4 ms·

The burden of proof is on showing that the unicode view is, in your words, a more capable abstraction. My thesis is that it is not. This is not because it neces

The burden of proof is on showing that the unicode view is, in your words, a more capable abstraction. My thesis is that it is not. This is not because it necessarily does anything worse (though it does). It must simply do something better. If there were actually anything at all it did better—well, I still wouldn't necessarily want it as a default but it would be a defensible abstraction. The heart of the matter is that a Unicode codepoint sequence view of a string has no real use case. There is no "universal principle" that we use abstractions always, regardless of whether they fit the problem; that's cargo-culting. An abstraction that does no work is, ceteris paribus, worse than not having it at all.

mannykannot 6y ago
> The burden of proof is on showing that the unicode view is, in your words, a more capable abstraction. My thesis is that it is not. The quote, as you presented it, leaves open the question: more capable than what? Well, there's no doubt about it if you go back to my original post: more capable than ascii. Up until now, as far as I can tell, your thesis has not been that unicode is less capable than ascii, but if that's what your argument hangs on, go ahead - make that case. What your thesis has been, up to this point, is that manipulating text as bytes is better, to the extent that doing it as unicode is harmful. > It must simply do something better. If there were actually anything at all it did better... It is amusing that you mentioned the burden of proof earlier, because what you have completely avoided doing so far is justify your position that manipulating bytes is better - for example, you have not answered any of the questions I posed in my previous post. > The heart of the matter is that a Unicode codepoint sequence view of a string has no real use case. Here we have another assertion presented without justification. > There is no "universal principle" that we use abstractions always, regardless of whether they fit the problem... It is about as close as anthing gets to a universal principle in software engineering, and if you want to disagree on that, go ahead, I'm ready to defend that point of view. >... that's cargo-culting. How about presenting an actual argument, instead of this bullshit? Furthermore, you could take that statement out of my previous post, and it would do nothing to support the thesis you had been pushing up to that point. You seem to be seeking anything in my words that you think you can argue against, without regard to relevance - but in doing so, you might be digging a deeper hole. > An abstraction that does no work is, ceteris paribus, worse than not having it at all. Your use of a Latin phrase does not alter the fact that you are still making unsubstantiated claims.
- naniwaduni 6y ago
  Put it this way: claim a use-case you believe the unicode view does better on than an array of bytes. Since you're making the positive claim, this should be easy. I guarantee you there will be a quick counterexample to demonstrate that the claimed use-case is incorrect. There always is. You may review the gish gallop in the other branch of this thread for inspiration.
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    Now you are attempting a full-on burden-shifting approach, but the unsupported claims here are that a unicode view is "fundamentally wrong" and that the proper approach is to operate on raw bytes. You can start on correcting this omission by answering the questions I posed about your claims a couple of posts ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25895523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25895523
    - naniwaduni 6y ago
      And you can start holding a position instead of claiming omission until the cows come home.
      - mannykannot 6y ago
        It is highly apposite that you should mention a Gish gallop in your earlier post: Duane Gish's combination of rhetorical ploys intended to persuade uninformed people that evolution hasn't happened. It includes a combination of burden-shifting, not answering awkward questions, introducing non-sequiturs, and attempting to change the subject, all of which you have already been employing, and which you are now intimating that you intend to continue with. A Gish gallop is not, of course, a sound way to arrive at any sort of truth. Anyone employing the technique is either unaware of that, or is being duplicitous (my guess is that Gish never really understood that it is bogus.) Meanwhile, those questions are still waiting to be milked, so to speak... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25895523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25895523

mannykannot 6y ago

> The burden of proof is on showing that the unicode view is, in your words, a more capable abstraction. My thesis is that it is not. The quote, as you presented it, leaves open the question: more capable than what? Well, there's no doubt about it if you go back to my original post: more capable than ascii. Up until now, as far as I can tell, your thesis has not been that unicode is less capable than ascii, but if that's what your argument hangs on, go ahead - make that case. What your thesis has been, up to this point, is that manipulating text as bytes is better, to the extent that doing it as unicode is harmful. > It must simply do something better. If there were actually anything at all it did better... It is amusing that you mentioned the burden of proof earlier, because what you have completely avoided doing so far is justify your position that manipulating bytes is better - for example, you have not answered any of the questions I posed in my previous post. > The heart of the matter is that a Unicode codepoint sequence view of a string has no real use case. Here we have another assertion presented without justification. > There is no "universal principle" that we use abstractions always, regardless of whether they fit the problem... It is about as close as anthing gets to a universal principle in software engineering, and if you want to disagree on that, go ahead, I'm ready to defend that point of view. >... that's cargo-culting. How about presenting an actual argument, instead of this bullshit? Furthermore, you could take that statement out of my previous post, and it would do nothing to support the thesis you had been pushing up to that point. You seem to be seeking anything in my words that you think you can argue against, without regard to relevance - but in doing so, you might be digging a deeper hole. > An abstraction that does no work is, ceteris paribus, worse than not having it at all. Your use of a Latin phrase does not alter the fact that you are still making unsubstantiated claims.

naniwaduni 6y ago
Put it this way: claim a use-case you believe the unicode view does better on than an array of bytes. Since you're making the positive claim, this should be easy. I guarantee you there will be a quick counterexample to demonstrate that the claimed use-case is incorrect. There always is. You may review the gish gallop in the other branch of this thread for inspiration.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  Now you are attempting a full-on burden-shifting approach, but the unsupported claims here are that a unicode view is "fundamentally wrong" and that the proper approach is to operate on raw bytes. You can start on correcting this omission by answering the questions I posed about your claims a couple of posts ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25895523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25895523
  - naniwaduni 6y ago
    And you can start holding a position instead of claiming omission until the cows come home.
    - mannykannot 6y ago
      It is highly apposite that you should mention a Gish gallop in your earlier post: Duane Gish's combination of rhetorical ploys intended to persuade uninformed people that evolution hasn't happened. It includes a combination of burden-shifting, not answering awkward questions, introducing non-sequiturs, and attempting to change the subject, all of which you have already been employing, and which you are now intimating that you intend to continue with. A Gish gallop is not, of course, a sound way to arrive at any sort of truth. Anyone employing the technique is either unaware of that, or is being duplicitous (my guess is that Gish never really understood that it is bogus.) Meanwhile, those questions are still waiting to be milked, so to speak... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25895523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25895523