2011/3/27 Kevin Wright <[email protected]> > > >> >> > >> >> Haskell doesn't have this issue, nor does Coq or Agda, all of them > being far more Nannyish than Java is ways that actually have some proven > benefit as to improving the quality of your programming > >> > > >> > > >> > I think you just beat a new record in the area of unproven, > unfalsifiable and frankly ludicrous claims. > >> > > >> > >> Which part is ludicrous? The claim that these languages are more > restrictive than Java, or the claim that stronger typing improves quality. > > > > You didn't make any of these claims in the paragraph I quoted. > > > > You did say that all these languages have "proven benefit as to improving > the quality of your programming". > > > > Calling this "ludicrous" is being nice. > > > > So: > - Checked exceptions are stronger typing (I disagree) > > - Stronger typing does not probably improve the quality of your programming > (I believe it does) > > - Yet you are in favour of checked exceptions, believing they do so improve > quality (I believe they subvert static typing, and so reduce it) > > I'm sure I've missed some nuance here, because it's fairly obvious that you > must have a coherent opinion, and there's a good chance that we actually > agree on the vast majority of points raised. When you appear to be > self-contradictory, it's almost certain that any response I give will be to > my own misunderstanding of your viewpoint, instead of to your actual > beliefs. >
And again, you are writing a wall of text that has absolutely *nothing* to do with what we were discussing. I'm requoting above the entire thing just so you can see for yourself, and here, again, are your own words, which I called ludicrous: Haskell doesn't have this issue, nor does Coq or Agda, all of them being far more Nannyish than Java is ways that actually have some proven benefit as to improving the quality of your programming Now tell me, how what you wrote above related in any way to this? It doesn't. It sounds like some knee jerk reaction to something completely unrelated. I know you have a hard time keeping your mind focused on a single thing, so I made a point of quoting only three lines of your original email, so that it would be obvious to you what I was responding to. You still missed it by a mile once, and then missed it by another mile a second time with this email. I think it's just impossible to have a rational discussion with you, at least not until you learn how to read what you're responding to and then learn how to stay focused on a topic. -- Cédric -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
