duck!

[Bruno Medeiros]

On 11/11/2010 15:22, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 11/11/10 6:30 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> On 17/10/2010 20:11, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2010 01:09 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2010 04:05 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a subset of duck typing. I don't think calling a function that
>>>>> supports a limited form of duck typing "duck" is a lie.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure if it was on a Go slide you would.
>>>
>>> Probably not in as strong terms, but if you want to point out that I'm
>>> biased... what can I do? I'm a simple man.
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> When I first heard you say you were biased (in the Google Talk), I
>> thought you were being facetious, or just exaggerating.
>>
>> I'm not so sure anymore, and I hope that is not the case. Because, as
>> I'm sure you must realize, being biased for D will only result in an
>> outcome of mild to severe annoyance and loss of credibility from:
>> * people biased for languages which are perceived to be competitors to D
>> (like Go).
>> * people who are (or strive to be) unbiased.
>>
>> And given who you are (one of the designers of D), this outcome will
>> apply not just to yourself, but D as well, which obviously is not a good
>> thing.
>
> I think I ascribe a milder meaning than you to "bias". It's in human
> nature to have preferences, and it's self-evident that I'm biased in
> favor of various facets of D's approach to computing. A completely
> unbiased person would have a hard time working on anything creative.
>
> Andrei
>

I don't think the bias above is just a case of preferences of one thing 
over the other. Having preferences is perfectly fine, as in "I prefer 
this approach", or even "I think this approach is more effective than 
that one".
Another thing is to describe reality in inaccurate terms ("I think 
approach A has property Z", when it doesn't), and/or to have a double 
standard when describing or analyzing something else.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer