On 30/12/2011 10:47, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
On 12/29/2011 11:06 PM, Steve Horne wrote:
Using similar mixed definitions to conclude that every C program is full
of bugs (basically equating intentional effects with side-effects, then
equating side-effects with unintentional bugs) is a fairly common thing
in my experience, but it's a logical fallacy. If you aren't aware of the
two definitions of side-effect, it's hard to get deal with that.
Some people don't want anyone to figure out the fallacy - they like
having this convenient way to attack C, irrespective of whether it's
valid or not. Rare I think - mostly it's more confusion and memetics.
But still, I'm convinced there's some sophistry in this. And I'm not the
only person to think so, and to have reacted against that in the past.
Extra sad - you don't need that fallacy to attack C. It's redundant. C
is quite happy to demonstrate its many failings.
That's the flimsiest straw man I've ever seen.
Calling it a straw man won't convince anyone who has the scars from
being attacked by those "straw men".
I've been in those arguments, being told that C has side-effects
therefore all C programs are full of bugs, whereas Haskell can't have
similar bugs because it doesn't have side-effects.
I'm really not interested in whose-side-are-you-on arguments. Trying to
keep the two definitions separate is relevant, and that was my
motivation for saying this - it's a fact that if you mix your
definitions up enough you can "prove" anything.
I like C++. I recognise the flaws in C++, as every everyday-user of the
language must. Pretending they don't exist doesn't solve the issues -
it's for OTT advocates, not developers. I don't insist that every
virtuous-sounding term must apply to C++. I don't pretend every C++
advocate is an angel.
I like Haskell. I can't claim to be an everyday user, but I'm learning
more and using it more all the time. I'm still uncertain whether some
flaws I see are real - some that I used to see weren't - but I'll
address that over time by thinking and debating. I won't pretend every
Haskell advocate is an angel.
I've already confessed to being in the anti-Haskell role in arguments
where the points I, ahem, emphatically made were (I now recognise)
fallacious. So I won't even pretend I'm an angel.
If someone who was on the other side in one of my rants makes this same
keep-your-definitions-straight point while acting as a C advocate, is
that also a straw-man?
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
