That's a valid argument, but a very weak one. If we are not completely sure something is an improvement in all aspects are we just to dismiss it altogether?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, you could dismiss combustion engines for the same reason, or like, carpentry. You wouldn't be wrong, they have caused problems down the line at various points (modern climate change, medieval deforestation), but you bet I'd still call them an advance on mule power, or on no carpentry.

This is pretty much an nullification of the idea of technological progress existing at all, which is a kinda hot take.

@Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de, so you can reply in the right place.

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I see your perspective and I think you kinda miss my perspective which I am to blame for.

I don't say there weren't improvements. I am saying that given the uncertainty of "goodness". Maybe we shouldn't idolize it. You can appreciate the attempt of creating memory safe code through a programing language without thinking the bare metal code should be written in that language. You can like a typeless easy to write language like Js without thinking desktop app should be written in it. You can like the idea behind functional programming while believing that any application is in the end about side effects and therefore a purely functional application impossible.

You can approach the whole topic as an area of study and possible technological advances instead of a dogma.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Oh, well I can agree with that.

You can like the idea behind functional programming while believing that any application is in the end about side effects and therefore a purely functional application impossible.

It's a bit of a tangent, but if you're doing something completely deterministic and non-interactive, like computing a digit of pi, it's great in practice as well. I use Haskell semi-regularly for that kind of thing.

You could argue printing the output is a side effect, but is a side effect followed by termination really "side"?

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 3 days ago

I agree.

I think it is a side effect if it runs on a modern Os. But honestly who cares...