Hacker News Reader

Comment by gruseom | Hacker News Reader

The point is that he won because he's a great programmer, not because he used Lisp.

Given that people have argued that the absence of Lisp winners from such competitions is evidence against Lisp's greatness (I'm going by memory here and don't have time to dredge up the record), it seems relevant to point out when it does happen.

View on HN

So, essentially:

a) given that people has made bad arguments before b) it "seems relevant" to make bad arguments in the opposite direction now

Huh?

It's relevant because it's a counterexample. Now people can't say, "If Lisp is so good why don't people win these things with it?" They have to say things like this instead:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1961546

Obviously the OP is relevant for other, better reasons than this, but that's what my comment meant.

It would only be a "counterexample" if it was a valid example. This only keeps the "counter" part, but as an example it is flawed.

I think it's worth pointing out that not only is the argument logically incorrect, it's based on incorrect facts. For example:

A: "Lisp sucks. If it didn't, we'd see it winning contests or something"

B: "But it has been used to win a contest. Besides, you're really bad at making an argument"

Wait, what? My original comment got at least one upvote, and then my edit ("For example:..."), that was meant to clarify what I was saying, is getting downvotes. Can someone explain?

I'm not trying to disagree with the OP in general (you can't fight bad logic with more bad logic) but just pointing out that correcting someone's facts can be easier (and with this datum point, possible).

Edit: I like the upvote, but an explanation would be better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com