3 ms·

I'm not saying it is. I'm using the exclusivity of religious belief just as a short-cut to show that it is possible for large groups of people to hold false be

by lisper 3y ago

I'm not saying it is. I'm using the exclusivity of religious belief just as a short-cut to show that it is possible for large groups of people to hold false beliefs without getting into the weeds of which of those beliefs are actually false. The point is not that C++ is analogous to a religion, just that "adoption by millions" is not a valid argument for its merits.

paulddraper 3y ago
No, your analogy falls over. The equivalent assertion is "Christianity is a good/useful belief system" (and "Islam is a good/useful belief system") Now, you could endeavor to disprove that equivalent assertion, but your earlier argument doesn't.
- lisper 3y ago
  My argument applies equally well to that: the mere fact that a religion has large numbers of adherents does not in and of itself show that it is either good or useful. But that's a harder case to make because it turns on what is meant by "good" and "useful", and those are things about which reasonable people can disagree. To be clear, "fitness as a general purpose programming language" is also something about which reasonable people can (and manifestly do) disagree. All I'm saying is that having large numbers of adherents is not a valid argument in favor of fitness any more than it is an argument in favor of goodness or usefulness. It's possible that all it shows is that a lot of people drank the kool-aid. [UPDATE] It's also possible that most of the people using C++ think that it sucks, and they are all just using it because everyone else is using it.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    Your argument is "large numbers of people can be wrong, as shown by the fact that either Christians or Muslims are wrong." But metaphysics/religion is different than programming language utility. We can expect a higher degree of accurate judgment in the latter.
    - lisper 3y ago
      > metaphysics/religion is different than programming language utility. Of course it is. But religions make mutually exclusive objective claims. Metaphysics has nothing to do with it.

by lisper 3y ago

paulddraper 3y ago

No, your analogy falls over. The equivalent assertion is "Christianity is a good/useful belief system" (and "Islam is a good/useful belief system") Now, you could endeavor to disprove that equivalent assertion, but your earlier argument doesn't.

lisper 3y ago
My argument applies equally well to that: the mere fact that a religion has large numbers of adherents does not in and of itself show that it is either good or useful. But that's a harder case to make because it turns on what is meant by "good" and "useful", and those are things about which reasonable people can disagree. To be clear, "fitness as a general purpose programming language" is also something about which reasonable people can (and manifestly do) disagree. All I'm saying is that having large numbers of adherents is not a valid argument in favor of fitness any more than it is an argument in favor of goodness or usefulness. It's possible that all it shows is that a lot of people drank the kool-aid. [UPDATE] It's also possible that most of the people using C++ think that it sucks, and they are all just using it because everyone else is using it.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Your argument is "large numbers of people can be wrong, as shown by the fact that either Christians or Muslims are wrong." But metaphysics/religion is different than programming language utility. We can expect a higher degree of accurate judgment in the latter.
  - lisper 3y ago
    > metaphysics/religion is different than programming language utility. Of course it is. But religions make mutually exclusive objective claims. Metaphysics has nothing to do with it.