Here you prove me right, because this is the *exact* reason why deliberately dropping pages is evil.
You're still stuck on a non-sequitur, friend. That is ultimately irrelevant, though; no matter the reasoning or evidence you would not be able to objectively demonstrate that one philosophy or method is better than the other. In essence, what you are trying to prove is that one computer program (or at least, one part of it) is written superior to another.
This is the nature of arguing opinions; you present what you know and organize theories around your experience. When a seperate body of evidence contradicts your standing, it becomes necessary to introduce newer (often more accurate and less broad) conclusions. The only conclusions which carry
significant meaning, however, are those that can be supported by an overwhelming body of evidence.
Strengthening any line of reasoning reduces to three simple steps:
1.) Depersonalize the message. Remove as many references to the first person as possible. Statements which are heavily supported should appear to originate from a body of authors, not just one.
2.) Objectification. Strip any statements which are primarily (or entirely) opinion. Rewrite as many of the basic elements in relative terms (avoid references to absolute concepts).
3.) Reduction and reinforcement. Condense the reasoning to its most basic premises and primary conclusion. Use the strongest pieces of evidence available, and drop those that are weak or easily refuted. Continue to add new information as it is discovered.
"Human noticeable" means one million times, by the way.
This is quite the arbitrary definition. It is proper to at least display what train of thought generated it; otherwise there is little reason to respond to such a statement.
Blaming bash or an intermediate api layer as responsible for running an identical program 4.6 times slower (we are talking about 4.6 times, not 4.6 percent) is hilarious. Even more so as the hardware on the Windows system is superior in every respect. It could very well burn a few extra CPU cycles, no one would notice.
bash itself is only
indirectly the problem in my hypothesis. It is the layers necessary to run bash on Windows which introduce the actual dilemma. If one is to operate scientifically, it is necessary to remove as many alternate causal explanations as possible before drawing a definite deduction.
Reiteration of several facts is certainly warranted by this point:
1.) This individual was proposed a question, given the task of determing an alternative cause to a phenomenon. The particular phenomenon has not been reproduced in any fixed environment or by any objective observer.
2.) An alternate explanation was provided, but immediately rejected as absurd -- without any evidence.
3.) The burden of proof lies on he who presented the original assertion. The true problem here is in the nature of the discussion. One person is attempting to draw an absolute conclusion from excessively insufficient data, and is using ancedotal evidence as his only actual support. The other person is trying, and clearly failing miserably, to present the reasons for which there appears to be no objective truth in this situation (nor indeed any other -- "objective truth" is an oxymoron).
In short, the initial assertion has not been provided with nearly enough substantiation to make it a more reasonable opinion than "there is no best".
But I see there is little point in discussing this issue further, you will not agree anyway.
Perhaps my intent was not to prove one position as correct, but rather to show that it is narrow-minded to hold one side as irrefutably correct on an issue which has a wide breadth of experience and knowledge?
And now, some considerations about the OS issue (...)
Very well described. Your technical knowledge of the situation is greater than my own; therefore your terminology and understanding is more complete.
