From: david.brown@hesbynett.no   
      
   On 30/07/2025 13:30, Dan Cross wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   Without taking any sides here, it is easy to make the mistake of   
   thinking that logical rules can apply to sets of propositions in the   
   same way as they apply to propositions.  This leads to the famous Cheese   
   Sandwich Theorem:   
      
   1. Nothing is better than complete happiness.   
   2. A cheese sandwich is better than nothing.   
   3. Therefore, a cheese sandwich is better than complete happiness.   
      
   Time for lunch :-)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)