PoorGoldenHammerEvidence

Last edit August 1, 2008

Ways not to prove that your GoldenHammer is better:

X can be written in terms of GoldenHammer; therefore, GoldenHammer is better. Problem: TuringEquivalency is rampant. Problem-2: Being better at mirroring other techniques may not extrapolate into being better for everything. Example: Many compilers and interpreters are written in C. However, this does not mean that C is best for everything.
GoldenHammer is more "elegant". Problem: Impossible to objectively measure.
"It's the rage". Problem: You cannot vote the world flat.
It is based on a simple base or "atom" that is used to make everything else. Problem: simple parts has not been proven to always lead to simple results. (All else being equal, having simple bases is desirable, but we don't know if it is equal.)
Toy examples show GoldenHammer solving problem X in fewer steps. Problem: Example may not be representative of real-world problems or all domains.
It's better for this one little metric, and therefore it is summarily better. SovietShoeFactoryPrinciple.
- But note that it's perfectly legit to say: "It's better for this one little metric, and therefore there is this one more little bit of objective evidence that it is better". Enough such cases constitute a lot of evidence.

(more to come...)