On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 00:18:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/1/2014 4:03 PM, David Bregman wrote:
Unfortunately these "detailed rationales" consisted mostly of
attacking straw
men, and some other unsound arguments :(
Of course, we always believe the other side's arguments are of
that nature when we find them unconvincing.
Actually I find most unconvincing arguments originate from
different axioms/values or different subjective evaluations of
tradeoffs, rather than unsound logic. Inability to reach
agreement on purely logical argument such as
equivalence/non-equivalence of two concepts is pretty rare in
this kind of setting (tech discussion between people trained in
logic). Frankly I'm kinda shocked that this hasn't been resolved
yet after so much back and forth.
To quote my favorite Hamilton Burger line: "irrelevant,
immaterial, and incompetent!" is a fair thing to say. But
saying "Your honor, he did not present a case" is not fair.
My last reply to you is still unanswered if you want to give
it another try.
I didn't because a reply would just be another cut-and-paste of
what I've already posted. I don't have anything new to say.
OK, I think I have an idea how to be more convincing (I wish I'd
thought of this earlier):
is this
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cassert/assert/
the same as this?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1b3fsfxw.aspx
can you see the difference now?
