7 ms·

> what do you think is wrong with eslaught's explanation? Who said anything was wrong with it? All I ever said about it was this: https://news.ycombinator.com

> what do you think is wrong with eslaught's explanation? Who said anything was wrong with it? All I ever said about it was this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9393447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9393447 Which says nothing about it being wrong. In fact, to back up my opinion that his post is slightly more complex, and perhaps harder to understand, here's a thread where I in fact use an even simpler explanation than eslaught's, and the person I was explaining this to still didn't get it. Even they brought up C++ to try to clarify their position, and it turns out that by doing so they actually ended up proving themselves wrong. So in at least one concrete case, using C++ was actually better (more precise with fewer words and examples). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9248590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9248590 But I really did mean that I was entertained by watching you make stuff up and repeatedly fail at whatever your goal is, so by all means, don't stop now :)

mannykannot 11y ago
It is said that for a goldfish, each turn around its bowl is a new experience, because it remembers nothing of its previous circuits. You appear to be in the same situation, unaware that each claim you make is contradicted by something you wrote earlier. Take, for example, "all I ever said about it was this". What you actually did was first make the claim you are now repeating, and then, when I pointed out that doing so completely contradicted your original position, you changed your mind and decided that Eslaught's explanation was irrelevant (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9433742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9433742). Now that I have asked on what grounds you consider it to be irrelevant, you have circled back around to your original position, creating a lose-lose situation in which you have contradicted yourself regardless of what your actual opinion is. You have reached the point of creating epicycles of contradictions within contradictions, as all this is going on within your larger contradiction of first claiming inordinate complexity of any alternative to your approach and then trying to rewrite that as being merely a claim that there is necessarily some slight increment in complexity in avoiding C++. Let's look again at what you actually wrote: "Sure you could do it that way. But it becomes exponentially more complicated because you need to either stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, or you have to deal with explaining them all." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9266387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9266387 That is not a claim of just slightly more complexity, and the phrase following 'because' is an attempt to offer some sort of explanation for this claim. It is obvious to anyone that you have changed your mind on this, and you have never attempted to offer any justification for the 'because' phrase, but so long as you insist that you have not changed your mind, it is not unreasonable for me to point out that you are still wrong even after one more turn around the bowl. Furthermore, in attempting to present an example, you are having a problem with logical quantifiers. Putting aside the absurdity of claiming to believe that this sorry dialog is simpler and more straightforward than Eslaught' straight-to-the-point paragraph (the first one in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9249285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9249285), one example cannot establish the general claim you originally stated, and your attempt to do so is simply an error in logic. I see that my goldfish analogy is not quite complete - your revolutions are getting faster and tighter. This is not so much the trajectory of a goldfish in a bowl as one being flushed down the toilet.
- jjnoakes 11y ago
  Two goldfish swim around a bowl. One follows the other, preaching about how sad it is to swim in circles all day... > I pointed out that doing so completely contradicted your original position And I pointed out to you that I haven't contradicted myself. Since you seem to have lost the thread, I'll help you out. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9486220 Do you think you can find your way? Or should I link to the rest of it? > It is obvious to anyone that you have changed your mind on this I haven't changed my mind at all. Where did I say I have? Can you link to it for me please? > I have asked on what grounds you consider it to be irrelevant You didn't ask that. You asked "what do you think is wrong with eslaught's explanation?" I'll link you there too... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9549017 > in which you have contradicted yourself regardless of what your actual opinion is You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Looks like I was right about my prediction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9486220 Please come up with something new to entertain me. Don't get me wrong... this "contradiction" and "your opinion is wrong" quest was fun, but if it's all you've got, let me know - I'm only interested in wasting my time on such a vapid conversation if I continue to get a kick out of it. To do that, though, I need some new crazy from you. Old crazy doesn't cut it any more. And try not to take so long to do it. I do so look forward to reading your ridiculous replies; you took so long on this past one that I thought you might have finally gotten some sense somewhere. I'm glad I was wrong :)
  - mannykannot 11y ago
    It seems that every time I say something, you feel the need to parrot it back, except that you often get it wrong in a way that shows you just don't get it. For example, after I described a couple of your bogus arguments as rhetorical tricks, you decided to call some of my words rhetoric, when they were simply ridicule. Now that I have found occasion to make a goldfish analogy, for some reason you seem compelled to also mention goldfish, but you do so in a way that quite obviously applies slightly (or exponentially, as you would put it) more to you than me. This form of discourse, in which one party simply repeats back the claims of the other, as if they were applicable without having anything to support the reversal of attribution, might be called the "no, you are" style, on account of this being a phrase that is commonly used by its main adopters. As it happens, there is a video on that subject, and as you have repeatedly said how much amusement you get out of these exchanges, we can expect this will probably have you rolling on the floor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRx8PFdurgo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRx8PFdurgo With regard to more substantive matters, I think you should know that if you post a link to a claim that was made without any supporting evidence or justification, it does not magically gain those things in consequence. On the other hand, links that did have those things originally retain them, so we can see that your earlier statement "Sure you could do it that way. But it becomes exponentially more complicated because you need to either stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, or you have to deal with explaining them all." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9266387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9266387) stands in contradiction to your later attempted rewrite "The only claim I made was that your specific explanation (which you never actually wrote), which you said would include stack frames, machine addresses, and the like, would be much more complex than referring to C++, in my opinion." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9433742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9433742) Just to be clear, you didn't try limiting it to a statement by me until after you had made the first statement and I pointed out its problems (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269186 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269186), and not even then, immediately. Only after I showed that you couldn't explain it away as 'conversation' did you try to rewrite it as in the second quote above. more significantly, you have refused to offer any justification for the phrase "because you need to either stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, or you have to deal with explaining them all", which Eslaught demonstrated to be false, while you are apparently still claiming never to have been wrong. I repeat my statement that I will present an explanation once you show the courage of your convictions by saying what, in your opinion, is wrong with Eslaught's straight-to-the-point explanation: "Except you still have no way to modify the variable binding on the caller's stack. This is what all of us in the "Java is call-by-value" camp keep yammering on about: changing a value on the heap (an array or object in Java) is not the same as changing a variable on the stack (a local variable in Java). In Java, you can never touch local variables on parent functions' stacks, therefore, Java cannot be considered pass-by-reference." You are trying to wriggle out of dealing with this one by making a distinction between "wrong" and "invalid", an act of desperation which underscores that you have run out of ideas. If Eslaught's statement is invalid, then it is wrong as a refutation of your original statement, but you have no argument for that however you choose to put it. Of course, it is utterly self-serving for someone who tried to dismiss one of his bigger mistakes as 'conversation' to be pedantic over usage now. One of the more revealing things in your responses are the points you try to ignore. In my previous post I showed that you had made a fundamental error in logic, which you have ignored, so we can add it to the list of mistakes you haven't made. That said, even though your logical error means that the example you gave there is not relevant in the way you claimed, it is worth looking at. As you yourself point out, Solipsism introduces C++ into the discussion and messes it up. That's the best example you can offer of how C++ simplifies the explanation? Really? It's obvious to anyone just how self-serving your arguments are. Given your copycat tendencies, can we anticipate a video in your next reply? And will it be self-referential? The one thing we can be sure of is that there will be another reply.

