On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 18:23:30 -0400
Steve Litt <slitt@???> wrote:
> David Niklas via Dng said on Tue, 2 Sep 2025 09:23:41 -0400
>

> >On 09/01/2025(Mon) 21:10
> >Steve Litt <slitt@???> wrote:  
> >> David Niklas via Dng said on Mon, 1 Sep 2025 19:22:43 -0400    
> >> >On Mon, 1 Sep 2025 17:16:56 +0100
> >> >ael <witwall3@???> wrote:      

> >>

> >> >In fact, Linus Torvalds himself said he did not want object oriented
> >> >C++ code in the Linux Kernel. Now we're doing OO with rust!       

> >>

> >> I quote from the Google AI's answer to "is rust an oop language?"    
> ><snip>
> >AI is less that 50% accurate, study:
> >https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/bbc-research-into-ai-assistants.pdf

> >
>
> OK fine, for sure, for sure. Your preceding sentence is a logical
> fallacy, specifically, an Ad Hominem fallacy (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ). Just because less than 50%
> of AI is accurate (if that's indeed true on questions as specific and
> unambiguous as this) doesn't mean that Rust is an OOP language.

Hello Steve,

It's not a logical fallacy to want to talk with someone who's capable of
logic vs. a system which is incapable of logic, but instead relies on
predicting the next token.

The point I tried to make was that it's quite ridiculous to try and
create an argument from a system know to be wrong more often than it's
right. Use your own words and your own brains when making an argument.

But lets dig a bit deeper, shall we? If we're talking fallacies, how
about the fact that AI doesn't fix it's problems even if it's been proven
wrong? How about the fallacy where AI creates a wall of text just for the
sake of creating a wall of text? How about the fallacy where AI doesn't
even make an argument but just jumbles together some words that create an
incoherent narrative which few, if any, can understand?

Like, if I wanted to argue with an AI, I wouldn't post here, I'd go to an
AI site!

And if I win an argument against an AI, will you even accept the
results?!

> Also, in quoting me, you snipped the very relevant sentence:
>
> ========================================
> I learned the rudiments of Rust a couple months ago, and the preceding
> description matches my memory of Rust.
> ========================================
>
> Leaving this out constitutes the logical fallacy of "fallacy of
> incomplete evidence", otherwise known as "cherry picking" (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking ).

Cherry nothing, I didn't fully quote you there because memory doesn't
matter, facts do. The fact is that rust has objects.

If you think I don't know what I'm talking about, how about consulting an
authority on the subject?

"Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software" -- Erich
Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, and John Vlissides

"Object-oriented programs are made up of objects. An object packages both
data and the procedures that operate on that data. The procedures are
typically called methods or operations."

> Listen David, you might be right. Perhaps Rust doesn't belong in the
> kernel. All I can tell you is the evidence you've presented so far is
> unconvincing and fallacy ridden.
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
>
> http://444domains.com
>
>

David