|
> But for both Rust, C, Zig, and many others, it's undecidable, so by this definition of complexity, these language are definitely too complex (and equally so) My comments on this tried to be as careful and as precise as possible, and touched on this very issue. > In fact, your desperate attempt to save your initial argument about complexity, by narrowing it to a tiny technical corner makes me cringe a bit. Your emotional response here is so powerful that I think we're conversing on entirely different levels. I am sorry if my mild and careful statements have touched on something that you clearly see as essential to your identity. > aren't neutral: what such claim attempts to do is insinuate the opposite No. It is the most precise and careful statement that I can say, having followed the research for years and being a practitioner and advocate of formal formal methods. Anything I say, the more careful I try to be, it just seems to send you into further rage (and abuse). I think you're in a middle of a tantrum that's clouded your judgment, or perhaps, being a zealot, you cannot imagine any other attitude. Anyway, this conversation is making me very uncomfortable, as I sense you're in a very agitated emotional state, and I want no part of that. |
I have to admit, this is cool rage-quit punchline!
Edit:
> I am sorry if my mild and careful statements have touched on something that you clearly see as essential to your identity, but I simply see no way to discuss this subject with you.
> Anyway, this conversation is making me very uncomfortable, as I sense you're in a very agitated emotional state, and I want no part of that.
Wow, it got even better as I refreshed the page!