From: david.brown@hesbynett.no
On 29/10/2025 00:14, bart wrote:
> On 28/10/2025 21:59, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> bart writes:
>>> On 28/10/2025 02:35, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>> On 27.10.2025 16:11, bart wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>> If speed wasn't an issue then we'd all be using easy dynamic languages
>>>> Huh? - Certainly not.
>>>
>>> *I* would! That's why I made my scripting languages as fast and
>>> capable as possible, so they could be used for more tasks.
>>>
>>> However, if I dare to suggest that even one other person in the world
>>> might also have the same desire, you'd say that I can't possibly know
>>> that.
>>>
>>> And yet here you are: you say 'certainly not'. Obviously *you* know
>>> everyone else's mindset!
>>
>> I'll give this one more try.
>>
>> This kind of thing makes it difficult to communicate with you.
>
> You're talking to the wrong guy. It's JP who's difficult to talk to.
>
> He (I assume) always dismisses every single one of my arguments out of
> hand:
>
> Build speed is never a problem - ever. The speed of any language
> implemention is never a concern either.
>
Bart, I think this all comes down to some basic logic that you get wrong
regularly :
The opposite of "X is always true" is /not/ "X is always false" or that
"(not X) is always true". It is that "X is /sometimes/ false", or that
"(not X) is /sometimes/ true".
You get this wrong repeatedly when you and I are in disagreement, and I
see it again and again with other people - such as with both Janis and
Keith.
No one, in any of the posts I have read in c.l.c. in countless years,
has ever claimed that "build speed is /never/ a problem". People have
regularly said that it /often/ is not a problem, or it is not a problem
in their own work, or that slow compile times can often be dealt with in
various ways so that it is not a problem. People don't disagree that
build speed can be an issue - they disagree with your claims that it is
/always/ an issue (except when using /your/ tools, or perhaps tcc).
When Janis disagrees with you, he is not trashing /everything/ you say,
he is disagreeing with /some/ of what you say.
No one disagrees that /some/ people would change to using dynamic
scripting languages if they had no runtime speed penalty compared to
compiled languages - but probably everyone would disagree with a claim
that /all/ programmers would change. And no one here thinks that either
you or anyone has a reasonable basis for judging how many that "some"
would be.
So please, stop making this kind of mistake. I am confident that you
understand the logic here. But you regularly write as though you do
not, setting up nonsensical straw man arguments as a result. And then
you make claims about what other people think or said based on this.
Yes, it is very much /you/ who is difficult to communicate with.
And you should not be surprised if Keith agrees with you sometimes -
like I do, like Janis does, and like most people here do, he judges your
points as best he can and agrees with some and disagrees with others.
These discussions are not black-or-white, all-or-nothing affairs. If
you like to hear positive feedback and agreement on your comments (and
who doesn't like that?), you need to pay attention to what people write
and notice when people agree with you rather than focusing only on when
they disagree. Cut the paranoia, drop the straw men and exaggerations,
argue you case logically, listen to the replies and feedback you get,
and the whole discussion will be a lot more enjoyable and productive.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
