[dpark]

This is vapid condescension.

The comment you replied to made no statements about math or proofs. They made a statement about working in systems of non determinism effectively. Your statement seems to imply that this is dumb, as if working in a world of full determinism is an option.

[panarky]

Thank you for "vapid condescension".

I've wanted a term for this for decades!

[vrighter]

when you do have the option of determinism, but intentionally eschew it in favour of a strictly inferior nondeterministic tool, then yes, it is kinda dumb.

[dpark]

What deterministic option are you referring to here? Humans certainly are not deterministic in how they interpret instructions and write code. If I asked you to implement a feature and a month later asked you to implement the exact same feature, you likely wouldn’t do it the same way again. Two different people certainly wouldn’t.

[aspenmartin]

When you cling to determinism and call a clearly useful and powerful tool “strictly inferior” I would say this misses the point.

[vrighter]

strictly inferior != bad. It's relative. One tool will still give the output i intended long after I'm dead and decomposed, with the other might not at the very next time i run it.