4 ms·

The point is that “bad” isn’t a useful descriptor of anything regarding their real-life applications, because it simply doesn’t mean anything. Without more cont

The point is that “bad” isn’t a useful descriptor of anything regarding their real-life applications, because it simply doesn’t mean anything. Without more context, saying something is bad is just saying you dislike it with intent to present it as objective rather than subjective. For example: 1) “Haskell is bad because it’s too theoretical” 2) “Haskell is bad in corporate environments, as its roots in mathematical and academia make it harder for people to get productive with it compared to something like Java or C#” The difference is clear. In my opinion it’s best if people who care about what they’re saying avoids #1, and instead frames their criticism like in #2. Note: those examples don’t reflect my actual opinion on Haskell, it’s just something I came up with while writing this.

deltasevennine 4y ago
Hard disagree. >The point is that “bad” isn’t a useful descriptor of anything regarding their real-life applications, because it simply doesn’t mean anything. This is just a complicated way of saying "Bad things have no meaning and don't exist in the universe." Without getting too pedantic, in general, nobody agrees with this concept. Sure if you get pedantic you may find a couple people in this world who enjoy punching themselves in the face, but in general the overwhelming majority agree that punching yourself in the face is a pretty bad thing. Note: Punching yourself in the face is just an example of a universally "bad" thing. I'm not personally against punching yourself in the face, it's just something I came up with while writing this.
- Kaze404 4y ago
  Maybe I failed to express myself properly, but my point is that saying “X is bad.” (emphasis on the period) is not really saying anything. It’s much more productive if you explain why, how and in what environment X is bad, either before or after, like I did in example #2. In my experience when someone says “X is bad”, the response is often either “haha” (which the subject then changes), or “why” (which leads to person #1 actually saying what they want to say). I’m personally not interested in someone’s remarks about some technology completely devoid of context or nuance, and would rather hear about their opinion on such technology in tangible scenarios.
  - deltasevennine 4y ago
    >Maybe I failed to express myself properly, but my point is that saying “X is bad.” (emphasis on the period) is not really saying anything. This logic also works for "X is good." or "GraphQL is good". This doesn't really say anything either and is an equally garbage statement following your logic. But your biases focus on the "bad" because you have a bias towards GraphQL. Either way I don't agree. Saying something like criminals are bad is not an invalid statement. If you want an explanation you can ask for it. If you don't care to know about the explanation then you don't need to ask for it. But just because somebody makes a statement without an explanation doesn't automatically make it invalid. For example "The plane is about to crash, please pull up." This is a statement without an explanation (emphasis on the period). Should I demand an explanation or comply without one? In your words, was this statement "really saying anything?" Yes it was. When you come to threads on HN it's mostly people looking for confirmation of their biases. They don't realize it, but almost everyone is doing this. If you weren't biased you would ask for deeper explanations. You would try to unravel the other persons reasoning and understand it in such a way so that you find a mistake in his understanding or your own. That's mainly why I'm here, but this thread is littered with posts following the same logical path as you.
    - Kaze404 4y ago
      There are way too many assumptions in your post. Yes, you're right that I like GraphQL, but: 1) Nowhere in my comments did I say that's limited to negative comments. I think "GraphQL is good" is just as useful (meaning not at all). 2) "Criminals are bad" is not an invalid statement, and neither is "GraphQL is bad" or "GraphQL" is good. But if the purpose is to discuss criminality, and not just add noise to an ongoing discussion, it is also a useless statement. Imagine there's a debate panel going on, someone in the crowd stands up and says "criminals are bad!". Where does that lead the conversation? 3) "The plane is about to crash, please pull up" is an expression of fact, not an opinion, and not even something that warrants or is said in a discussion so I don't think the comparison makes sense. Either way, "GraphQL is bad" is an opinion, not a fact, and thus needs more context to be useful in a discussion. I'm not going to acknowledge the last paragraph because I'm presuming good faith from you, and I'd rather not turn this discussion into speculation about other comments in this thread or why you're here. That said, you're definitely right that I'm biased towards GraphQL, but I think we're having different discussions if you think we're discussing GraphQL's merits.

deltasevennine 4y ago

Hard disagree. >The point is that “bad” isn’t a useful descriptor of anything regarding their real-life applications, because it simply doesn’t mean anything. This is just a complicated way of saying "Bad things have no meaning and don't exist in the universe." Without getting too pedantic, in general, nobody agrees with this concept. Sure if you get pedantic you may find a couple people in this world who enjoy punching themselves in the face, but in general the overwhelming majority agree that punching yourself in the face is a pretty bad thing. Note: Punching yourself in the face is just an example of a universally "bad" thing. I'm not personally against punching yourself in the face, it's just something I came up with while writing this.

Kaze404 4y ago
Maybe I failed to express myself properly, but my point is that saying “X is bad.” (emphasis on the period) is not really saying anything. It’s much more productive if you explain why, how and in what environment X is bad, either before or after, like I did in example #2. In my experience when someone says “X is bad”, the response is often either “haha” (which the subject then changes), or “why” (which leads to person #1 actually saying what they want to say). I’m personally not interested in someone’s remarks about some technology completely devoid of context or nuance, and would rather hear about their opinion on such technology in tangible scenarios.
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  >Maybe I failed to express myself properly, but my point is that saying “X is bad.” (emphasis on the period) is not really saying anything. This logic also works for "X is good." or "GraphQL is good". This doesn't really say anything either and is an equally garbage statement following your logic. But your biases focus on the "bad" because you have a bias towards GraphQL. Either way I don't agree. Saying something like criminals are bad is not an invalid statement. If you want an explanation you can ask for it. If you don't care to know about the explanation then you don't need to ask for it. But just because somebody makes a statement without an explanation doesn't automatically make it invalid. For example "The plane is about to crash, please pull up." This is a statement without an explanation (emphasis on the period). Should I demand an explanation or comply without one? In your words, was this statement "really saying anything?" Yes it was. When you come to threads on HN it's mostly people looking for confirmation of their biases. They don't realize it, but almost everyone is doing this. If you weren't biased you would ask for deeper explanations. You would try to unravel the other persons reasoning and understand it in such a way so that you find a mistake in his understanding or your own. That's mainly why I'm here, but this thread is littered with posts following the same logical path as you.
  - Kaze404 4y ago
    There are way too many assumptions in your post. Yes, you're right that I like GraphQL, but: 1) Nowhere in my comments did I say that's limited to negative comments. I think "GraphQL is good" is just as useful (meaning not at all). 2) "Criminals are bad" is not an invalid statement, and neither is "GraphQL is bad" or "GraphQL" is good. But if the purpose is to discuss criminality, and not just add noise to an ongoing discussion, it is also a useless statement. Imagine there's a debate panel going on, someone in the crowd stands up and says "criminals are bad!". Where does that lead the conversation? 3) "The plane is about to crash, please pull up" is an expression of fact, not an opinion, and not even something that warrants or is said in a discussion so I don't think the comparison makes sense. Either way, "GraphQL is bad" is an opinion, not a fact, and thus needs more context to be useful in a discussion. I'm not going to acknowledge the last paragraph because I'm presuming good faith from you, and I'd rather not turn this discussion into speculation about other comments in this thread or why you're here. That said, you're definitely right that I'm biased towards GraphQL, but I think we're having different discussions if you think we're discussing GraphQL's merits.