3 ms·

>You keep moving the goal posts. I never said better, I said most successful. If something was the "most successful" then by definition it would be "better" th

>You keep moving the goal posts. I never said better, I said most successful. If something was the "most successful" then by definition it would be "better" then everything else including FP and imperative. No goal post was moved. >Right so there could be non-OOP counterparts to the overabundance of OOP applications but they don't exist. They do. Linux was one example. Whatsapp is another example. They exist. I'm not sure why your dismissing them. Sure the majority is OOP but again that doesn't mean anything. >You argue that everyone in the world is an idiot and you're the one sane person -- think about that. I never said that. Think about that. I said popularity is not proof it's better. I never said they were idiots, and I never said they are wrong. I am simply saying something being popular doesn't mean it's successful. It doesn't determine anything. A popular thing could be successful it could not be successful and popularity is a bad foundation for arguments. Additionally you just need to look at the world and contradictory religious practices leading to jihads, crusades and suicide bombings to question the veracity of "popularity." >Linux has plenty of OOP design patterns. Sure isomorphism to patterns exist in FP to OOP to imperative. You'll find connections and similarities between patterns of EVERY paradigm. Doesn't change the overall fact that Linux overall is NOT OOP. You think just because map and reduce exist as methods in java makes it a functional language? No. The overall point of the language and design decision is what matters here. Linux is NOT OOP.

wvenable 5y ago
> They exist. I'm not sure why your dismissing them. Sure the majority is OOP but again that doesn't mean anything. Of course they exist. And they are the exception. That's entirely the point. > Sure the majority is OOP but again that doesn't mean anything. Of course it does. Developers choose OOP and over and over again even after decades of failed attempts to unseat with supposedly better technologies. To deny that is to claim the earth is flat. > You think just because map and reduce exist as methods in java makes it a functional language? No, but it certainly demonstrates the success of functional concepts even in an OOP language.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  I've proved to you with examples over and over again that majority and popularity aren't good metrics. A huge portion of the world is muslim, a huge portion of the world is christian and another huge portion of the world is Buddhist and another portion of the world is atheist. Only one of them can be right. Therefore the MAJORITY is WRONG. The example above is already definitive proof that POPULARITY and MAJORITY cannot be used as an accurate metric given most of the worlds beliefs are completely OFF BASE. Yet here you are endlessly parading majority and popularity as the best metric and stating that if I claim otherwise I'm believing the world is flat. Try to be logical. If your goal is to convince me (which I assume is the case given that you ARE responding to me) then you need to stop using popularity as a metric. By giving one instance where popularity is inaccurate I have ALREADY shown that it is not a valid metric and useless in your endeavor to convince me. If your goal isn't to convince me then I question the rationality behind why you're even communicating with me? Is it possible that you're just defending your own beliefs?
  - wvenable 5y ago
    One religion, right or wrong, could be more successful based on whatever metric is used for success. In my case, success for a programming paradigm is a large number of successful projects that use it. Note, this says nothing about opinions. It's a measure of facts. The fact is that there are more successful OOP projects than any other by a inescapably huge margin. You can argue that everyone is misguided and the whole thing is wrong but that's something else entirely. It doesn't change the fact of that success. If Buddhism being wrong, whatever that might mean, wouldn't change the fact of it's success based on how that is defined. God forbid that the measure of success is enlightenment -- your head might explode.
    - deltaonefour 5y ago
      >One religion, right or wrong, could be more successful based on whatever metric is used for success. The metric that I was referring to is truth. Only one can be true, or None. Either way the majority of religions are False no matter the outcome. >In my case, success for a programming paradigm is a large number of successful projects that use it. Oh yeah define the success case to be exactly the evidence. Clearly we're talking about something more nuanced here. If for example all possibly projects were executed in FP or OOP which version would be more modular, save time and be less complicated... I mean this is obvious. You're taking things in stupid direction. >If Buddhism being wrong, whatever that might mean, wouldn't change the fact of it's success based on how that is defined. God forbid that the measure of success is enlightenment -- your head might explode. Please stay on topic.

wvenable 5y ago

> They exist. I'm not sure why your dismissing them. Sure the majority is OOP but again that doesn't mean anything. Of course they exist. And they are the exception. That's entirely the point. > Sure the majority is OOP but again that doesn't mean anything. Of course it does. Developers choose OOP and over and over again even after decades of failed attempts to unseat with supposedly better technologies. To deny that is to claim the earth is flat. > You think just because map and reduce exist as methods in java makes it a functional language? No, but it certainly demonstrates the success of functional concepts even in an OOP language.

deltaonefour 5y ago
I've proved to you with examples over and over again that majority and popularity aren't good metrics. A huge portion of the world is muslim, a huge portion of the world is christian and another huge portion of the world is Buddhist and another portion of the world is atheist. Only one of them can be right. Therefore the MAJORITY is WRONG. The example above is already definitive proof that POPULARITY and MAJORITY cannot be used as an accurate metric given most of the worlds beliefs are completely OFF BASE. Yet here you are endlessly parading majority and popularity as the best metric and stating that if I claim otherwise I'm believing the world is flat. Try to be logical. If your goal is to convince me (which I assume is the case given that you ARE responding to me) then you need to stop using popularity as a metric. By giving one instance where popularity is inaccurate I have ALREADY shown that it is not a valid metric and useless in your endeavor to convince me. If your goal isn't to convince me then I question the rationality behind why you're even communicating with me? Is it possible that you're just defending your own beliefs?
- wvenable 5y ago
  One religion, right or wrong, could be more successful based on whatever metric is used for success. In my case, success for a programming paradigm is a large number of successful projects that use it. Note, this says nothing about opinions. It's a measure of facts. The fact is that there are more successful OOP projects than any other by a inescapably huge margin. You can argue that everyone is misguided and the whole thing is wrong but that's something else entirely. It doesn't change the fact of that success. If Buddhism being wrong, whatever that might mean, wouldn't change the fact of it's success based on how that is defined. God forbid that the measure of success is enlightenment -- your head might explode.
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    >One religion, right or wrong, could be more successful based on whatever metric is used for success. The metric that I was referring to is truth. Only one can be true, or None. Either way the majority of religions are False no matter the outcome. >In my case, success for a programming paradigm is a large number of successful projects that use it. Oh yeah define the success case to be exactly the evidence. Clearly we're talking about something more nuanced here. If for example all possibly projects were executed in FP or OOP which version would be more modular, save time and be less complicated... I mean this is obvious. You're taking things in stupid direction. >If Buddhism being wrong, whatever that might mean, wouldn't change the fact of it's success based on how that is defined. God forbid that the measure of success is enlightenment -- your head might explode. Please stay on topic.