Though, it makes me think of the quote "Science advances one funeral at a time" - Max Planck
When you place someone on a pedestal, you make it hard to evaluate them critically. The remaining Clojure community has a problem with it.
Oh, grow the F up. I can't believe I have to explain the basic tenets of human communication here - stuff that children learn before they turn eight. Once again, I wasn't chatting with the guy at a random bus stop, at an airport, or on my personal podcast - we were at a Clojure conference, surrounded by people who flew all the way to Charlotte from places like Sydney and São Paulo. Of course, basic human decency dictates letting him talk instead of constantly interrupting him and vigorously arguing. Not only out of respect for the person, but for other people too. There's a time and a place - you need to know when to "evaluate critically" and when to STFU. It has nothing to do with the so-called "worshiping" you're implying.
"It is very difficult to disagree with anyone of the caliber such as this man".
Nobody suggested you argue with Hickey to his face.
Even if it was said in the general sense, I still don't get this fetish of catching someone in an adulatory vibe streak. One can't even express genuine respect feelings about anyone in the industry without someone jumping in with "take it back" shit.
I don't get it, why people often act like some fucking kindergarteners, don't they understand that humans are complex creatures - they might have done something genuinely good (for which respect is due) and then years later turned into a jerk. That doesn't erase their prior work. I see that often with figures like RMS. Someone told me once: "Emacs would be great if not for that guy..." So, imagine a person plants a tree and then people come and plant more trees around it, turning the entire area into a beautiful forest of trees, and then that first guy turns out to be a villain. Do we now just destroy the forest that everyone still enjoys, and try to erase that villain's work, or do we still say: "Thank you Mr. Villain for planting that first tree..."?
On Rich Hickey specifically, sure the guy might have been wrong on some things, yet we can't completely ignore his bona fide contributions in the field just because we disagree on some things, that ain't right. You can't just ignore the fact that he did change many people's lives for the better.
The clojure community (what remains of it, as you say) is extremely guilty of this. They love repeating everything he says like it's the word of god. Try to explain the benefits of static typing to them and they just drop into an infinite loop of quoting Hickey.
I don't get it, are you unaware of the basic norms of actual human communication or something? Please explain to me how you envision arguing with someone, anyone, in a place and time like that. Or are you suggesting I should have been heckling him about static typing right there, on the spot, in front of other people? Otherwise, I suppose I'm worshiping and I should admit I'm in a cult?
Hickey's article is terrible. He's arguing semantics and then patting himself on the back. Anyone who can't see that is willfully blind.
This also isn't the first time Hickey engenders this kind of blind hero worship. He has been spouting nonsense about Haskell for years, for example. Clojurists don't understand enough of it to understand how silly the things are that he's saying, but they sure as hell will repeat it everywhere.
Au contraire. Many Lispers are well-versed in Haskell and different kinds of type systems. Coalton, core.typed, Typed Racket, Malli - these don't exist just for the sake of it. And many constantly disagree with Rich, with Halloway and other clojure.core members about all sorts of things. The "Maybe Not" talk got a lot of pushback, and most of it came from clojurists. The majority of them are pragmatists - they use whatever makes sense. In many cases, the specific dynamism of Lisp fits much better than the rigidity of Haskell-like type systems. They use static types where the invariants are stable and dynamic data where the shape is open or changes often. Many work that way, often by validating with Malli at the edges and keeping the core loose. It appears to me that you're blindly "worshiping" whatever or whomever. I gave you the exact example where I was [respectfully] disagreeing with Rich, and you decided to turn it inside-out, just to make it fit your own, totally imagined narrative - now who's blind here?