3 ms·

Nearly every rebuttal on the internet starts with misinterpretation of what's being said. Good reading skills are extremely rare, it seems. To be clear: you tr

by brabel 3y ago

Nearly every rebuttal on the internet starts with misinterpretation of what's being said. Good reading skills are extremely rare, it seems. To be clear: you tried to say "C offers encapsulation/isolation". People read "This solution is equivalent to 'private'", an almost completely unrelated statement, and then respond to that. That could typically be classified as a "Straw man fallacy"[0], but I believe people who do this in many cases simply do not have the necessary reading skills to understand what proposition has been made, and therefore honestly believe themselves to be reasoning correctly (i.e. without fallacy). Reading comprehension used to be a topic at school when I was a child. I suppose that's no longer the case?? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

jasode 3y ago
>To be clear: you tried to say "C offers encapsulation/isolation". People read "This solution is equivalent to 'private'", an almost completely unrelated statement, and then respond to that. >That could typically be classified as a "Straw man fallacy"[0], but I believe people who do this in many cases simply do not have the necessary reading skills Fyi... the author's article that this thread is about has in bold heading: "Myth: C has no equivalent to “private”" So, a reasonable interpretation of the text following that headline is how to use C Language constructs to dispel that myth. Doesn't seem like "straw man" applies here.
gjulianm 3y ago
As the other commenter said, and I want to reiterate, what led me to start with the talk about the private keyword is the big bold header that says "Myth: C has no equivalent to “private”" and the first code snippet that shows how you can have "private" fields in C++ and the following ones that show an "equivalent" implementation in C. So I think it's reasonable to infer that the author is talking about encapsulation and "the private keyword" as somewhat interchangeable (and I don't disagree, for this discussion they're practically the same). Not only that, but the points I made are about the implementation shown in the article, which is independent of whether the talk is about "private equivalency" or "lack of encapsulation": the gist of it is "yes, you 'encapsulate' things but not in the same way and it comes with disadvantages that aren't really there in other languages". With all that said, I don't think all that condescending talk about the lack of reading comprehension or skills, without actually going into the arguments themselves, is really necessary or positive.

by brabel 3y ago

jasode 3y ago

>To be clear: you tried to say "C offers encapsulation/isolation". People read "This solution is equivalent to 'private'", an almost completely unrelated statement, and then respond to that. >That could typically be classified as a "Straw man fallacy"[0], but I believe people who do this in many cases simply do not have the necessary reading skills Fyi... the author's article that this thread is about has in bold heading: "Myth: C has no equivalent to “private”" So, a reasonable interpretation of the text following that headline is how to use C Language constructs to dispel that myth. Doesn't seem like "straw man" applies here.

gjulianm 3y ago

As the other commenter said, and I want to reiterate, what led me to start with the talk about the private keyword is the big bold header that says "Myth: C has no equivalent to “private”" and the first code snippet that shows how you can have "private" fields in C++ and the following ones that show an "equivalent" implementation in C. So I think it's reasonable to infer that the author is talking about encapsulation and "the private keyword" as somewhat interchangeable (and I don't disagree, for this discussion they're practically the same). Not only that, but the points I made are about the implementation shown in the article, which is independent of whether the talk is about "private equivalency" or "lack of encapsulation": the gist of it is "yes, you 'encapsulate' things but not in the same way and it comes with disadvantages that aren't really there in other languages". With all that said, I don't think all that condescending talk about the lack of reading comprehension or skills, without actually going into the arguments themselves, is really necessary or positive.