Well, I thought it was funny and I enjoyed reading through the list. You're absolutely right that it provides an insight into the past language efforts and the trade-offs that they inevitably encounter.
I hope you remember that when someone tells you something like 'it doesn't work here' that it's an opinion rather than a fact, regardless of how they phrase it.
The USENET era, while sometimes dated, was probably one of times in 'geek' history where we were the closest to one another. The internet was interpersonal, and i'm glad that someone is still trying to propagate the humor and spirit from that time.
I'm not actually familiar with the context in which this checklist was originally written. But I really love it for two reasons:
First, it demonstrates how programming languages have been making the same tradeoffs for years, to the point that someone was able to make a checklist of what's wrong with any programming language that still works years later.
Second, you can fill this out for any of the big programming languages and many will do very badly. It shows how whether a programming language succeeds is unrelated to how good it is. An actually accurate checklist would have one item:
It really doesn't work here, but also, while I appreciate the spirit you pasted it in, that wasn't the spirit it was written in. (And it takes up a huge amount of space).
It is kind of huge. I tried deleting all the non-checked ones but that defeats the purpose, which is for everyone to form their own opinion of what should be checked.
