> without any mathematical theory to quantify "better" there's no way we can really ever know. Rotten apples and rotten oranges ALSO exist in a world full of apples and oranges.
So you believe that the only way things can be compared is on quantitative measurements? Not with how they impress their users within whatever context they're in?
> I mean your evidence is just a bunch of qualitative factoids. An opponent to your opinion will come at you with another list of qualitative factoids. You mix all the factoids together and you have a bigger list of factoids with no definitive conclusion.
This is the process in which we gain knowledge in an uncertain world. I guess you could take the nihilistic stance and ignore it, but what's the use of arguing with nihilists?
>So you believe that the only way things can be compared is on quantitative measurements? Not with how they impress their users within whatever context they're in?
No but I believe that quantitative measurements are the ONLY way to definitively verify certain things.
>This is the process in which we gain knowledge in an uncertain world. I guess you could take the nihilistic stance and ignore it, but what's the use of arguing with nihilists?
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying especially for programming, nobody knows anything. Which is actually better OOP or FP? Nobody knows. This isn't philosophy, there is no definitive proof for which is better.
So you believe that the only way things can be compared is on quantitative measurements? Not with how they impress their users within whatever context they're in?
> I mean your evidence is just a bunch of qualitative factoids. An opponent to your opinion will come at you with another list of qualitative factoids. You mix all the factoids together and you have a bigger list of factoids with no definitive conclusion.
This is the process in which we gain knowledge in an uncertain world. I guess you could take the nihilistic stance and ignore it, but what's the use of arguing with nihilists?