Notes from C++ static analysis

Peter Williams pwil3058 at bigpond.net.au
Thu Jun 27 17:44:36 PDT 2013


On 28/06/13 05:52, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Thursday, June 27, 2013 13:47:53 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 06:59:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> But if we make a design decision that favors 1% of our userbase
>>
>> I really think we all need to be more careful about these kinds
>> of statements. I often see posts on the newsgroup where someone
>> says "feature/function X is totally useless".... and it is
>> something I actually use.
>>
>> In this thread, there's I think three people who said the extra
>> arguments are a good thing (myself, Andrei, and Peter). And
>> there's what, maybe a dozen participants in the thread (I didn't
>> count, I think it is less though)?
>>
>> That's not a big enough sample to be statistically significant,
>> but what are the odds that this thread is so skewed that only 1%
>> of D's userbase feels this way, when 25% of the thread disagrees?
>
> I wasn't arguing that only 1% of the users care about this particular feature.
> What I was objecting to was that Andrei seemed to think that argumentum ad
> populum was an invalid argument,

Plato would agree with Andrei.

Peter



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list