In article <···················@baloo.gsfc.nasa.gov>
·····@baloo.gsfc.nasa.gov "Steven Rezsutek" writes:
> ·····@labs-n.bbn.com writes:
>
> I fail to understand why it is that the implementation language even
> needs to be mentioned. we bid, we win, we implement, we support. would
> you go over to Computer City and ask what language Microsoft Word is
> written in? if they said ALGOL 60, would you buy something else
> instead? (you'd probably be more amazed that the words ALGOL 60 even
> came out of their mouth)
>
> Funny you should mention this. I recall that when I was doing s/w
> development for a PC oriented company, many of the ads for software in
> the magazines of the time had a loud proclamation of "Written in C!"
> somewhere in them. _Somebody_ must have though it meant something.
>
> [We used to use the phrase "Written in C", spoken in a mocking,
> sing-song tone of voice, as the equivalent of "Ooh, ahh. So what?" :-)]
I wonder if a comp.lang.lisp.advocacy (if it existed) would be a
better place for debates like this? I'm just a little tired of adding
threads like this one to my killfile.
--
Future generations are relying on us
It's a world we've made - Incubus
We're living on a knife edge, looking for the ground -- Hawkwind
From: William Paul Vrotney
Subject: Re: Lisp advocacy (Was Re: another take on "C is faster than lisp")
Date:
Message-ID: <vrotneyCvutoq.MLt@netcom.com>
In article <············@wildcard.demon.co.uk> ············@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Cyber Surfer) writes:
> In article <···················@baloo.gsfc.nasa.gov>
> ·····@baloo.gsfc.nasa.gov "Steven Rezsutek" writes:
> > ·····@labs-n.bbn.com writes:
> >
> > I fail to understand why it is that the implementation language even
> > needs to be mentioned. we bid, we win, we implement, we support. would
> > you go over to Computer City and ask what language Microsoft Word is
> > written in? if they said ALGOL 60, would you buy something else
> > instead? (you'd probably be more amazed that the words ALGOL 60 even
> > came out of their mouth)
> >
[...]
> I wonder if a comp.lang.lisp.advocacy (if it existed) would be a
> better place for debates like this? I'm just a little tired of adding
> threads like this one to my killfile.
[...]
As he goes on ... (is Cyber a he or a she?)
>
> I feel sure that this whole debate will look very silly to most
> programmers in 10 years time. It certainly bores the pants off me.
[...]
As he goes on and on with HIS version of boring stuff ...
Do you really think the "Great Lisp/C Debate" will be over in 10 years? In
my circles it's been ranging for the LAST 10 years and it still doesn't seem
any MORE sillier. Besides, it's so much fun! If you are a good Lisp
programmer you can insinuate how stupid C programmers are. If you are a
good C programmer you can insinuate how irresponsible Lisp programmers are.
If you are an "I've seen the light" C programmer you can insinuate how
misguided diehard Lisp programmers are. If you an "I've seen the light but
I've seen it again and come back to Lisp" you are now a good Lisp and C
programmer which entitles you to insinuate that anyone in back of you is
stupid. And it goes on and on. Maybe someday another language will be added
to the fray. Currently its the Lisp-erals versus the C-servatives and
everyone in between. It's the mystery of the dialectic. Accept it.
But seriously, another thing that I liked out of this thread is Jeff
Dalton's standing up to Lisp bashing. I know, certain parties are going to
say "If you thought I was Lisp bashing, you didn't understand what I was
saying". I'm not accusing. But hey, being critical of Lisp for the sake of
making Lisp better has a different tone, you know what I mean?
--
Bill Vrotney - ·······@netcom.com
From: Jeff Dalton
Subject: Re: Lisp advocacy (Was Re: another take on "C is faster than lisp")
Date:
Message-ID: <Cw31oK.6px@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
In article <············@wildcard.demon.co.uk> ············@wildcard.demon.co.uk writes:
>Of course, I could be accused of bashing those who love to bash the
>tools chosen by other programmers, or the platforms chosen by other
>users. What I find curious about is why these people feel so in
>insecure that they feel compelled to defend their choices. I'm not
>saying they shouldn't, but I do wish I didn't have to continually
>update my killfile. If there was an advocacy flag in the headers,
>I'd use that in my killfile.
