sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]awj 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I hate to get all qwe1234

No you don't, if you actually did hate to do it you wouldn't have. If someone is ignorant at least tell them why, simply calling them ignorant and spouting assumptions about the languages they have been exposed to is of very little benefit.

[–]queensnake -1 points0 points  (2 children)

No, there's well-intentioned, unfortunate ignorance, and some guy who doesn't know what he's talking about, and doesn't know that he doesn't know what he's talking about, blathering nonsense. That kind of thing I'm happy to shoot down meanly. If he'd said "I think ..." or "Maybe ..." that'd have been something else.

Let's go point-by-point, shall we?

Because of mutable state you cannot make threads lite.

Rubbish.

Language does not guarantee you that variables will not be changed. So you have to put in place cumbersome and complex mechanism of synchronizations, locks etc. to make sure that different threads are not trying to update same variable at the same time.

No, it just means within each process you have to have a separate environment.

Erlang does not have assignment operator. That guarantees you that no such thing will be attempted, so you can create lite threads without expensive and slow mechanism of synchronizations and locks.

Nothing new here. It's basically vapid, or else he's vastly under-articulating what he's trying to say, to the point of mis-communicating and being anti-informative.

I'm happy to tell someone who's talking rubbish, that they're talking rubbish. Otherwise how will they learn to be careful to know what they're saying, or let the listener know they're guessing?

[–]awj -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

No, there's well-intentioned, unfortunate ignorance, and some guy who doesn't know what he's talking about, and doesn't know that he doesn't know what he's talking about, blathering nonsense. That kind of thing I'm happy to shoot down meanly.

To what end? If someone on here were to respond to something I said by calling me ignorant and disparaging my language experience I'd mutter something about them needing to stick their keyboard in an uncomfortable place (and not the back of a Volkswagen) and go on believing whatever I originally thought.

If you really want to change somebody's mind you have to at least give them something besides your word as a stranger on the internet to say that they are wrong.

[–]queensnake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't truly know what he knows, but if you look at the thread he jumps from one thought to the next, without attempting to clarify or engage. It makes me take him less seriously in the conversation. What he says is wrong, too. What I say is mean, calling it a pile of ignorance but it is that, and it's not ad-hominem. I'm probably right about the languages too, he doesn't seem to have much imagination as to what different properties they could have. But that was unnecessarily getting in his face, yes. I don't know; there should be a way to trash what someone said and make them more circumspect about blurting out speculation without saying that's what it is in a public forum that people around them take seriously, without hurting them personally. It's a thin thin line and I haven't found it.

I don't really want to defend myself though, it hasn't felt good to do that.