3 ms·

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

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
    > If for example all possibly projects were executed in FP or OOP which version would be more modular, save time and be less complicated... The problem is you want to ignore facts -- the unbelievable success of OOP -- so you can concentrate on the theoretical. There's nothing stupid about pointing out that OOP is basically the most successful programming paradigm in history. Most of these paradigms were invented all the around the same time and yet one as overwhelmingly won the hearts and minds of the majority of developers. You still are saying nothing. As for off topic, when your argument consists of comparisons to religion, Trump voters, etc that's about a lazy as you can get.
    - deltaonefour 5y ago
      No facts were ignored. I addressed your facts with reasons why your evidence cannot be used to support your conclusion. To prove your point you must disprove my reasoning. But all your doing is reiterating your point. Yes I know you think popularity is valid, but I already told you why I think it's invalid. To convince me you have to attack my reasoning. Look I'm teaching you how to debate. >As for off topic, when your argument consists of comparisons to religion, Trump voters, etc that's about a lazy as you can get. Those are called examples to help illustrate my point. They are not off topic. Your little Segway into enlightenment and Buddhism is completely off topic.
      - wvenable 5y ago
        You're making a very basic mistake of logic. Success (in this instance) requires Popularity but Popularity does not imply Success. You keep attacking popularity but that doesn't affect success at all. Do you take umbrage with the idea that many working and wonderful products is success? You are making up an alternative definition of success, which is untestable, and then claiming OOP is not successful based on that. But you haven't disproved that my idea of success is invalid. You keep attacking popularity.
        deltaonefour 5y ago

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
  > If for example all possibly projects were executed in FP or OOP which version would be more modular, save time and be less complicated... The problem is you want to ignore facts -- the unbelievable success of OOP -- so you can concentrate on the theoretical. There's nothing stupid about pointing out that OOP is basically the most successful programming paradigm in history. Most of these paradigms were invented all the around the same time and yet one as overwhelmingly won the hearts and minds of the majority of developers. You still are saying nothing. As for off topic, when your argument consists of comparisons to religion, Trump voters, etc that's about a lazy as you can get.
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    No facts were ignored. I addressed your facts with reasons why your evidence cannot be used to support your conclusion. To prove your point you must disprove my reasoning. But all your doing is reiterating your point. Yes I know you think popularity is valid, but I already told you why I think it's invalid. To convince me you have to attack my reasoning. Look I'm teaching you how to debate. >As for off topic, when your argument consists of comparisons to religion, Trump voters, etc that's about a lazy as you can get. Those are called examples to help illustrate my point. They are not off topic. Your little Segway into enlightenment and Buddhism is completely off topic.
    - wvenable 5y ago
      You're making a very basic mistake of logic. Success (in this instance) requires Popularity but Popularity does not imply Success. You keep attacking popularity but that doesn't affect success at all. Do you take umbrage with the idea that many working and wonderful products is success? You are making up an alternative definition of success, which is untestable, and then claiming OOP is not successful based on that. But you haven't disproved that my idea of success is invalid. You keep attacking popularity.
      - deltaonefour 5y ago