What's with this psychological analysis? "Insecure"? How do
you know why they do it?
Also, how did defending a choice get turned into advocacy?
Surely advocacy is more "active" than that.
I tend to defend the reasonableness of choosing Lisp against
claims that it's not reasonable. But I don't say Lisp is better
than other languages or go into random newsgroups trying to
convert people. I don't say "you should use Lisp for this
because...".
From: Cyber Surfer
Subject: Re: Lisp advocacy (Was Re: another take on "C is faster than lisp")
Date:
Message-ID: <779114440snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk>
In article <··········@news.kth.se>
·······@black01.nada.kth.se "Patric Jonsson" writes:
> >Am I the only one?
>
> No!
>
> But why restrict it to Lisp? I propose a Comp.lang.x-vs-y group.
That sounds even better! Of course, we could have a whole bunch of
comp.lang.*.advocacy newsgroups.
--
Future generations are relying on us
It's a world we've made - Incubus
We're living on a knife edge, looking for the ground -- Hawkwind
In article <··········@news.doit.wisc.edu> ····@MACC.WISC.EDU "STEB" writes:
> The reason this rather dull thread refuses to die is simple enough: the c
> familiy of languages and the lisp familiy each require vastly differing world
> views in order to effectivly cast the appropriate incantations in them. It's
Well, I blame the programmers who pointlessly debate this issue, not
the tools themselves. They may well serve different purposes, but
not all people are not rational. Some don't care about that, so they
create these, as you say, boring threads.
> If you fear for the magick of programming then it's time for you to do one of
> two things:
I didn't say that. I refered to Lisp as "magic", as in the phrase that
Niven used as his book title, "The Magic Goes Away", mean that when you
use it, it dies. In the case of Lisp, it seems that it dies when not
enough people use it, or they use it badly. Same as any other language.
> 1) quit. Walk away from yer killer micro and never look back.
I don't have a killer micro. :-) Anyway, you've missed the point.
> 2) Hack something you love and rediscover the real magick that lies between
> your ears and in your heart.
This is what I do. I just wonder why anyone has to whinge about something
that is dying, if it is dying. See above. The magic goes away, but that
doesn't mean it can't come back. It's a matter that goes beyond mere
programming. It's a market thing. What people mean when they say that
Lisp is dying, is that the market is dying. Lisp goes on.
> When I started actually working in computers, I promised myself I'd stop the
> day it was no longer fun. Well, I haven't crossed that bridge yet because, for
> me, lisp and such like keep me laughing at myself. That's the magick...
Yeah, but who pays you to do it? Nobody even advertises Lisp jobs,
or thereare none that I've seen. I wonder when people will just wake
up and recognise that, and instead of whinging about it, do something.
Well, I'm not whinging about the whingers. I'm doing something. I'm
suggesting an advocacy newsgroup. What do _you_ think about it? Do
you have anything to say about it? So far, you've completely missed
the point.
--
Future generations are relying on us
It's a world we've made - Incubus
We're living on a knife edge, looking for the ground -- Hawkwind
In article <··········@news.doit.wisc.edu> ····@MACC.WISC.EDU (STEB) writes:
>In <············@wildcard.demon.co.uk> cyber_surfer said:
>> When I see a complaint here about Lisp's lack of popularity,
What complaints? I don't complain about Lisp's "lack of
popularity", and I've posted most of the "pro-Lisp" messages.
>The reason this rather dull thread refuses to die is simple enough: the c
>familiy of languages and the lisp familiy each require vastly differing world
>views in order to effectivly cast the appropriate incantations in them.
So far as I'm concerned, BTW, there are perfectly good reasons to
prefer C to Lisp and this whole discussion has nothing to do with
whether Lisp is better than C or vice versa (for such comparisons
make little sense).
Some people either have mistaken ideas about Lisp or else post
articles that will reinforce mistaken ideas. I think it's
entirely reasonable to want comp.lang.lisp, at least, to
contain the truth about Lisp.
If you want a new newsgroup, have it be comp.lang.lisp.flames
or alt.lang.lisp.sucks.sucks.sucks in which those who think it's
really important to let everyone know how bad they think "Lisp"
is for various applications can post whatever they like.
-- jd