I've never owned a games console so I don't know, but I thought they could be used to play DVD films. It makes perfect sense as part of their function. ISTM anyway.
> As for what I mean by narrative, much of the appeal of D&D seems to lie in crafting the story and adventure, being a part of the plot
That's what I was after. I know some people play in a much more involved way but when I played so many years ago I love the plot and setting, but really worked the mechanics. It may have been you got a DM or group that was just not suited to you.
Okay, I'll respond because you made an interesting point, but you've also pissed me off. Let's follow this through: for a start, just because it's an intuitive doesn't mean it's wrong. However, you made me think that may be we can force at compile time that all() must take a non-empty list of Booleans where we can be sure that the problem domain should never have empty lists. I think with modern typing we can do this with dependent types (but I'm not an expert on this, but you have raised an interesting possibility, thanks).
However there are domain cases where empty lists still make sense, so you're still going to have to account for them in a rational way, and that means logically consistent, and I guarantee we will be back to what you don't like. But that's ok.
Now where you've pissed me off is this bit
> n this case, one possible solution is to not have the concept of "falsy" and "truthy"
and
> forcing 'all' to take a mapping closure
Perhaps you could un-piss me off by explaining what the bloody hell those two are supposed to mean – pretend I'm a language designer that interested in your idea (which actually I am) – what are you asking me to implement?
It's a consequence of enforcing logical consistency. You can't get around that (but if you want to suggest other behaviour and justify it, I'd be interested).
Can't remember but have read you can bootstrap a forth interpreter from an amazingly low number of bytes. Maybe more of theoretical interest than practical but still.
They are fragile I've heard, and quite likely they dull quickly (don't know), but I'm not saying they're 'better' than steel; it's not a competition. Horses/courses.
Very cute but that's all. No reason for me to consider it true. This if we are making unbacked claims then let me riposte thus, "the past is another country, they do things differently there". Which if true would mean the past has little bearing on the present – if true.
You've just made a whole load of claims this without backing any of them up. But okay, let's take one which does make sense:
> When people understand the causes and consequences of past events, they are better equipped to navigate present challenges
To a small degree. Most of this boils down to the bleeding obvious, like "avoid war when you can because it's hideously expensive", treat people with decency etc. is there really much more to it than that?
And you talk about cultural continuity – some of these continuities are not good, q.v. the Taliban. Also cultures change very rapidly – the kind of homophobia that was acceptable or even encouraged when I was a kid is now seen very much as a serious transgression or crime (speaking as a straight bloke, I'm glad it; I'm very glad things have changed). We haven't achieved gender parity in pay, we getting there. You can't stick your hands all over a woman as you could in the 60s and expect to get away with it (ditto good).
Well I don't know. I can't say I'm convinced by what you've written but I appreciate the answer anyway. Thanks.