Often when using C++ I find myself solving C++ problems, not real problems. In a domain with very difficult math and performance challenges, the C++ problems will be dwarfed by the difficultly of the real problem you are solving.
For domains outside of physics and applied math, I think the dominating factor is often the inherent trickiness of writing correct procedural code vs. the ease of writing strongly typed functional code.
The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it makes you under the impression that you know something. If it were as harmless as it were useless, there would be no problem.
I just stumbled upon it. I am a student, and I had to set up a small site for a class which implemented a solution to a problem that I had already solved in python...
But we do have reasonable priors on parapsychology from its wasteland of unreplicated, flawed studies, with no convincing results despite decades of effort.
It's pretty awesome. I have it set up to lock my computer without any way (besides going to the tty screens) to unlock it... Any other way and I end up postponing the breaks and not taking them.
Saying that two groups are homomorphic doesn't tell me much more than there exists a group homomorphism... As far as I know, isomorphism implies one can be transformed into the other through renaming.
I don't know anything about topology, so I'll take your word for it.
For domains outside of physics and applied math, I think the dominating factor is often the inherent trickiness of writing correct procedural code vs. the ease of writing strongly typed functional code.