3 ms·

> Disregarding all critique of a language as "personal opinion" as long as you can "build cool stuff" with it. I can't tell if you're arguing that all Turing c

> Disregarding all critique of a language as "personal opinion" as long as you can "build cool stuff" with it. I can't tell if you're arguing that all Turing complete languages are equally useful, or that "utility" is a bad metric for evaluating programming languages. In the first case, of course this is false or Docker would be written in BrainFuck. In the second case, you've given no alternative (maybe you rank languages by the coolness of the type system?) nor given any justification for why 'utility' is a bad metric.

Cyph0n 9y ago
> I can't tell if you're arguing that all Turing complete languages are equally useful, or that "utility" is a bad metric for evaluating programming languages. I'm not sure why you think my argument is constrained to these two choices? I never said utility is bad. My argument is that critique of a language can be constructive even if the language has utility. In other words, I am against dismissing critique of a language simply because the language has utility.
- weberc2 9y ago
  Well, no one was dismissing critique of a language _simply because the language has utility_, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't strawmanning or otherwise introducing an entirely unrelated topic. The OP said he didn't weight intellectual criticisms more highly than observations, which is a pretty reasonable position. I'll go a bit further and say that criticisms based on theories aren't worth very much when the belying theories do a bad job of predicting the observations. For example, if the theory is "Powerful type systems predict language utility" and the observation is "Very little software is built with languages with powerful type systems, especially very little _important_ software", then criticisms based on that theory aren't worth very much.
  - Cyph0n 9y ago
    > otherwise introducing an entirely unrelated topic. Are you even reading my comments? > I'll go a bit further and say that criticisms based on theories aren't worth very much when the belying theories do a bad job of predicting the observations. True, but only if the observations you make include both direct and indirect impacts. Following your example, it is true that very little software uses type system-oriented languages, but you are ignoring the impact such languages have made on other languages, tools, frameworks, and libraries. For instance, Haskell is not a widely used language, but some of its ideas have impacted other languages and domains in various ways.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      > Are you even reading my comments? Of course. I'm referencing them. Perhaps you mean something other than you're saying? > True, but only if the observations you make include both direct and indirect impacts. Following your example, it is true that very little software uses type system-oriented languages, but you are ignoring the impact such languages have made on other languages, tools, frameworks, and libraries. For instance, Haskell is not a widely used language, but some of its ideas have impacted other languages and domains in various ways. No, you've confused yourself by adding in Haskell. The theory in your example is "type system-oriented languages predict utility", it has no indirect effects, it has direct effects on Haskell and the languages that Haskell passed this trait onto (and other languages that aren't inspired by Haskell).

Cyph0n 9y ago

> I can't tell if you're arguing that all Turing complete languages are equally useful, or that "utility" is a bad metric for evaluating programming languages. I'm not sure why you think my argument is constrained to these two choices? I never said utility is bad. My argument is that critique of a language can be constructive even if the language has utility. In other words, I am against dismissing critique of a language simply because the language has utility.

weberc2 9y ago
Well, no one was dismissing critique of a language _simply because the language has utility_, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't strawmanning or otherwise introducing an entirely unrelated topic. The OP said he didn't weight intellectual criticisms more highly than observations, which is a pretty reasonable position. I'll go a bit further and say that criticisms based on theories aren't worth very much when the belying theories do a bad job of predicting the observations. For example, if the theory is "Powerful type systems predict language utility" and the observation is "Very little software is built with languages with powerful type systems, especially very little _important_ software", then criticisms based on that theory aren't worth very much.
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  > otherwise introducing an entirely unrelated topic. Are you even reading my comments? > I'll go a bit further and say that criticisms based on theories aren't worth very much when the belying theories do a bad job of predicting the observations. True, but only if the observations you make include both direct and indirect impacts. Following your example, it is true that very little software uses type system-oriented languages, but you are ignoring the impact such languages have made on other languages, tools, frameworks, and libraries. For instance, Haskell is not a widely used language, but some of its ideas have impacted other languages and domains in various ways.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    > Are you even reading my comments? Of course. I'm referencing them. Perhaps you mean something other than you're saying? > True, but only if the observations you make include both direct and indirect impacts. Following your example, it is true that very little software uses type system-oriented languages, but you are ignoring the impact such languages have made on other languages, tools, frameworks, and libraries. For instance, Haskell is not a widely used language, but some of its ideas have impacted other languages and domains in various ways. No, you've confused yourself by adding in Haskell. The theory in your example is "type system-oriented languages predict utility", it has no indirect effects, it has direct effects on Haskell and the languages that Haskell passed this trait onto (and other languages that aren't inspired by Haskell).