4 ms·
> 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'
by 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).