[erlang-questions] builtin regexp functions in Erlang/OTP R12B-3
Tue Jun 17 23:39:46 CEST 2008
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:51 AM, Mats Cronqvist <mats.cronqvist@REDACTED>
> John Haugeland wrote:
>> > after all, erlang is about reliability. and it seems not being
>> > POSIX-compliant has worked for 20 years.
>> By that logic, nothing in Erlang should ever change again. You might want
>> to look up "argumentum ad antiquitatem".
> By that logic, nothing in Erlang should ever change again just to become
> POSIX compliant. You might want to look up "Straw man."
Sorry, no: I actually made no commentary about what erlang should or should
not be doing. It's cute and all for you to repeat what someone else said,
then google a fallacy list real quick-like and look for something that
appears to apply, but a straw man is actually a misrepresentation of someone
else's opinion, and since I made no representation of your opinion, it kind
of cannot apply.
If you don't understand the connection between "we shouldn't change it
because it's been working for 20 years" and ad antiquitatem, well ...
whatever, man. I don't think anyone has actually made the claim that things
should change for the purpose of becoming POSIX compliant; I sure as hell
haven't. What other people did was to say that POSIX was desirable because
of linear time matching, or because of their beliefs about bloat. Nobody
has ever said anything about POSIX compliance for the sake of POSIX
Funny how people who claim straw man in others so often are in the process
themselves. I'd recommend an introductory logic or philosophy class, so
that you don't have to wipe so much egg off your face the next time you
attempt to engage others in Tu Quoque.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions