<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@samth" class="u-url mention">@<span>samth</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://hci.social/@chrisamaphone" class="u-url mention">@<span>chrisamaphone</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/@MartinEscardo" class="u-url mention">@<span>MartinEscardo</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/@HarrisonGrodin" class="u-url mention">@<span>HarrisonGrodin</span></a></span> I would just add that I'm a little baffled that you jumped to the conclusion that you did...</p><p>I said:<br />> broadly considered to be "honest" computer science</p><p>I did not say "which I consider to be honest computer science". I was referring to the somewhat hostile environment within broader CS that PL theorists have inhabited for many years, in which they have year after year been confronted with spurious accusations of not doing "honest" CS. Is it possible that you are projecting here? I think there is a 99% chance of it. </p><p>My goal with my statement was to *defend* PL theorists (doing work I mostly don't like!) from the charge of not doing "honest" CS and the charge of bloviating too much. I recognise there was some ambiguity in the way I phrased it, but I'd like you to take a moment to think about just why you latched onto the interpretation that makes me as vicious as possible .</p>
