From: Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com   
      
   bart  writes:   
   > On 29/10/2025 22:10, Keith Thompson wrote:   
   >> bart  writes:   
   >>> On 29/10/2025 01:48, Keith Thompson wrote:   
   >>>> bart  writes:   
   >>>>> 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   
   >> [...]   
   >> Bart, is the above statement literally accurate?   
   >   
   > Literally as in all 8.x billion individuals on the planet, including   
   > infants and people in comas, would be using such languages?   
   >   
   > This is what you seem to be suggesting that I mean, and here you're   
   > both being overly pedantic. You could just agree with me you know!   
      
   I have agreed with a significant number of your statements in the recent   
   past.  I would not consider agreeing with this particular statement   
   without understanding just what you meant by it.  (That would be a   
   necessary but sufficient prerequisite for my agreement.)   
      
   > 'If X then we'd all be doing Y' is a common English idiom, suggesting   
   > X was a no-brainer.   
      
   So you were being figurative, not literal.  That's what I thought.   
   Thank you for confirming it.   
      
   >>  Do you believe that   
   >> we would ALL be using "easy dynamic languages" if speed were not an   
   >> issue, meaning that non-dynamic languages would die out completely?   
   >   
   > Yes, I believe that if dynamic languages, however they are   
   > implemented, could always deliver native code speeds, then a huge   
   > number of people, and companies, would switch because of that and   
   > other benefits.   
      
   You are conflating "a huge number of people" with "ALL".  I suppose this   
   is meant to be hyperbole.   
      
   You wrote :   
      
       If speed wasn't an issue then we'd all be using easy dynamic   
       languages   
      
   Janis replied :   
      
       Huh? - Certainly not.   
      
   Your reply to that was :   
      
       *I* would! That's why I made my scripting languages as fast and   
       capable as possible, so they could be used for more tasks.   
      
   That is not responsive to what Janis wrote.  I'm 99% sure that   
   Janis's stated opinion is that *some but not all* programmers would   
   switch to "easy dynamic langauges" if speed were not an issue.   
   Telling us that you would does not contradict what Janis wrote   
   or meant.   
      
       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.   
      
   No.  If you suggested that one or more other people would switch to   
   dynamic languages if speed were not an issue, I probably wouldn't even   
   reply, because that statement would be so obviously true that it   
   wouldn't be worth discussing.  Your ideas about what other people think   
   are so distorted that you assume we would disagree.   
      
       And yet here you are: you say 'certainly not'. Obviously *you* know   
       everyone else's mindset!   
      
   And that's just nonsense, and *completely* nonresponsive to what Janis   
   wrote.   
      
   Your position is that, if speed were not an issue, "a huge   
   number of people, and companies, would switch" to "easy dynamic   
   languages".  My position, and I believe Janis's position, is that *many*   
   people and companies would likely switch to such languages in those   
   circumstances, but probably not "a huge number".  (I'm not interested in   
   debating what "a huge number" means.  (I acknowledge the possiblity that   
   you're right and Janis and I are wrong, but we'll never know, because   
   speed will never not be an issue.  In any case, the point of this reply   
   is to establish what was actually said, not who is right or wrong.)   
      
   When Janis expressed skepticism about your claim that either "all"   
   or "a huge number" of people would switch, you reacted exactly as   
   if Janis had says that *nobody* would switch.  You were offended by   
   something that neither Janis nor anyone else wrote or suggested.   
   I don't care who started the argument, but your misinterpretation   
   of what Janis wrote is what has caused it to continue.   
      
   This kind of thing keeps happening.   
      
   Do you understand what I'm saying?   
      
   --   
   Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com   
   void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)