4 ms·

>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

>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
      >You're making a very basic mistake of logic. >Success (in this instance) requires Popularity but Popularity does not imply Success. How is your statement logical? Who says success requires popularity? In what universe does that make sense? A heart transplant was successfully completed recently. The man survived with no immune rejections. The heart came from a genetically modified pig spliced with genes to prevent rejection and stop growth after transplantation. First time it occurred. It is a "successful" transplantation and BY DEFINITION since it only happened on one person in the whole of human history... NOT POPULAR. So if this "successful" event happened in the reality we live in... it means that things can be successful and NOT POPULAR at the same time. "Not Logical"... Come on man. >You are making up an alternative definition of success, which is untestable, No I'm using the definition of successful in terms of the English language. Look it up in the dictionary to see if it contains the word "popular." >But you haven't disproved that my idea of success is invalid. You keep attacking popularity. My point isn't too prove anything. All I am saying and I repeat for like the hundredth time that you're statements have no logical basis. That's it. You claim is INVALID. Here's an example that you can probably understand. If you enter a password into a system... I tell you the password is INVALID. I said nothing else. I didn't say no password exists, I didn't say a password does exist. I said NOTHING other than your password (aka claim) is INVALID.
      - wvenable 5y ago
        > Who says success requires popularity? In what universe does that make sense? For a programming paradigm, it's required. A programming paradigm that is not used by many programmers is not successful paradigm. It's a failure or it hasn't succeeded yet.

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
    >You're making a very basic mistake of logic. >Success (in this instance) requires Popularity but Popularity does not imply Success. How is your statement logical? Who says success requires popularity? In what universe does that make sense? A heart transplant was successfully completed recently. The man survived with no immune rejections. The heart came from a genetically modified pig spliced with genes to prevent rejection and stop growth after transplantation. First time it occurred. It is a "successful" transplantation and BY DEFINITION since it only happened on one person in the whole of human history... NOT POPULAR. So if this "successful" event happened in the reality we live in... it means that things can be successful and NOT POPULAR at the same time. "Not Logical"... Come on man. >You are making up an alternative definition of success, which is untestable, No I'm using the definition of successful in terms of the English language. Look it up in the dictionary to see if it contains the word "popular." >But you haven't disproved that my idea of success is invalid. You keep attacking popularity. My point isn't too prove anything. All I am saying and I repeat for like the hundredth time that you're statements have no logical basis. That's it. You claim is INVALID. Here's an example that you can probably understand. If you enter a password into a system... I tell you the password is INVALID. I said nothing else. I didn't say no password exists, I didn't say a password does exist. I said NOTHING other than your password (aka claim) is INVALID.
    - wvenable 5y ago
      > Who says success requires popularity? In what universe does that make sense? For a programming paradigm, it's required. A programming paradigm that is not used by many programmers is not successful paradigm. It's a failure or it hasn't succeeded yet.