Moving back to .NET

[Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 26 September 2015 at 19:28:55 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
> On Saturday, 26 September 2015 at 12:48:49 UTC, Laeeth Isharc 
> wrote:
>> What was it you were called by one compiler writer here ?  The 
>> king of shifting goal posts.
>
> Which is a completely unreasonable claim. Argue your point and 
> don't go ad hominem.  Referencing Deadalnix's rhetorics when he 
> is on the loosing end of a debate does not help your argument, 
> on the contrary.

An ad hominem argument is used to attack the prestige of an 
intellectual adversary in debate when his prestige has no 
relevance as to whether his argument is correct.

This was not an ad hominem, but an observation about the way that 
you argue that makes it often ungenerative.  It's very much to 
the point.

>> You don't argue in a straightforward manner, Ola.  Your words 
>> have a superficial logic to them, but not always much 
>> coherence or common sense,
>
> Where did I loose you? What exactly is it that you do not 
> understand?

I understand exactly what you are doing, and it's a pity because 
I think you are a smart guy that could contribute much if you 
decided to adopt a more constructive spirit.  I've learnt from 
your posts on some more theoretical topics, and I enjoyed reading 
them.

The proximate thing you did that I objected to was insisting that 
risk aversion "is good software management period".  Whilst going 
on to say that "you have to measure up potential gains against 
potential risks", which was exactly my point, with your emphasis 
reversing it but not acknowledging that you were echoing my 
words.  So then that makes you seem like the voice of reason, but 
you did that by responding very selectively to what I wrote.

In practice, life is risk, and sometimes you have to take 
calculated risks to advance - this is true whether or not we 
acknowledge it to ourselves.  Some people shouldn't even think 
about using D at work, but that tradeoff depends on their 
particular situation, what they want to achieve, and what their 
alternatives are.  You speak in a blanket way, as if you're in a 
position to know what's right for others.

But it's not your strange view of things that I object to, but 
that you don't argue in a straightforward way, and others have 
made the same observation.  It's not an ad hominem to call this 
out, because it relates to the way that you argue, and isn't an 
attempt to use irrelevant factors to undermine your prestige.


> Stick to a clean line of argument, please.

I observe this solemnly, and make no further comment!

> You choose your tools before you start development. Therefore 
> you mitigate risk. You favour known tools with known 
> deficiencies over unknown tools with unknown deficiencies. It 
> is that simple. Whenever you do something new the risk goes up 
> by a high factor.

As you wish, Ola.