From: Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com

bart  writes:
> On 29/10/2025 22:10, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> bart  writes:
>>> On 29/10/2025 01:48, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> bart  writes:
>>>>> On 28/10/2025 21:59, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> bart  writes:
>>>>>>> On 28/10/2025 02:35, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 27.10.2025 16:11, bart wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> If speed wasn't an issue then we'd all be using easy dynamic
languages
>> [...]
>> Bart, is the above statement literally accurate?
>
> Literally as in all 8.x billion individuals on the planet, including
> infants and people in comas, would be using such languages?
>
> This is what you seem to be suggesting that I mean, and here you're
> both being overly pedantic. You could just agree with me you know!

I have agreed with a significant number of your statements in the recent
past.  I would not consider agreeing with this particular statement
without understanding just what you meant by it.  (That would be a
necessary but sufficient prerequisite for my agreement.)

> 'If X then we'd all be doing Y' is a common English idiom, suggesting
> X was a no-brainer.

So you were being figurative, not literal.  That's what I thought.
Thank you for confirming it.

>>  Do you believe that
>> we would ALL be using "easy dynamic languages" if speed were not an
>> issue, meaning that non-dynamic languages would die out completely?
>
> Yes, I believe that if dynamic languages, however they are
> implemented, could always deliver native code speeds, then a huge
> number of people, and companies, would switch because of that and
> other benefits.

You are conflating "a huge number of people" with "ALL".  I suppose this
is meant to be hyperbole.

You wrote :

    If speed wasn't an issue then we'd all be using easy dynamic
    languages

Janis replied :

    Huh? - Certainly not.

Your reply to that was :

    *I* would! That's why I made my scripting languages as fast and
    capable as possible, so they could be used for more tasks.

That is not responsive to what Janis wrote.  I'm 99% sure that
Janis's stated opinion is that *some but not all* programmers would
switch to "easy dynamic langauges" if speed were not an issue.
Telling us that you would does not contradict what Janis wrote
or meant.

    However, if I dare to suggest that even one other person in the
    world might also have the same desire, you'd say that I can't
    possibly know that.

No.  If you suggested that one or more other people would switch to
dynamic languages if speed were not an issue, I probably wouldn't even
reply, because that statement would be so obviously true that it
wouldn't be worth discussing.  Your ideas about what other people think
are so distorted that you assume we would disagree.

    And yet here you are: you say 'certainly not'. Obviously *you* know
    everyone else's mindset!

And that's just nonsense, and *completely* nonresponsive to what Janis
wrote.

Your position is that, if speed were not an issue, "a huge
number of people, and companies, would switch" to "easy dynamic
languages".  My position, and I believe Janis's position, is that *many*
people and companies would likely switch to such languages in those
circumstances, but probably not "a huge number".  (I'm not interested in
debating what "a huge number" means.  (I acknowledge the possiblity that
you're right and Janis and I are wrong, but we'll never know, because
speed will never not be an issue.  In any case, the point of this reply
is to establish what was actually said, not who is right or wrong.)

When Janis expressed skepticism about your claim that either "all"
or "a huge number" of people would switch, you reacted exactly as
if Janis had says that *nobody* would switch.  You were offended by
something that neither Janis nor anyone else wrote or suggested.
I don't care who started the argument, but your misinterpretation
of what Janis wrote is what has caused it to continue.

This kind of thing keeps happening.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)