The article is hardly about "bending a language to your will", and more about "why doesn't the sole vendor of my language implement features suggested by the greatest living language designer".<p>Alright, now that we have paid lip service to GLS, let's ask a question:<p>The author speaks of the lack of operator overloading in java, and my question is: why not use a language that allows you to add your own operators, better yet, one with <i>no</i> concept of officially sanctioned operators? Remember, operators are just functions with syntatic-sugar (i.e. they're usually allowed to be infix instead of prefix.) why not work with a rich, expressive language that treats your "extensions" as first-class citizens?<p>It seems like the gripes of mainstream programmers about their tools boil down to two things: 1) lack of vendor responsiveness in implementing much needed features (which varies from one programmer to another, whence the lack of vendor response ;-) and 2) demand for solutions to augment, or make-palatable, a brain-dead design.<p>Don't worry about making the language "succeed" or "win" against the competition. If you're struggling with your tools, don't hesitate to look for better options.<p>Your tools should be so efficient that you no longer think of them consciously, much less inspire a long gripe in prose.