mannykannot 11y ago

It is said that for a goldfish, each turn around its bowl is a new experience, because it remembers nothing of its previous circuits. You appear to be in the same situation, unaware that each claim you make is contradicted by something you wrote earlier. Take, for example, "all I ever said about it was this". What you actually did was first make the claim you are now repeating, and then, when I pointed out that doing so completely contradicted your original position, you changed your mind and decided that Eslaught's explanation was irrelevant (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9433742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9433742). Now that I have asked on what grounds you consider it to be irrelevant, you have circled back around to your original position, creating a lose-lose situation in which you have contradicted yourself regardless of what your actual opinion is. You have reached the point of creating epicycles of contradictions within contradictions, as all this is going on within your larger contradiction of first claiming inordinate complexity of any alternative to your approach and then trying to rewrite that as being merely a claim that there is necessarily some slight increment in complexity in avoiding C++. Let's look again at what you actually wrote: "Sure you could do it that way. But it becomes exponentially more complicated because you need to either stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, or you have to deal with explaining them all." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9266387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9266387 That is not a claim of just slightly more complexity, and the phrase following 'because' is an attempt to offer some sort of explanation for this claim. It is obvious to anyone that you have changed your mind on this, and you have never attempted to offer any justification for the 'because' phrase, but so long as you insist that you have not changed your mind, it is not unreasonable for me to point out that you are still wrong even after one more turn around the bowl. Furthermore, in attempting to present an example, you are having a problem with logical quantifiers. Putting aside the absurdity of claiming to believe that this sorry dialog is simpler and more straightforward than Eslaught' straight-to-the-point paragraph (the first one in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9249285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9249285), one example cannot establish the general claim you originally stated, and your attempt to do so is simply an error in logic. I see that my goldfish analogy is not quite complete - your revolutions are getting faster and tighter. This is not so much the trajectory of a goldfish in a bowl as one being flushed down the toilet.

