Is there some kind of Blub paradox trolling contest going on this week? If so, I would like to nominate Lawrence Kesteloot. Lawrence's post stood out above a crowded field for several reasons:
- Thinking that languages make code "production" or "toy". The noun he was looking for is developers.
- Believing that expressiveness hurts readability.
- Providing an example against something (Lisp) without an example for anything. This is an example of the Creationist Fallacy: Raise an objection to something (e.g. evolution) without providing any positive evidence for anything else, then declare victory.
- Criticizing Paul Graham while documenting his own Blub level for all to see. Priceless.
Comments
Ironically, the same can be said of the Evolutionist fallacy. Raise an objection to something (e.g. creationism) without providing evidence for anything else, then declare victory.
Joshua: Let me clarify. The word “troll” in the title of the post was not intended as a summons.
:) – All in good fun.
I nominate Relevance. Nominating others and not understanding such fundamentals as Olas layers, priceless.
Peace -stephan
“Providing an example against something (Lisp) without an example for anything. This is an example of the Creationist Fallacy: Raise an objection to something (e.g. evolution) without providing any positive evidence for anything else, then declare victory.”
I’m not sure that you know how science works. Radically different views on how science works can be found here (Popper, Kuhn, Latour)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_In_Action
Stephan: I am not sure you know how logic works. Given two arbitrary hypotheses X & Y, not X does not imply Y. And yes, I am familiar with the works of Popper, Kuhn, and Latour. Which one of them rejects basic logic, in your opinion?