Not deltasevennine, but giving the CPU fewer things to do sounds good to me (in any context), even if it is currently unpopular. Some cults are popular and some aren't.
>I do not see where he did that. He argued simply that context matters. (And yes a "bad" tool can be the right tool, if it is the only tool avaiable.)
Well I see it. If you don't see it, I urge you to reread what he said.
A bad tool can be the right tool but some tools are so bad that it is never the right tool.
>And diving deeper into philosophy here, can you name one example?
Running is better then walking for short distances when optimizing for shorter time. In this case walking is definitively "bad." No argument by anyone.
Please don't take this into a pedantic segway with your counter here.
"Running is better then walking for short distances when optimizing for shorter time"
Yeah, but then the context is optimizing for shorter time. You said context does not matter. But it always does. And depending on the greater context, there would be plenty of examples where running is not adequate, even when optimizing for short time, because maybe you don't want to raise attention, you don't want to be sweaty when you reach the goal, or then your knee would hurt again, etc.
Is this pedantic, well yes, but if you make absolutistic statements then this is what you get.
But again, no one here ever said, it is all the same. It was said that it is always about context, to which I agree.
When you only have a low quality tool avaiable, or your people only trained in that low quality tool(and no time to retrain), than this is still the right tool for the job.
I made an absolutist statement which is definitely true. You failed to prove it wrong. Instead you had to do the pathetic move of redefining the statement in order to get anywhere. You weren't pedantic, you changed the entire subject with your redefinition.
As for context I am saying I can make absolute statement about things and this statement is true for all contexts.
My point for this entire thread is that I can say OOP is horrible for all contexts and this statement cannot be proven wrong. Neither can the statement OOP is good for all contexts or OOP is good for some contexts. All of these statements are biased.
If you were to be pedantic here you would be digging into what context means. You might say if the context was that everyone was trained on OOP and not fp then oop is the superior choice. To which I respond by context I mean contexts for practical consideration. If you can't figure out what set of contexts lives in that set for "practical consideration" then you are just too pedantic of a person for me to have a reasonable conversation with.
There are shit paradigms out there, shit design patterns and shit programming languages. But without proof this is an endless argument. You can't prove your side either, you're just going to throw me one off examples to which I can do the same. No point. I'm sorry but let's end it here, I don't want to descend further into that rabbit hole of endless qualitative arguments.
If you feel the need to for personal attacks over a philosophical debate, where you consistently insist of understanding the other side wrong, then you might want to check your tools of communication. They are clearly not working optimal but granted, they might be the best, you have avaiable - but you still could improve them.
"Nothing is true, nothing is false."
No one ever claimed that in this debate, except you.
>If you feel the need to for personal attacks over a philosophical debate, where you consistently insist of understanding the other side wrong,
No personal attack was conducted here. It's just you're sensitive. I mean I could take this: "where you consistently insist of understanding the other side wrong" as an insult.
I could also take this: "Well, if you think so, then consider yourself the tautological winner. " as a sarcastic insult as well.
But i don't. Because I'm not sensitive. Nobody was insulted here. You need to relax. Calling you a loser was just me turning your sarcastic "tautological winner" statement around and showing you how YOU are at the other side of the extreme. I'm not saying you're a "loser" anymore then you were sarcastically calling me a "winner."
Put it this way, the "loser" comment is an insult IF and ONLY if you're "winner" comment was an insult too. If it wasn't we should be good.
>No one ever claimed that in this debate, except you.
You never directly claimed this, but it's the logical consequence of your statements. You literally said my statement was flawed because it was "absolute". You're like "this is what you get when you make absolute claims." And my first thought was, "what on earth is wrong with an absolute claim?" We do not live in a universe where absolute claims are invalid because if we did then "Nothing is true and nothing is false" and everybody loses.
If this isn't the case then go ahead and clarify your points.
I do not see where he did that. He argued simply that context matters. (And yes a "bad" tool can be the right tool, if it is the only tool avaiable.)
"My point is: something can be truly bad and something can be truly good EVEN when considering all possible contexts."
And diving deeper into philosophy here, can you name one example?