It was, and still is. It chides Eich for not including a blurb about something which has little to no relation with the presentation itself (the presentation's core was not javascript runtime performances or even javascript runtimes in general), and claims "disrespect" over that non-inclusion, all the while — as other commenters also noted — getting most if not all of its assertions wrong.
It was, and still is. It chides Eich for not including a blurb about something which has little to no relation with the presentation itself (the presentation's core was not javascript runtime performances or even javascript runtimes in general), and claims "disrespect" over that non-inclusion, all the while — as other commenters also noted — getting most if not all of its assertions wrong.