Re:Learn Python 3 the Hard Way
by TuringTest on Friday February 24, 2017 @11:57AM
(#13725373)
No, the argument being made was:
If A, then B.
If B, then C.
Some people insist that not C, therefore they are unknowingly implying not B.
But you have several comments dismantling an strawman version of the real argument, so it looks like you really didn't understand Z's intention.
His comment about people "failing to [in this case, understand] that note even when they do elaborate responses to [his] writing" looks dead-on.
Re:Learn Python 3 the Hard Way
by thehardsphere on Friday February 24, 2017 @12:11PM
(#13725499)
And who are these "some people"? I don't see citations here identifying anybody.
Pro-Tip: They're straw men. Even if you find examples of people asserting that after the fact, the undentified parties asserting "Python 3 cannot run Python 2" in the way that Zed claims he's responding to, are only mentioned in this rant to make Zed look smarter than he is.
Re:Learn Python 3 the Hard Way
by TuringTest on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @08:33AM
(#13753575)
You don't need real people to build up a joke.
The fact that Node.js, the software package that some people use to execute Javascript, does not include in it is default distribution a way to execute Lisp programs, says absolutely nothing about the Turing completeness of the Javascript programming language.
What those of you repeating this interpeter thing are missing is that there's a four term fallacy being employed here. Zed is trying to make an argument of the form:
If A, then B If B, then C Not C, therefore Not B
But in reality his argument is:
If A then B If B, then C Not D, therefore not B