6 ms·
> Most people figure out as children that claiming the truth of something that is demonstrably false is a losing strategy. So the video had no point then? Beca
by jjnoakes 12y ago
> Most people figure out as children that claiming the truth of something that is demonstrably false is a losing strategy.
So the video had no point then? Because the video I saw was about delayed gratification, not the strategy of truths and falsehoods.
And I still await a clear idea of where I made a claim of truth and was mistaken. As I've said in the past, if you can show me that clearly, I'll capitulate. I've been patiently waiting through all of your long-winded responses for this, and have been disappointed so far.
In fact, you now have changed your characterization of my posts from "truths and claims" to "opinions", which most of them were all along (the only claim I believe I made that could be considered fact instead of opinion was the refutation of your C++ references-and-pointers equation, which you agreed I was correct on).
> A simple reading of this thread shows that I have merely been responding to specific claims of yours
I don't see that anywhere, actually.
> once you chose to make an issue of whether your C++-comparison based explanation was the only feasible one remaining
I also don't see this anywhere. What I do see is my claim that C++ is a useful comparison - but nowhere do I see myself claiming it is the "only" one, or the "only feasible" one.
Some of my quotes have been: "for the purposes of this discussion, it is very useful and illustrative to equate pass-by-reference to C++ references, and object references to C++ pointers, because the languages are similar and the concepts match up very well, and because these things are more explicit in C++" and "Seems like C++ is as good a choice as any" and "one could have defined everything without comparing to C++"...
> after I pointed out the flaws in your claims, you have neither accepted the point, nor offered any counter-argument
But you haven't actually pointed out any flaws in any of my claims.
> as if there was not already a growing pile of refutations stacking up against it
Please, point out the pile of refutations to the claim that C++ is useful in this discussion (not "only", just "useful)... especially since, refuting the notion that it is useful to someone means finding everyone who read it and getting them to admit that they found no use in it. If you do that, I'll certainly admit I was wrong.
> your sanctimonious rudeness
I see very little rudeness - the only clear cut case was in response to someone else who basically asked me what rudeness would look like and I gave an example referencing proggit. Care to quote any specific rudeness toward you? Be careful not to equate an unpleasant discussion with rudeness.
> your juvenile motivations
If you think truth is a juvenile motivation then I finally understand everything you've written.
- mannykannot 12y agoYour attempt to deny what you wrote is as revealing as it is pathetic. The record stands for itself.
- jjnoakes 12y agoI was going to write the same thing.
- mannykannot 12y agoInstead of replying in a manner I haven't heard since middle school, you could be writing a much-delayed explanation of your claim that a stack-frames-and-addresses explanation of pass-by-value would necessarily be "exponentially more complicated" than your C++-based approach.
- jjnoakes 12y agoI guess I am the middle schooler here because I'm going to point out that "you started it". I won't even dwell on the hypocrisy of you trying to call me out for my rudeness right before you post this middle school nonsense. If you don't think stack frames and addresses are far more complex a learning tool for this than references and pointers, that's your opinion. I disagree, and I think many would, but there's no factual claim here for you to refute, no matter how much you are grasping for one in this thread. Go ahead and explain it your way to folks. See if it finally sinks in for those who didn't get it from the JLS or from the article. I'd be happy to watch the attempt. I don't think it'll work. Prove me wrong.
- mannykannot 12y agoIf it were just a matter of opinion, you could have left it like that a long time ago, but instead you have presented a long series of factual claims intended to show that yours is the only reasonable opinion, and I am merely responding to them. For example, your claim of exponential complexity was not just a matter of hyperbole, you backed it up with an explanation: "...because you need to either stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, or you have to deal with explaining them all." If that is no longer your position, say so, and we can move on. Another recurring factual claim is that there is a set of people that will understand this issue only if it is presented in a very specific way. Putting aside, for the moment, the question of how well that worked out in practice, let's look at what characteristics you have ascribed to your target: 1) They didn't get it as presented in the original article; 2) They have read what the JLS says about it, but did not understand it there; 3) They could not be led, through a suitable explanation, to follow what the JLS says; 4) Any explanation based on computing basics would be beyond their grasp; 5) Despite all this, they understand (and not just think they understand) the more complex issue of argument-passing in C++. It seems unlikely there is anyone in this set. In particular, while there seem to be people in group 3, I doubt any of them have made it into group 5. As for an alternative explanation, we have, for example, eslaught's post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9249285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9249285 The first paragraph gets to the essential point with admirable directness, without using any comparison to a language that has a particularly complex array of argument-passing cases.