> I could point out that your grammar ('some of documentation') invalidates your entire comment, but that's kinda silly.

He's not writing the hopefully high profile documentation for a project that people want to be used, ffs. No, it doesn't deserve to be discarded because of that, but it's clearly suboptimal.

You make it sound as if this version of the documentation is set in stone, forever. Can't small projects improve their documentation as they grow in popularity? E.g. do you think that Linus Torvalds' Linux documentation was always up to the highest standards of Strunk & White's prescribed English?

I absolutely do not share the opinion of person to whom you are replying, but to state that their comment is invalid due to a trivial typo is unnecessary, and has potential to be incendiary.

I mean, that's why I said:

> ... but that's kinda silly.

What point were you trying to make? You made one great statement, with which I agree fully, but followed with statement drawing a comparison between the documentation for a funded open-source project, and a typo in a comment thread. It's not just "kinda silly", it's utterly asinine.

No, I said I could have drawn that comparison, but I wasn't going to, because it would be silly, just as knocking a cool project down because its creators aren't native English speakers is silly.