> yes, "fun" is subjective, and your points about Objective C and Pascal were actually mentioned directly in the footnotes, including the "false start" nomenclature

I didn’t get as far as the footnotes because the article glossed over so much nuance at the start that it felt like I was reading something from a 20-something fresh out of college. And by your own admission, you have to read to the footnotes to get to the nuance. Maybe it does get better towards the end, but then that’s a failure of the writing if you have to read the first 90% before you finally get to anything insightful.

Plus it’s not just me that disagreed with the premise of the article. Reading the comments afterwards, others have taken away the same thing I had.

I’m sure you’re a competent author and your other submissions demonstrate more thoughtful insights. But unfortunately this one misses the mark. It’s just far too reductive for far too much of the article.