This is not really Hillel’s point, but my main gripe with the “static types will save us“ philosophy of some is that there are so many things being represented as just strings, but which have de facto constraints that the type system can’t represent, meaning you either have to rely on runtime validation (which means you haven’t turned them into compile-time errors) or just expect people to adhere to the constraints.
This knowledge of course became apparent in some circles one and a half years ago, when John Gruber used it incorrectly.
Actually, to someone like me — a native speaker of the Danish language, in this case — ‘wherefore’ meaning ‘why’ is quite obvious: it’s the exact same in Danish.
In Danish, ‘why’ is called ‘hvorfor’, which quite literally translates into ‘wherefore’. (‘Hvor’ meaning ‘where’, and ‘for’ meaning… ‘for’.)
But in general, I’m all for a good language lesson.
This is Simply Jonathan, a blog written by Jonathan Holst. It's mostly about technical topics (and mainly the Web at that), but an occasional post on clothing, sports, and general personal life topics can be found.
Jonathan Holst is a programmer, language enthusiast, sports fan, and appreciator of good design, living in Copenhagen, Denmark, Europe. He is also someone pretentious enough to call himself the 'author' of a blog. And talk about himself in the third person.