4 ms·
I downvoted you, because we may assume jemfinch and other readers understand the reference (or will look it up) and concluded this isn't a case of 'cargo-cult'-
by Confusion 16y ago
I downvoted you, because we may assume jemfinch and other readers understand the reference (or will look it up) and concluded this isn't a case of 'cargo-cult'-anything. In response, you merely cite the source where the phrase is coined, without explaining why this would be an instance of it, even though there is obviously disagreement on exactly that.
This is not an example of 'cargo-cult', because we are not dealing with people going through motions without knowing why. Asserting such is just insulting the creators of Haskell/the Prelude/standard Haskell classes, who are obviously making trade offs and perhaps, gasp mistakes. Being wrong, impure or simply making choices some others disagree with does not make one a 'cargo cult' anything. Feynman must be turning in his grave.
- gammarator 16y agojemfinch suggested that the author did not understand the phrase, but it was not obvious to me that jemfinch understood it--a "cargo cult" and "cargo cult science/mathematics" are two different concepts, and I find physics literacy on HN rather low. By "appropriate," I meant to suggest the author's usage of it can be construed as consistent with Feynman's meaning. I linked the source so folks could decide for themselves if the author's claim was correct in addition to having a meaning we could all agree on. [I don't know anything about Haskell, I was just trying (and apparently failing) to clarify some muddy discourse.]
- applicative 16y agoTo people who had read the essay and were familiar with the post-Feynman epithet "cargo cult X" it will have been plain that jemfinch knew what it meant and that the original author was clueless about how to apply it.