2 ms·

"Wrong-headed" is a dismissal, not a counter-argument. Do you have a specific point that you want to argue against?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Maursault 5y ago
Thanks! I really appreciate your straw man and shameless baiting, but my point was made. To be perfectly clear, if I can dumb it down a bit, though the observation is correct and maybe even mildly interesting, maybe it is even a unique observation no one else has noticed, it is, regardless, not a valid criticism in the same way it is not a valid criticism of garage tools that cars are not made out of them. So criticizing UNIX commands because no major applications are made out of them is, if not wrong-headed, then it is barking up the wrong tree, because, at least my understanding is, major applications are developed with programming language. I suspect there are a myriad of programs that fail to rise to the level to be classified major applications that are basically ugly and slow and strung-together UNIX commands, so it can be done, if desired, just as I expect one could build a vehicle out of garage tools if one had the drive to do so rather than use the appropriate materials. So there is perhaps some question begging in your observation in the hidden and incorrect assumption "UNIX tools are intended to be used as elements of major applications, that's what they're for" so that you may criticize in the precise way that you did. There are plenty of valid criticism of UNIX tools, but yours is not one of them. Though, it seems obvious, you have an keen and interesting mind possibly with a touch of the inability to be disagreed with, nor can tolerate criticism of your observations. Maybe I'm wrong, it just seemed that way just then.
Maursault 5y ago
Point is clearly made for all to see, but I will give it another attempt to help you understand. Your criticism of UNIX commands is not valid in the same way that it not a valid criticism of garage tools that major vehicle manufacturers do not build cars out of garage tools. My understanding is major applications aren't made using UNIX commands because they are ordinarily developed using programing language. So your observation, while incidentally true, as a criticism it is invalid, wrong-headed, misguided, or barking up the wrong tree, which ever way strikes you with the last amount of grief and personal discomfort. I believe your observation is, in fact, a straw man fallacy in the precise way it is fallacious if I observe as a criticism of UNIX tools that no major coffee manufacturers make their product with UNIX tools. While this is probably true, as an argument or criticism of UNIX tools it is simply not valid and not a cogent criticism.
- throw10920 5y ago
  > Point is clearly made for all to see No, it is not. You said "wrong-headed" and then made a very vague analogy. Your point is the opposite of "clear" - in fact, it's unclear whether it exists at all. > Your criticism of UNIX commands is not valid in the same way that it not a valid criticism of garage tools that major vehicle manufacturers do not build cars out of garage tools. That's not a valid argument, either. That's a flawed, leaky, vague analogy that does nothing to actually describe, concretely, what your point is. To summarize: you made a non-argument, called it "clear", and then made the same non-argument again. Here are my points, concretely: the fact that no major application has ever been built even mostly out of Unix shell very strongly indicates that it's unsuitable as a programming language, in addition to indicating its unpopularity. The fact that the most popular variants of Unix shell do not adhere well to the Unix philosophy also indicate that the Unix philosophy isn't a very good one for interactive use, either. The fact that all of the Unix shells (whether Unix-y or not) aren't used at all for building large applications also indicates that the Unix philosophy isn't suitable for building large programs. > My understanding is major applications aren't made using UNIX commands because they are ordinarily developed using programing language. The Unix shells are programming languages that implement the Unix philosophy. The fact that they aren't used to build any large or particularly useful piece of software means that the Unix philosophy itself isn't useful for those things. > a straw man fallacy in the precise way it is fallacious if I observe as a criticism of UNIX tools that no major coffee manufacturers make their product with UNIX tools. You used a lot of fancy words here to conceal the fact that your point is completely invalid. There's no relationship between coffee and Unix tools, but there's a very strong relationship between the Unix philosophy and the Unix tools. Therefore, the Unix tools not being used to make large and useful systems directly implies that the Unix philosophy is bad at the same. Moreover, one of the selling points of the Unix tools is that you can use them as a programming language and compose them to make larger programs - so, the fact that people do not do that is, indeed, a valid and cogent criticism of them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Thanks! I really appreciate your straw man and shameless baiting, but my point was made. To be perfectly clear, if I can dumb it down a bit, though the observation is correct and maybe even mildly interesting, maybe it is even a unique observation no one else has noticed, it is, regardless, not a valid criticism in the same way it is not a valid criticism of garage tools that cars are not made out of them. So criticizing UNIX commands because no major applications are made out of them is, if not wrong-headed, then it is barking up the wrong tree, because, at least my understanding is, major applications are developed with programming language. I suspect there are a myriad of programs that fail to rise to the level to be classified major applications that are basically ugly and slow and strung-together UNIX commands, so it can be done, if desired, just as I expect one could build a vehicle out of garage tools if one had the drive to do so rather than use the appropriate materials. So there is perhaps some question begging in your observation in the hidden and incorrect assumption "UNIX tools are intended to be used as elements of major applications, that's what they're for" so that you may criticize in the precise way that you did. There are plenty of valid criticism of UNIX tools, but yours is not one of them. Though, it seems obvious, you have an keen and interesting mind possibly with a touch of the inability to be disagreed with, nor can tolerate criticism of your observations. Maybe I'm wrong, it just seemed that way just then.

