Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote in message news:gu89ev$jq8$1@digitalmars.com...
>> hasen wrote:
>>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> Jesse Phillips wrote:
>>>>> It looks to me that Walter's points aren't about convincing people to use it, but to show that you are using it, that there are customers.
>>>> That's right. It's called "social proof". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Proof
>>>>
>>>> Apple, for example, uses social proof as the central theme in its marketing campaigns.
>>>>
>>>> Back in the 1970's, Dr. Pepper hilariously used social proof in their oxymoronic campaign "join the non-conformists!"
>>> Social proof eh? hmm interesting. That's why I decided to learn vim, not because I felt or thought I needed to, but because it *seemed* that /real/ programmers use vim. You know what I mean?
>> Absolutely. Some of the best dating advice I've ever got: just be yourself.
>>
>> No, I was kidding :o). It was: be seen with women. It's social proof.
>>
> 
> I think "The 'if-others-are-doing-it-then-it-*must*-be-right' Fallacy" is probably a much more accurate term for "social proof". I realize "social proof" is the typical term for it, but calling it that just seems like trying to call the ad hominem fallacy "associative proof".
> 
> 

More like "then for all I know it's *probably* right"

Like: if everyone here uses buzz words and jargon like ad hominem then I better learn this jargon to be considered smart.

Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2009 04:48:16 +0200, Saaa wrote:
> 
>> So, what language do you use?
>>> D
>> Ok.. why?
> 
> Just keep your answers simple...
> 
> "It compiles to machine code."
> 
> "Why not C++"
> 
> "It is safer, less complex"
> 
> Let the person interested probe for answers they want answers to.

I know a language K that compiles to native code, why don't you use it for this really important project? It's safer than C++, and less complex, really! (by definition, nothing can be more complicated than C++)

I hope you're now convinced to try out my K language, read all the documentation, oh and btw, it's not well organized, good luck!

hasen wrote:
> Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 May 2009 04:48:16 +0200, Saaa wrote:
>>
>>> So, what language do you use?
>>>> D
>>> Ok.. why?
>>
>> Just keep your answers simple...
>>
>> "It compiles to machine code."
>>
>> "Why not C++"
>>
>> "It is safer, less complex"
>>
>> Let the person interested probe for answers they want answers to.
> 
> I know a language K that compiles to native code, why don't you use it for this really important project? It's safer than C++, and less complex, really! (by definition, nothing can be more complicated than C++)
> 
> I hope you're now convinced to try out my K language, read all the documentation, oh and btw, it's not well organized, good luck!

Where can I find this K language? I think it's not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_(programming_language)

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> I think "The 'if-others-are-doing-it-then-it-*must*-be-right' Fallacy" is probably a much more accurate term for "social proof". I realize "social proof" is the typical term for it, but calling it that just seems like trying to call the ad hominem fallacy "associative proof".

Social proof is covertly self-referential.

And the word 'proof' here is used just as they would.

hasen wrote:
> Like: if everyone here uses buzz words and jargon like ad hominem then I better learn this jargon to be considered smart.

Hell, I always thought they only google them up when needed!

grauzone wrote:
> hasen wrote:
>> Jesse Phillips wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 May 2009 04:48:16 +0200, Saaa wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, what language do you use?
>>>>> D
>>>> Ok.. why?
>>>
>>> Just keep your answers simple...
>>>
>>> "It compiles to machine code."
>>>
>>> "Why not C++"
>>>
>>> "It is safer, less complex"
>>>
>>> Let the person interested probe for answers they want answers to.
>>
>> I know a language K that compiles to native code, why don't you use it for this really important project? It's safer than C++, and less complex, really! (by definition, nothing can be more complicated than C++)
>>
>> I hope you're now convinced to try out my K language, read all the documentation, oh and btw, it's not well organized, good luck!
> 
> Where can I find this K language? I think it's not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_(programming_language)

hehe, it's just a joke man

On Mon, 11 May 2009 00:25:52 -0600, hasen wrote:

> Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 May 2009 04:48:16 +0200, Saaa wrote:
>> 
>>> So, what language do you use?
>>>> D
>>> Ok.. why?
>> 
>> Just keep your answers simple...
>> 
>> "It compiles to machine code."
>> 
>> "Why not C++"
>> 
>> "It is safer, less complex"
>> 
>> Let the person interested probe for answers they want answers to.
> 
> I know a language K that compiles to native code, why don't you use it for this really important project? It's safer than C++, and less complex, really! (by definition, nothing can be more complicated than C++)
> 
> I hope you're now convinced to try out my K language, read all the documentation, oh and btw, it's not well organized, good luck!

Who said anything about convincing you? You asked why I used it, not why you should use it.