On Saturday, 26 September 2015 at 19:28:55 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Saturday, 26 September 2015 at 12:48:49 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
What was it you were called by one compiler writer here ? The
king of shifting goal posts.
Which is a completely unreasonable claim. Argue your point and
don't go ad hominem. Referencing Deadalnix's rhetorics when he
is on the loosing end of a debate does not help your argument,
on the contrary.
An ad hominem argument is used to attack the prestige of an
intellectual adversary in debate when his prestige has no
relevance as to whether his argument is correct.
This was not an ad hominem, but an observation about the way that
you argue that makes it often ungenerative. It's very much to
the point.
You don't argue in a straightforward manner, Ola. Your words
have a superficial logic to them, but not always much
coherence or common sense,
Where did I loose you? What exactly is it that you do not
understand?
I understand exactly what you are doing, and it's a pity because
I think you are a smart guy that could contribute much if you
decided to adopt a more constructive spirit. I've learnt from
your posts on some more theoretical topics, and I enjoyed reading
them.
The proximate thing you did that I objected to was insisting that
risk aversion "is good software management period". Whilst going
on to say that "you have to measure up potential gains against
potential risks", which was exactly my point, with your emphasis
reversing it but not acknowledging that you were echoing my
words. So then that makes you seem like the voice of reason, but
you did that by responding very selectively to what I wrote.
In practice, life is risk, and sometimes you have to take
calculated risks to advance - this is true whether or not we
acknowledge it to ourselves. Some people shouldn't even think
about using D at work, but that tradeoff depends on their
particular situation, what they want to achieve, and what their
alternatives are. You speak in a blanket way, as if you're in a
position to know what's right for others.
But it's not your strange view of things that I object to, but
that you don't argue in a straightforward way, and others have
made the same observation. It's not an ad hominem to call this
out, because it relates to the way that you argue, and isn't an
attempt to use irrelevant factors to undermine your prestige.
Stick to a clean line of argument, please.
I observe this solemnly, and make no further comment!
You choose your tools before you start development. Therefore
you mitigate risk. You favour known tools with known
deficiencies over unknown tools with unknown deficiencies. It
is that simple. Whenever you do something new the risk goes up
by a high factor.
As you wish, Ola.
