3 ms·

The author of this presentation claims that Perl's type system is better than C++ and that "the C++ macro system blows goat dick". Quality arguments and vocab

The author of this presentation claims that Perl's type system is better than C++ and that "the C++ macro system blows goat dick". Quality arguments and vocabulary.

neonological 6y ago
Don't let vocabulary or lack of evidence distract you from the main point. Lack of either doesn't invalidate the argument it just invalidates your bias. The burden remains on you to validate the argument and ignore your biases as obviously this author and the people who voted him up have their reasons for believing in what they believe.
- hota_mazi 6y ago
  I am making no claims, I have no burden. The author claims that the C++ type system blows goats dick, the burden is on them to actually prove their point besides using middle school recess vocabulary.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - neonological 6y ago
    Nah you're right. No burden on you. I'm just saying logically, if he makes that claim and you know he's not an idiot and a lot of people vote him up, then there must be a compelling reason for why he made the claim. The reasoning has the potential to change the way you think about his claim or it has the potential to be completely wrong. But the context of the situation makes it so that you cannot ignore the potential.
  - ratww 6y ago
    > The author claims that the C++ type system blows goats dick No, he doesn't. He claims that the Macro system does. And he's right, C macros are full of well documented pitfalls [1][2], especially when compared to other languages. This is not really a controversial claim, btw. At this point this is common knowledge. "Blows goats dick" is letting it off easy, even. It only implies low quality, or difficult to use. C Macros however can be dangerous, unsecure and misleading. Also, this is an informal talk. Sure, you might take issue with his language, but I would expect someone taking issue with the claim to at least know about the general consensus on the topic. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Macro-Pitfalls.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Macro-Pitfalls.html [2] https://www.brainbell.com/tutors/c/Advice_and_Warnings_for_C/Macros_and_Miscellaneous_Pitfalls.html https://www.brainbell.com/tutors/c/Advice_and_Warnings_for_C...

The author of this presentation claims that Perl's type system is better than C++ and that "the C++ macro system blows goat dick". Quality arguments and vocabulary.

neonological 6y ago

Don't let vocabulary or lack of evidence distract you from the main point. Lack of either doesn't invalidate the argument it just invalidates your bias. The burden remains on you to validate the argument and ignore your biases as obviously this author and the people who voted him up have their reasons for believing in what they believe.

hota_mazi 6y ago
I am making no claims, I have no burden. The author claims that the C++ type system blows goats dick, the burden is on them to actually prove their point besides using middle school recess vocabulary.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- neonological 6y ago
  Nah you're right. No burden on you. I'm just saying logically, if he makes that claim and you know he's not an idiot and a lot of people vote him up, then there must be a compelling reason for why he made the claim. The reasoning has the potential to change the way you think about his claim or it has the potential to be completely wrong. But the context of the situation makes it so that you cannot ignore the potential.
- ratww 6y ago
  > The author claims that the C++ type system blows goats dick No, he doesn't. He claims that the Macro system does. And he's right, C macros are full of well documented pitfalls [1][2], especially when compared to other languages. This is not really a controversial claim, btw. At this point this is common knowledge. "Blows goats dick" is letting it off easy, even. It only implies low quality, or difficult to use. C Macros however can be dangerous, unsecure and misleading. Also, this is an informal talk. Sure, you might take issue with his language, but I would expect someone taking issue with the claim to at least know about the general consensus on the topic. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Macro-Pitfalls.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Macro-Pitfalls.html [2] https://www.brainbell.com/tutors/c/Advice_and_Warnings_for_C/Macros_and_Miscellaneous_Pitfalls.html https://www.brainbell.com/tutors/c/Advice_and_Warnings_for_C...