Exactly, it's all about the concepts underlying the tool and recognizing situations when a certain tool has a better ROI than some other one at solving a problem at hand.
But, sometimes it can be hard to make a fair judgement on whether you really know something or just think that you know. So, it might definitely be useful to know a few other techniques/tools of doing the same thing in order to foolproof yourself.
I am not a native English speaker, but I think I'm versed well enough to know that you know what I meant to say. I also do think that it is a little bit unfair for you to mention my grammar and punctuation since you yourself use words like "caps" and "Wellllll". Not only it is hypocritical, but also comes across as a Stickman argument of a sort.
I'm sorry for pointing this out. But, I mean, you are partially right, I do think that sometimes, when working with complex concepts, the language needs to be pretty clear for a common understanding to develop between parties involved.
With that said, I do tend to play with my language to see if I can modify it's impact, while still keeping that which my words represent intact.
While my choices may not seem rational, they are not wrong. I may be trying to present a point that whether we are talking about programming or human languages all of them are exercises in logic and symbolic construction, all you have to do is learn how to make sense of it. Or ask for clarification.
So, I think you just haven't learned to appreciate any sorts of languages yet. But I do applaud your knowledge of grammar.
Now, onto this: "I think the community's objection to your post stems from the now frowned-upon sentiment that there are behaviors that are absolutely required to fit in in this community or, especially, to be a rationalist."
This is the most irrational thing I've heard in a while. The most rational behaviour for a rationalist to have is to be rational, no matter which community it is, or how many karma points someone has, and no matter how many grammatical errors you find.
And, please, never say languages are nothing. It is an insult to the achievement of our species.
"Lisp, Prolog, Haskell any of these". Thanks, I completely forgot about that rule.
Sorry if I wasn't the reply you were were hoping to see.
I don't mind scepticism, if you see anything wrong with the content other than letters do let me know please.
Sure they are, but the amount of variables in those can be overwhelming for one and some of what you've listed may be based on flawed logic. So, I would not suggest starting out with those.
I think programming is great because it can potentially teach you how to break things down into different levels of abstraction and manipulate concepts by applying only a few basic rules.
I should've contributed a little bit more to the OP, but I was mostly replying to those who were saying that there is no difference between languages and one is just is good as the other. That I think is wrong because you can't compare a real functional language with an "object oriented" one.
"But poorly put-together sentences do detract from a message, irrational as that may be." Why is it irrational?
"The most rational behaviour a rationalist can have is to be rational." Meditate on it some more.
"...my objection that knowing three programming languages is not a requirement of rationality..." I said at least three, because there are at least three ways to do the same thing. Some are more efficient at one thing and others are more efficient at other things.
"Given that human rationality is a subject still being explored, making a definitive claim that something is a key requirement of rationality is incredibly arrogant in the face of ignorance." It is incredibly arrogant, but it is also a very useful tool in deductive reasoning.
I feel like I'm being trolled by a spell-checking bot. You haven't contributed anything to this topic other than your sceptism, which is the most basic tool anyone in their right might is able to use.
You said that "They [languages] aren't exercises in anything". Which I think is not true.
Thanks for the English lessons, bye.