From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article <106cf06$32d5u$1@dont-email.me>,   
   Richard Heathfield   wrote:   
   >On 29/07/2025 13:27, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >> In article <1069ltn$2ffpl$1@dont-email.me>,   
   >> Richard Heathfield   wrote:   
   >>> On 28/07/2025 16:16, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >>>> Does this mean that the language is perfect, and will prevent   
   >>>> all bugs?  No, of course not; it's not magic.  But this line of   
   >>>> reasoning that says, "well, you can still have bugs, so what's   
   >>>> the point?" inevitably ignores the relative rate of those bugs   
   >>>> between languages, which does matter.  It's the same argument   
   >>>> that says, "you can still die in a car crash, so we don't need   
   >>>> seatbelts or airbags."  Yet all available data shows that those   
   >>>> things _do_ in fact save lives.   
   >>>   
   >>> Whilst you are unlikely ever to catch me within a light year of   
   >>> Rust, I do agree with your substantive point - that amagicality   
   >>> is not a good reason to reject a programming technology.   
   >>   
   >> Agreed.   
   >>   
   >>> I must, however, take issue with your word 'all' in your last   
   >>> sentence. To invalidate it only takes one death caused by a   
   >>> seatbelt that prevents a wearer from escaping a fatal crash (eg   
   >>> burning or drowning).   
   >>   
   >> I can see why you might interpret it that way, but I'm not sure   
   >> your conclusion actually follows from my statement.  "All data   
   >> shows that those things _do_ in fact save lives" doesn't imply   
   >> that no lives are lost, even when restraint harnesses, flash   
   >> suits, and so on are used.   
   >   
   >Well, yes it does. "All data shows X" most definitely implies   
   >that "no data shows not-X".   
      
   That is true, but irrelevant: the issue here is the definition   
   of "X".  "[T]hose things _do_ in fact save lives" is not the   
   same as "all lives are saved, and none are lost due to the   
   equipment."  I never said the latter, and it is not implied by   
   the former statement.  Conflating them is a logical error, but I   
   did acknowledge that the statement can reasonably be seen as   
   sufficiently imprecise that it should be revised, and did so.   
      
   >But I've made my point, so on that note I will underline my   
   >acknowledgement that I'm being ++picky.   
      
   I fear I am, as well.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)