdata still stands, and it would have been far more productive to respond to that point.
> If I said "If you drink and drive you will inevitably get into an accident" - would you argue against that statement?
If we were having a discussion about automobile safety and you wrote several hundred words about why a specific type of accident isn't indicative of a larger trend, I wouldn't respond by cherry picking the first sentence of your comment, and quoting Google definitions about a phone ringing.
You said: "Inevitable means impossible to evade. That's about as close to a black and white statement as possible."
I used Google to point out that your argument, which hinged on your definition of what the word "inevitable" means is the narrowest possible interpretation of my statement. An interpretation so narrow that it indicates you are arguing in bad faith, which I believe to be the case. You are accusing me of making an argument that I did not make by accusing me of not understanding what a word means. You are wrong on both accounts as demonstrated.
The only person thinking in black in white is the figment of me in your imagination. I've re-read the argument chain and I'm happy leaving my point where it is. I don't think your points, starting with your attempt at a counter example with Prisma, nor your exceptional compiler argument, nor any of the other points you have tried support your case.
> which hinged on your definition of what the word "inevitable" means is the narrowest possible interpretation of my statement.
My argument does not hinge upon the definition of the word inevitable. You originally said "I mean, I can't think of a time a high profile project written in a lower level representation got ported to a higher level language."
I gave a relatively thorough accounting of why you've observed this, and why it doesn't indicate what you believe it to indicate here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43339297
Instead of addressing the substance of the argument you focused on this introductory sentence: "I'd like to address your larger point which seems to be that all greenfield projects are necessarily best suited to low level languages."
Regardless of how narrowly or widely you want me to interpret your stance, my point is that the data you're using to form your opinion (rewrites from higher to lower level languages) does not support any variation of your argument. You "can't think of a time a high profile project written in a lower level representation got ported to a higher level language" because developers tend to be more hesitant about reaching for lower level languages (due to the higher barrier to entry), and therefore are less likely to misuse them in the wrong problem domain.
> If I said "If you drink and drive you will inevitably get into an accident" - would you argue against that statement?
If we were having a discussion about automobile safety and you wrote several hundred words about why a specific type of accident isn't indicative of a larger trend, I wouldn't respond by cherry picking the first sentence of your comment, and quoting Google definitions about a phone ringing.