Maursault 5y ago

Point is clearly made for all to see, but I will give it another attempt to help you understand. Your criticism of UNIX commands is not valid in the same way that it not a valid criticism of garage tools that major vehicle manufacturers do not build cars out of garage tools. My understanding is major applications aren't made using UNIX commands because they are ordinarily developed using programing language. So your observation, while incidentally true, as a criticism it is invalid, wrong-headed, misguided, or barking up the wrong tree, which ever way strikes you with the last amount of grief and personal discomfort. I believe your observation is, in fact, a straw man fallacy in the precise way it is fallacious if I observe as a criticism of UNIX tools that no major coffee manufacturers make their product with UNIX tools. While this is probably true, as an argument or criticism of UNIX tools it is simply not valid and not a cogent criticism.

throw10920 5y ago
> Point is clearly made for all to see No, it is not. You said "wrong-headed" and then made a very vague analogy. Your point is the opposite of "clear" - in fact, it's unclear whether it exists at all. > Your criticism of UNIX commands is not valid in the same way that it not a valid criticism of garage tools that major vehicle manufacturers do not build cars out of garage tools. That's not a valid argument, either. That's a flawed, leaky, vague analogy that does nothing to actually describe, concretely, what your point is. To summarize: you made a non-argument, called it "clear", and then made the same non-argument again. Here are my points, concretely: the fact that no major application has ever been built even mostly out of Unix shell very strongly indicates that it's unsuitable as a programming language, in addition to indicating its unpopularity. The fact that the most popular variants of Unix shell do not adhere well to the Unix philosophy also indicate that the Unix philosophy isn't a very good one for interactive use, either. The fact that all of the Unix shells (whether Unix-y or not) aren't used at all for building large applications also indicates that the Unix philosophy isn't suitable for building large programs. > My understanding is major applications aren't made using UNIX commands because they are ordinarily developed using programing language. The Unix shells are programming languages that implement the Unix philosophy. The fact that they aren't used to build any large or particularly useful piece of software means that the Unix philosophy itself isn't useful for those things. > a straw man fallacy in the precise way it is fallacious if I observe as a criticism of UNIX tools that no major coffee manufacturers make their product with UNIX tools. You used a lot of fancy words here to conceal the fact that your point is completely invalid. There's no relationship between coffee and Unix tools, but there's a very strong relationship between the Unix philosophy and the Unix tools. Therefore, the Unix tools not being used to make large and useful systems directly implies that the Unix philosophy is bad at the same. Moreover, one of the selling points of the Unix tools is that you can use them as a programming language and compose them to make larger programs - so, the fact that people do not do that is, indeed, a valid and cogent criticism of them.