deltasevennine

>If you feel the need to for personal attacks over a philosophical debate, where you consistently insist of understanding the other side wrong,

No personal attack was conducted here. It's just you're sensitive. I mean I could take this: "where you consistently insist of understanding the other side wrong" as an insult.

I could also take this: "Well, if you think so, then consider yourself the tautological winner. " as a sarcastic insult as well.

But i don't. Because I'm not sensitive. Nobody was insulted here. You need to relax. Calling you a loser was just me turning your sarcastic "tautological winner" statement around and showing you how YOU are at the other side of the extreme. I'm not saying you're a "loser" anymore then you were sarcastically calling me a "winner."

Put it this way, the "loser" comment is an insult IF and ONLY if you're "winner" comment was an insult too. If it wasn't we should be good.

>No one ever claimed that in this debate, except you.

You never directly claimed this, but it's the logical consequence of your statements. You literally said my statement was flawed because it was "absolute". You're like "this is what you get when you make absolute claims." And my first thought was, "what on earth is wrong with an absolute claim?" We do not live in a universe where absolute claims are invalid because if we did then "Nothing is true and nothing is false" and everybody loses.

If this isn't the case then go ahead and clarify your points.

The point is to learn. You know I'm not trolling.

What I said was true. You were going off on tangents. It's the only logical conclusion.

In your universe nobody wins. Nothing is true, nothing is false. Consider yourself the ultimate loser.

What's wrong with absolutist statements? Nothing.

I made an absolutist statement which is definitely true. You failed to prove it wrong. Instead you had to do the pathetic move of redefining the statement in order to get anywhere. You weren't pedantic, you changed the entire subject with your redefinition.

As for context I am saying I can make absolute statement about things and this statement is true for all contexts.

My point for this entire thread is that I can say OOP is horrible for all contexts and this statement cannot be proven wrong. Neither can the statement OOP is good for all contexts or OOP is good for some contexts. All of these statements are biased.

If you were to be pedantic here you would be digging into what context means. You might say if the context was that everyone was trained on OOP and not fp then oop is the superior choice. To which I respond by context I mean contexts for practical consideration. If you can't figure out what set of contexts lives in that set for "practical consideration" then you are just too pedantic of a person for me to have a reasonable conversation with.

There are shit paradigms out there, shit design patterns and shit programming languages. But without proof this is an endless argument. You can't prove your side either, you're just going to throw me one off examples to which I can do the same. No point. I'm sorry but let's end it here, I don't want to descend further into that rabbit hole of endless qualitative arguments.

I am from the camp that FP code produces much less tech debt then other forms of programming.

But the problem here is that no one here can prove or disprove what I just said. And that is the point of my thread.

In fact I believe tech debt is a fuzzy word that is is ripe for formalism such that we can develop a theory around what tech debt is and how to definitively eliminate it through calculation,... the same way you calculate the shortest distance between two points. I believe that the FP style is a small part of that theory.

But that's besides the point. Because since this theory doesn't exist yet, you and I have no way of verifying anything. You can leave me a code review and I can disagree with every qualitative opinion you leave in it.

>The problem with mapping paradigms to performance is that none of the paradigm purists care about performance, end of the day they care about theoretical purity.

It's not theoretical purity. It's more tech debt. How do I code things in a way where there's zero tech debt. Such that all code can be re-used anywhere at anytime.

>So you believe that the only way things can be compared is on quantitative measurements? Not with how they impress their users within whatever context they're in?

No but I believe that quantitative measurements are the ONLY way to definitively verify certain things.

>This is the process in which we gain knowledge in an uncertain world. I guess you could take the nihilistic stance and ignore it, but what's the use of arguing with nihilists?

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying especially for programming, nobody knows anything. Which is actually better OOP or FP? Nobody knows. This isn't philosophy, there is no definitive proof for which is better.

>No, that's not the definition³.

It is, I just worded it differently. See the "cognitive biases" part on your citation. They use "reality" in place of what I mean by "unaware". If you think something incorrect is reality, then you are "unaware" of how incorrect your thinking is, because you think it's reality. These are just pedantic factoids we're throwing at each other.

>What was actually the point of your comment, btw?

The point is that FOR PROGRAMMING, nobody truly knows which camp is the cargo cult. Everyone is blind. Stick with the program.

>Welcome to the physical world. Where practice differs from theory.

This is called pedantism. Like did you really think you're telling me something I'm not aware about? Everyone knows this. But the pedantic details of the optimizations the compiler and the CPU goes through to execute code is besides the point, obviously I'm not referring to this stuff when I'm trying to convey a point.

>In Manhattan¹? ;-)

Your again just being pedantic. I'm perfectly aware of non-euclidean geometry, but you had to go there. I had a point, stick to the point, pedantism is a side track designed to muddy the conversation. Why are you muddying the conversation?

Is it perhaps that you're completely and utterly wrong and you're trying to distract me from that fact?

>Trying to pretend that this is not the case, and trying really hard to emulate (free) functions (which, to stress this point once more, do not exist in JavaScript) makes on the other hand's side everything more complicated than strictly needed.

Bro, my little paragraph arguing against you was just a random factoid. I don't care for your argument and I don't even care for mine. The whole main point is to say that we can endlessly spew this garbage at each other the needle doesn't move forward at all. Nobody can win, because we have no way of establishing an actual winner. Thus with no way of knowing who's right there's no POINT in it.

All I am saying and this is the heart of my argument, is that YOUR topic, your team of "don't be a cargo cult" is no different from all the other teams.

I thought I made that obvious that my factoid was sarcastic, but you fell for that quick and instantly retaliated with your own factoid. Man Not gonna go down that rabbit hole.

Yeah I get it. But What I'm saying is that there are many times when nobody can truly prove which whether they're in the cargo cult or the other people are in the cargo cult.

So programming is one such thing. There are stylistic camps everywhere and nobody knows which one is the cargo cult, INCLUDING the neutral camp where people say everything is a tool depending on the context.

Nope. You aren't listening to me. I am getting exactly what he's saying. What I am saying is that the cargo culters could be right. You don't know. Nobody knows.

Additionally he DID say that the approaches were all tools in a toolbox.

Sure.

I simply use this "world" example because everyone here is in the same cult as me: "The world is round cult." When I use it, they get it. If I were speaking to a different cult, I would use a different example.

You will note, both flat earthers and non-flat earthers have very detailed and complex reasoning for why they "believe" what they believe. But of course most members of either group have Not actually went to space to verify the conclusions for themselves.

>I do not see where he did that. He argued simply that context matters. (And yes a "bad" tool can be the right tool, if it is the only tool avaiable.)

Well I see it. If you don't see it, I urge you to reread what he said.

A bad tool can be the right tool but some tools are so bad that it is never the right tool.

>And diving deeper into philosophy here, can you name one example?

Running is better then walking for short distances when optimizing for shorter time. In this case walking is definitively "bad." No argument by anyone.

Please don't take this into a pedantic segway with your counter here.