From: ········@bayou.uh.edu
Subject: Re: Why lisp failed in the marketplace
Date:
Message-ID: <5et9pu$sjk@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>
Sin-Yaw Wang (······@acm.org) wrote:
: ········@bayou.uh.edu wrote:
: > I didn't ask you to shut up, I told you to shut up, there's a
: > difference. Telling you to shut up was for the good of the
: > group. Let's face it, you are incapable of doing anything but
: > spewing trash and making a jackass of yourself. This wastes
: > bandwidth. Putting you in my killfile will mean that I won't
: > see you, but won't change the fact that you are still using
: > the internet as your private tool to show people just how ignorant
: > you can be.
: Boy, you really enjoy insulting people like this, don't you.
Only if they deserve it, which you do.
What is really scary about you is that you honestly don't seem to
realize just what is wrong with your postings.
I'll summarize in the hopes that you'll wake up and attempt
to straighten yourself out before your next post:
You are spouting off unsubstantiated (and innaccurate) claims
as fact. What is especially troubling is that the claims you
make, you make on newsgroups where such claims will cause a
maximum of friction, and you refuse to simply admit that
you have been wrong to post in the first place.
You've claimed that Lisp is less productive than C/C++, yet
you admitted to not having any evidence for this. You continued
to spout off your innaccurate claims, even after a person
posted a URL of a study that showed that Lisp (and Haskell)
programmers were more productive than C/C++ programmers!
You talk about being "natural" as if it's a constant for
everybody in spite of many people posting to the contrary,
and providing good arguments for their views (you provided
none for yours).
And now you're on some rant about genius software engineers,
and it's really getting tiring.
That's why I insult you, and why I do in fact derive a rather
large amount of pleasure at doing so. Furthermore I shall
continue to insult you until you stop spouting off F.U.D.
as fact.
: Try tone down the emotion a bit, will you? People are looking...
If you were worried about that, you would never have posted in
the first place.
: --
: Sin-Yaw Wang, ······@acm.org
: http://www.concentric.net/~sinyaw/
--
Cya,
Ahmed
From: Sin-Yaw Wang
Subject: Re: Why lisp failed in the marketplace
Date:
Message-ID: <33132DDA.73A6@acm.org>
········@bayou.uh.edu wrote:
> What is really scary about you is that you honestly don't seem to
> realize just what is wrong with your postings.
What is really scary (actually more amusing) is how removed from reality
you are. You have no clue on the real world. You have no idea how the
majority of software people work.
> Furthermore I shall
> continue to insult you until you stop spouting off F.U.D.
> as fact.
You probably have found out that won't work. Admit it, you just like to
talk dirty in the public and I happen to be a convenient target that
exposes your character.
--
Sin-Yaw Wang, ······@acm.org
http://www.concentric.net/~sinyaw/
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Why lisp failed in the marketplace
Date:
Message-ID: <3065897163722845@naggum.no>
* Sin-Yaw Wang -> ········@bayou.uh.edu
| You probably have found out that won't work. Admit it, you just like to
| talk dirty in the public and I happen to be a convenient target that
| exposes your character.
you know, for a long time I have thought that the biggest drawback of
electronic communication is its great potential to draw attention to the
least admirable aspects to a person's character, like undue impatience with
idiots, overly harsh reactions to false claims, suffering no fools, etc,
and all the negative consequences of such that are so hard to avoid, but
you really challenge my view on this, because it seems that more and more
of your _best_ character qualities are exposed the longer this thread runs.
#\Erik
--
if you think big enough, you never have to do it
Sin-Yaw Wang <······@acm.org> writes:
>What is really scary (actually more amusing) is how removed from reality
>you are. You have no clue on the real world. You have no idea how the
>majority of software people work.
I can tell the world in one line "how the majority of software people work".
Very badly.
For example:
- how many C programmers don't use the C standard as a major reference?
- how many UNIX programmers don't use the POSIX.1, POSIX.1b, POSIX.4 standards
as major references? (I'll buy the SVID or XPG4 as equivalent.)
- how many programmers confuse a set of bubble diagrams with a design?
- how many programmers rely on interactive debuggers instead of assertions?
- how many C programmers don't use a malloc debugger (or an even better tool)?
- how many C programmers don't use a static checker more powerful than their
compiler?
- how many programmers use C or C++ instead of Lisp or Eiffel or Ada?
- how come the last Java program I used gave me black buttons with black
writing on them? And how come the highly expensive civil engineering
package an engineer friend bought gave him a black cross-hair on a
black background?
- if it comes to that, how come a language that was marketed as secure
(but there are companies making a living selling _needed_ security
add-ons), portable (but the appearance of GUIs made using it varies
markedly from platform to platform, the colours don't agree at all),
efficient (but it isn't), &c &c has been such a huge success?
- how come an academic I know was told he was "overqualified" for a "real"
software job?
- why are the newspaper ads demanding people with more years of Delphi
experience than Delphi has actually been on the market?
- why did the Australia/New Zealand National Libraries project fold?
- how come PGN finds so many horror stories for comp.risks and SEN?
- how many companies would have to work hard to achieve CMM 1?
In short, "the way the majority of software people work" is the way to avoid.
The reality is terrifying. People of good will must strive against that way.
--
limits on the scope of cooperation are often due to the inability
to recognise the identity or the acts of the other playes. --R.Axelrod
Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.
··@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
> In short, "the way the majority of software people work" is the way to avoid.
> The reality is terrifying. People of good will must strive against that way.
Even more terryfying is the fact that multi-million, even multi-billion
development flops happen again and again and again, and STILL people
keep on talking as if there was all these extremely structured, well-
educated programmers using all these industrial-strength foolproof
systems out there in the real world.
I have a theory that the main loop of one of the most popular
programs of the world has a main loop that starts by asking
itself whether the user just entered the 3987th palindromic
prime number and ends up by investigating whether any windows
are open....
--
Espen Vestre,
Oslo, Norway