From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b41c6348841d8091 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b41c6348841d8091 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" Subject: Re: subjectivity Date: 1997/09/10 Message-ID: <3416B973.10C0@pseserv3.fw.hac.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271324647 Sender: usenet@most.fw.hac.com (News Administration) References: <341026A7.37BE@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: sparc01 Organization: Hughes Defense Communications Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: > If you're familiar with a language tool, it will tend to be easier to > use but that doesn't necessarily mean it's simple. Right. And if you think a feature of your favorite language is simple, you are either correct by your definition of simplicity or you are a closed-minded language bigot. No offense should be taken unless you _want_ to consider yourself the latter. :-) > My experience of discovering Eiffel demonstrates these effects. > It was immediately clear to me that Eiffel was simpler than Ada in > spite of my familiarity with Ada. It was immediately clear to you that Eiffel met your idea of simplicity. (Or it could be "I like Eiffel, Simplicity is good, therefore Eiffel is simple.) There are things in the Ada RM that I (and most Ada folks) do not consider simple, but which are the reason why certain things in Ada programs _are_ considered simple. So even when we agree on what is simple, it's still subjective. Since "definitions" are getting into the argument, shall we go to a meta-argument? Define "objective" and "subjective" When Frieda says, "X is simple" and Dana says, "No, X is complex." then I think they have not agreed on an objective measure of simplicity. Don thinks that one of them is correct, and the other is either lying, or is handicapped in the God-given ability to recognize simplicity. Supposing Don is right--it's still subjective which of them is correct. The only ways to end the argument between Dana and Frieda are for one of them to give in, or for both of them to agree on a measure of simplicity and apply it. For one of them to insist that the ability to recognize simplicity is innate will at best move the argument to the level of whether that is true. Then if they agree that is true, they can still argue which of them has that ability and which is handicapped. I think I have a God-given ability to recognize that this is not raising the argument to a higher level--it is lowering the argument several levels closer to idiocy. > The signal is trying to get through to the brain, but other things > such as familiarity and pre-conceived ideas are intent on derailing > it. If we identified and filtered out those interfering factors, we > would have the same perception of simplicity, IMO. Yes, if we identify the factors in my definition of simplicity that you disagree with, and I give them up, then we will have the same perception of simplicity. > Considering that is unlikely to happen, it's useful to circumvent that > interference by examining the factors that give rise to the notion of > simplicity. These factors, at least, are objective .... These factors are not objective until we name them, agree on what they mean, and agree on how to measure them. Now, IF we could come to such agreement (instead of continuing to argue about whether simplicity is objective), I suspect we would be forced to also agree that in certain areas, Eiffel is simpler, and in other areas, Ada is simpler. It would probably still be subjective how it plays out overall. So again, I suggest again: State why you believe a particular feature is an advantage or disadvantage. Provide, if available, measurements of results as evidence. Then if someone else disagrees (or doesn't think the thing you measured is important) either say to yourself he's an idiot and keep quiet, or continue discussing the _issue_. Whether you intended it or not, saying that something he disagrees about is obvious is the same as saying he is either blind or a liar. If he were either, what point is there in arguing? This subjectivity thing (including THIS post) is a waste of time. Let's cut it out. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing! ----------------------------------------------------------------------