4 ms·

> If you are arguing for any one of those two view-points without acknowledging the validity of the opposing view, then that tells us way more about your proble

> If you are arguing for any one of those two view-points without acknowledging the validity of the opposing view, then that tells us way more about your problem-domain than it does about the utility of GC. Your argument sort of reminds me of the "no free lunch" theorem in optimization: "any two optimization algorithms are equivalent when their performance is averaged across all possible problems". It's true, but it's largely irrelevant. Not all problem domains are created equal: some are commonplace, some are obscure, and some are so convoluted as to be completely inapplicable in the real world. I think a constructive rule of argument would be to state upfront when you happen to be standing in the "obscure" or "completely artificial" camps.

ukj 7y ago
I am standing in the camp of my own actual problem-domain. The "obscurity" and "artificiality" of which is largely irrelevant to me having to tackle it. If you are arguing a view-point outside of your own problem domain, then perhaps you should be upfront about holding a theoretical/academic view?
- soVeryTired 7y ago
  I assume you're back to garbage collection rather than dialectic. The key phrase I'd take away from your post is "to me".
  - ukj 7y ago
    I was addressing this point: > I think a constructive rule of argument would be to state upfront when you happen to be standing in the "obscure" or "completely artificial" camps. Obviously it is "to me". On whose behalf do you speak?
    - soVeryTired 7y ago
      I think you're assuming too much good faith on the part of the person making the argument. Sometimes people do find themselves legitimately standing in the 'obscure' camp (or even, say in academia, the 'completely artificial' camp). But it's often the case that a debator adopts a stance in one of those camps, without acknowledging where they're standing. Sometimes it happens because of pedantry and sometimes because of incompetence, but it happens all too often.
      - ukj 7y ago
        All the same - "obscurity" is determined by context. If you happen to be in the "obscure camp" (without knowing it) in which GC is a problem, not a solution - it sucks for you having listened to the OP.
      - ukj 7y ago
        >I think you're assuming too much good faith on the part of the person making the argument. Naturally. I subscribe to the principle of charity and I practice it. If you are just using me as a pawn in your argument, shame on you.
geocar 7y ago
> I think a constructive rule of argument would be to state upfront when you happen to be standing in the "obscure" or "completely artificial" camps. From my perspective, my job that feeds me and my family, doesn't become any less important to me, just because some troll on the internet "believes" it is "completely artificial"

ukj 7y ago

I am standing in the camp of my own actual problem-domain. The "obscurity" and "artificiality" of which is largely irrelevant to me having to tackle it. If you are arguing a view-point outside of your own problem domain, then perhaps you should be upfront about holding a theoretical/academic view?

soVeryTired 7y ago
I assume you're back to garbage collection rather than dialectic. The key phrase I'd take away from your post is "to me".
- ukj 7y ago
  I was addressing this point: > I think a constructive rule of argument would be to state upfront when you happen to be standing in the "obscure" or "completely artificial" camps. Obviously it is "to me". On whose behalf do you speak?
  - soVeryTired 7y ago
    I think you're assuming too much good faith on the part of the person making the argument. Sometimes people do find themselves legitimately standing in the 'obscure' camp (or even, say in academia, the 'completely artificial' camp). But it's often the case that a debator adopts a stance in one of those camps, without acknowledging where they're standing. Sometimes it happens because of pedantry and sometimes because of incompetence, but it happens all too often.
    - ukj 7y ago
      All the same - "obscurity" is determined by context. If you happen to be in the "obscure camp" (without knowing it) in which GC is a problem, not a solution - it sucks for you having listened to the OP.
    - ukj 7y ago
      >I think you're assuming too much good faith on the part of the person making the argument. Naturally. I subscribe to the principle of charity and I practice it. If you are just using me as a pawn in your argument, shame on you.

geocar 7y ago

> I think a constructive rule of argument would be to state upfront when you happen to be standing in the "obscure" or "completely artificial" camps. From my perspective, my job that feeds me and my family, doesn't become any less important to me, just because some troll on the internet "believes" it is "completely artificial"