jjnoakes 11y ago
Two goldfish swim around a bowl. One follows the other, preaching about how sad it is to swim in circles all day... > I pointed out that doing so completely contradicted your original position And I pointed out to you that I haven't contradicted myself. Since you seem to have lost the thread, I'll help you out. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9486220 Do you think you can find your way? Or should I link to the rest of it? > It is obvious to anyone that you have changed your mind on this I haven't changed my mind at all. Where did I say I have? Can you link to it for me please? > I have asked on what grounds you consider it to be irrelevant You didn't ask that. You asked "what do you think is wrong with eslaught's explanation?" I'll link you there too... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9549017 > in which you have contradicted yourself regardless of what your actual opinion is You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Looks like I was right about my prediction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9486220 Please come up with something new to entertain me. Don't get me wrong... this "contradiction" and "your opinion is wrong" quest was fun, but if it's all you've got, let me know - I'm only interested in wasting my time on such a vapid conversation if I continue to get a kick out of it. To do that, though, I need some new crazy from you. Old crazy doesn't cut it any more. And try not to take so long to do it. I do so look forward to reading your ridiculous replies; you took so long on this past one that I thought you might have finally gotten some sense somewhere. I'm glad I was wrong :)
- mannykannot 11y ago
  It seems that every time I say something, you feel the need to parrot it back, except that you often get it wrong in a way that shows you just don't get it. For example, after I described a couple of your bogus arguments as rhetorical tricks, you decided to call some of my words rhetoric, when they were simply ridicule. Now that I have found occasion to make a goldfish analogy, for some reason you seem compelled to also mention goldfish, but you do so in a way that quite obviously applies slightly (or exponentially, as you would put it) more to you than me. This form of discourse, in which one party simply repeats back the claims of the other, as if they were applicable without having anything to support the reversal of attribution, might be called the "no, you are" style, on account of this being a phrase that is commonly used by its main adopters. As it happens, there is a video on that subject, and as you have repeatedly said how much amusement you get out of these exchanges, we can expect this will probably have you rolling on the floor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRx8PFdurgo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRx8PFdurgo With regard to more substantive matters, I think you should know that if you post a link to a claim that was made without any supporting evidence or justification, it does not magically gain those things in consequence. On the other hand, links that did have those things originally retain them, so we can see that your earlier statement "Sure you could do it that way. But it becomes exponentially more complicated because you need to either stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, or you have to deal with explaining them all." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9266387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9266387) stands in contradiction to your later attempted rewrite "The only claim I made was that your specific explanation (which you never actually wrote), which you said would include stack frames, machine addresses, and the like, would be much more complex than referring to C++, in my opinion." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9433742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9433742) Just to be clear, you didn't try limiting it to a statement by me until after you had made the first statement and I pointed out its problems (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269186 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269186), and not even then, immediately. Only after I showed that you couldn't explain it away as 'conversation' did you try to rewrite it as in the second quote above. more significantly, you have refused to offer any justification for the phrase "because you need to either stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, or you have to deal with explaining them all", which Eslaught demonstrated to be false, while you are apparently still claiming never to have been wrong. I repeat my statement that I will present an explanation once you show the courage of your convictions by saying what, in your opinion, is wrong with Eslaught's straight-to-the-point explanation: "Except you still have no way to modify the variable binding on the caller's stack. This is what all of us in the "Java is call-by-value" camp keep yammering on about: changing a value on the heap (an array or object in Java) is not the same as changing a variable on the stack (a local variable in Java). In Java, you can never touch local variables on parent functions' stacks, therefore, Java cannot be considered pass-by-reference." You are trying to wriggle out of dealing with this one by making a distinction between "wrong" and "invalid", an act of desperation which underscores that you have run out of ideas. If Eslaught's statement is invalid, then it is wrong as a refutation of your original statement, but you have no argument for that however you choose to put it. Of course, it is utterly self-serving for someone who tried to dismiss one of his bigger mistakes as 'conversation' to be pedantic over usage now. One of the more revealing things in your responses are the points you try to ignore. In my previous post I showed that you had made a fundamental error in logic, which you have ignored, so we can add it to the list of mistakes you haven't made. That said, even though your logical error means that the example you gave there is not relevant in the way you claimed, it is worth looking at. As you yourself point out, Solipsism introduces C++ into the discussion and messes it up. That's the best example you can offer of how C++ simplifies the explanation? Really? It's obvious to anyone just how self-serving your arguments are. Given your copycat tendencies, can we anticipate a video in your next reply? And will it be self-referential? The one thing we can be sure of is that there will be another reply.