The 4 minute mile was amazing because of the four minutes, not because someone managed to run a mile. Amazing feats in the face of incredible constraints are inherently worthy, I'd say.
Why? Seems like a much poorer analogy to me, since it is trivial to make a movie for much less than that. It falls into the same trap as the commenter above, the 'greatness' is due to the quality of the program, rather than just making it exist at all.
Except that my original analogy has a lot of upvotes. But it is common enough to assume that the rest of the world agrees with you, when you think someone is wrong.
If, instead of trying the pissing contest, you could actually try to figure out why your "do you see why you're wrong", didn't, in fact, make me think I was wrong, we might get constructive. I think it didn't because it begged the question. Otherwise, piss away, it is funny to see how facile the 'yeah, no I'm right, because, I think so!' gets.
But it is common enough to assume that the rest of the world agrees with you, when you think someone is wrong.
Please, tell me what that's like.
You got so hung up on and defensive about my question that you were blind to my reasoning. I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings — I was offering a genuine explanation. There is no chance of a "constructive" discussion with people like you once they've made themselves a victim.
You haven't attempted to explain why my explanation was poor — which is less than what I gave you — but you're too invested in the lie that you don't understand my post to turn back now! And it's weird as hell to witness. You're a real big man.
I think your post begged the queston. Do you know what I mean by that? I think it assumed the things you wanted it to show. Namely
nor is the greatness of a program measured by its number of lines or memory footprint
That is the point you're trying to argue, but you don't make any attempt to show why that is more like the case of the movie budget, than the running race. You just declare it to be. Now, you made that argument in response to me asking why. But you didn't say why, you just gave the two analogies again, and mixed in the original question with the second.
So we have
"Its like X"
"No, its like Y"
"Why?"
"Because it is like Y"
See why I didn't find your response persuasive?
But by all means, ignore what I'm saying at tell me more about me. That's funny.
Which is exactly why it isn't a good analogy. The amount wasn't arbitrary, it was the memory of the computer. There wasn't more to it being the 'greatest program' than the fact that it was created. There's no aesthetic judgement here. It is chess, with AI, in < 700 bytes.
He meant the "movie budget" could be arbitrary chosen to satisfy the "feat under huge constraints".
Right, which is exactly why that isn't a good analogy to something where the budget was fixed, and the 'greatness' isn't an aesthetic judgement, but whether it can be done.
