You're the one that put focus on the term. I didn't do that. I'm defining powerful in the same sense the article defines it.
My argument in response to your reply is to say there is no reasonable alternate definition and people people are using the term because of an incorrect notion that haskell has more expressive power then say c++ when in fact it has much less expressive power.
I put "if you reply at all" to acknowledge the fact that I could've went into a long expose into something and you could just ignore it as an optional retort. My reply is anticipating all possible logical counters. I also wanted to emphasize the fact that I do not believe an alternate definition is reasonable but I am aware that it is the most likely reasoning you will be using in your response. I am letting you know that I am already aware of it. It saves the discussion from going down an avenue of things we already are aware of.
I did not anticipate you to go meta and talk about the discussion itself but maybe I should've as I sort of boxed you out of all other alternative paths. I personally think it's unnecessary to go here still. If you disagree stay on topic and propose why you think an alternate definition is reasonable. If you agree you can still stay on topic by conceding I'm right... but human nature prevents 99 percent of all people from ever conceding as conceding is subconsciously perceived to be a form of weakness. By probability, I am hypothesizing that you are within this 99 percent and that you will likely never take this path as an option in your next reply, if you reply at all.
I concede as often as I can, actually. Partly it's because I view being wrong as a temporary state of affairs, that doesn't reflect poorly on me as a human, and that I can grow from. Partly it's tactical: by conceding, I can focus on more substantive territory, make the conversation less adversarial, and build credibility with others both in the conversation and observing it. I've found it works better than arrogance or insistence.
I chose the sentence I responded to because I thought you were putting focus on the term, specifically where you say people are "technically wrong" because functional languages are "less powerful." My mistake. I was trying to encourage you to consider that the people saying that may be correct in what they mean, even if what they mean doesn't correctly align with the use of "powerful."
Just to point out, as well: you have also had the opportunity to acknowledge that I'm right. If these people are arguing from an incorrect definition of "powerful," as you say, then they are indeed arguing from a different definition of "powerful" than you are. That fulfills what my original comment set out, which is that you and these people are arguing from different definitions.
Perhaps you should have anticipated my focusing on the conversation itself, not because you had boxed me out, but because that was the substance of my comment in the first place.
>Perhaps you should have anticipated my focusing on the conversation itself, not because you had boxed me out, but because that was the substance of my comment in the first place.
Not only do I often fail to anticipate this. I find the whole thing pointless. I'm uninterested in personal details or meta aspects of the conversation. I am only interested in the topic.
Your initial comment was on the definition of the word "powerful" your subsequent comment was on meta aspects of the discussion which I find very tangential.
My argument in response to your reply is to say there is no reasonable alternate definition and people people are using the term because of an incorrect notion that haskell has more expressive power then say c++ when in fact it has much less expressive power.
I put "if you reply at all" to acknowledge the fact that I could've went into a long expose into something and you could just ignore it as an optional retort. My reply is anticipating all possible logical counters. I also wanted to emphasize the fact that I do not believe an alternate definition is reasonable but I am aware that it is the most likely reasoning you will be using in your response. I am letting you know that I am already aware of it. It saves the discussion from going down an avenue of things we already are aware of.
I did not anticipate you to go meta and talk about the discussion itself but maybe I should've as I sort of boxed you out of all other alternative paths. I personally think it's unnecessary to go here still. If you disagree stay on topic and propose why you think an alternate definition is reasonable. If you agree you can still stay on topic by conceding I'm right... but human nature prevents 99 percent of all people from ever conceding as conceding is subconsciously perceived to be a form of weakness. By probability, I am hypothesizing that you are within this 99 percent and that you will likely never take this path as an option in your next reply, if you reply at all.