From: Marc Wachowitz
Subject: Re: Why a lisp OS? Re: Help required on Limitations of Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <64mhhm$jh3$2@trumpet.uni-mannheim.de>
Martin Rodgers wrote:
> Excellent. Now all we have to do is reach all the programmers whose 
> minds have already been currupted with batch oriented languages.

Well, in my view, being "interactive" vs. "batch-compiled" isn't even part
of the most relevant aspects of Lisp (or in fact, some Lisp dialects). It
may not be politically correct here ;-), but I do development - regardless
of the programming language being used - mostly by thinking/coding, without
much interaction, and as far as it's appropriate (and if time permits), I'd
rather write a "batch-compiled" test program for some software component -
which can be re-executed and mechanically checked again and again as the
system evolves - instead of doing lots of interactive testing (not even to
mention programming new stuff interactively). Self-descriptive code - and
in cases where that isn't sufficient, good documentation in the code - are
much more important for me than any dynamic evaluation.

> Alas, improving the human condition isn't necessarily how the market 
> operates. What does the market reward?

"The market" - paired with lots of people making it into a religion - is
a self-fulfilling prophecy, only that the prophecy isn't what the followers
generally want or expect it to be. As someone who's a bit out of fashion
these days expressed it, history is unfolding behind the back of unconscious
humanity. However, I guess this isn't the appropriate forum for discussions
of a critical theory of society (including economy).

> I'm assuming that there are some good programmers out there who don't 
> yet know of Lisp, or that they've only heard of Lisp from people who 
> don't know what they're talking about.

If "good programmers" is meant in the sense I've alluded to in the previous
post, they won't blindly believe such unfounded rumours, but either find out
for themselves, or if their interests/priorities go into other directions,
just honestly know that they don't know, and not pretend otherwise (whether
to themselves or to other people).

> Alternately, you could just assume that anyone who doesn't already 
> know Lisp never will, and wouldn't want to.

That's certainly not my position. However, I'd say that one can expect a
curious programmer to actively look around for his or her areas of interest,
and in these days of the web, one can find out quite easily about lots of
different programming languages and the associated methodologies, even if
one's nearest book store doesn't happen to carry many titles about the area.
You know, the word "study" (not necessarily implying university education)
means "making an effort", and if I should take someone seriously in this
field, I won't consider someone who merely glimpses over the little bit of
information which is readily delivered almost to one's home or office (this
is not to say that information channels of all kinds shouldn't be improved
where possible, but they are are poor excuse for lack of initiative and
reflection on what one is doing).

> It's possible to attract readers looking for one thing, like web apps, 
> and to give them a whole lot more. PJ Brown did that. His book wasn't 
> just about compilers, it's also about good programming style.

Would you call someone a good professional programmer if he or she didn't
ever have think and read about programming style and program organization,
even without getting that as background message from some other book? I'd
surely hesitate to do so. This attitude of learning a heap of application-
specific tricks and details, but never seriously caring for fundamental
principles of program design and implementation, is a disease of which one
has to be cured if one wants to be a professional programmer, IMO. That a
lot of people in the field get by without this is one (certainly not the
only) reason for the poor quality of the products.

-- Marc Wachowitz <··@ipx2.rz.uni-mannheim.de>

From: John Arley Burns
Subject: Re: Why a lisp OS? Re: Help required on Limitations of Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <wzoh3iwz5a.fsf@urquan-kohr-ah.mesas.com>
···@this_email_address_intentionally_left_crap_wildcard.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) writes:

> Marc Wachowitz wheezed these wise words:
> 
> > Well, in my view, being "interactive" vs. "batch-compiled" isn't even part
> > of the most relevant aspects of Lisp (or in fact, some Lisp dialects). It
> > may not be politically correct here ;-), but I do development - regardless
> > of the programming language being used - mostly by thinking/coding, without
> > much interaction, and as far as it's appropriate (and if time permits), I'd
> > rather write a "batch-compiled" test program for some software component -
> > which can be re-executed and mechanically checked again and again as the
> > system evolves - instead of doing lots of interactive testing (not even to
> > mention programming new stuff interactively). Self-descriptive code - and
> > in cases where that isn't sufficient, good documentation in the code - are
> > much more important for me than any dynamic evaluation.
> 
> Snap! The compilers I use are also mostly batch oriented. Even Lisp 
> compilers, if you count Scheme.
>  
> > "The market" - paired with lots of people making it into a religion - is
> > a self-fulfilling prophecy, only that the prophecy isn't what the followers
> > generally want or expect it to be. As someone who's a bit out of fashion
> > these days expressed it, history is unfolding behind the back of unconscious
> > humanity. However, I guess this isn't the appropriate forum for discussions
> > of a critical theory of society (including economy).
> 
> Agreed. Nobody listens to me, anyway.

I listen!

>  
> > If "good programmers" is meant in the sense I've alluded to in the previous
> > post, they won't blindly believe such unfounded rumours, but either find out
> > for themselves, or if their interests/priorities go into other directions,
> > just honestly know that they don't know, and not pretend otherwise (whether
> > to themselves or to other people).
> 
> If I wish I could met more of these programmers, as they seem to be in 
> a minority. I hope that's just my own experience, but I see shelves of 
> magazines and books that suggest otherwise. Then there are all those 
> adverts for jobs requiring C++ or VB. I wouldn't worry about it if I 
> didn't keep finding bugs and hairy code in those magazines and books!
>  
> > > Alternately, you could just assume that anyone who doesn't already 
> > > know Lisp never will, and wouldn't want to.
> > 
> > That's certainly not my position. However, I'd say that one can expect a
> > curious programmer to actively look around for his or her areas of interest,
> > and in these days of the web, one can find out quite easily about lots of
> > different programming languages and the associated methodologies, even if
> > one's nearest book store doesn't happen to carry many titles about the area.
> 
> I try to encourage this, where ever I can.
> 
> > You know, the word "study" (not necessarily implying university education)
> > means "making an effort", and if I should take someone seriously in this
> > field, I won't consider someone who merely glimpses over the little bit of
> > information which is readily delivered almost to one's home or office (this
> > is not to say that information channels of all kinds shouldn't be improved
> > where possible, but they are are poor excuse for lack of initiative and
> > reflection on what one is doing).
> 
> Most of the Windows developers I know seem to spent their time reading 
> SDK documentation instead of languages. There are all kinds of info, 
> and not all of it will lead a programmer to new programming ideas.
>  
> > Would you call someone a good professional programmer if he or she didn't
> > ever have think and read about programming style and program organization,
> > even without getting that as background message from some other book? I'd
> > surely hesitate to do so. This attitude of learning a heap of application-
> > specific tricks and details, but never seriously caring for fundamental
> > principles of program design and implementation, is a disease of which one
> > has to be cured if one wants to be a professional programmer, IMO. That a
> > lot of people in the field get by without this is one (certainly not the
> > only) reason for the poor quality of the products.
> 
> Agreed. I can appreciate the amount of time that studying a new tool, 
> SDK, API, etc can consume. However, I've a greater appreciation for 
> new programming experiences. All I see in the C++ tools I've used in 
> greater automation for the tedium created by C++ frameworks.
> 
> The image I have is of C++ programmers hammering hot nails into their 
> flesh, and then discovering that the nails don't need to be _quite_ so 
> hot. They then jump and down and hail it as a revolutionary change.
> Later, somebody discovers that the nails can be room temperature, or 
> that they can be replaced with sharp needles.
> 
> At each step the pain becomes relatively more bareble, but it still 
> hurts. It takes them a while to realise this. What no C++ programmer 
> seems to ask is why they are they inserting bits of metal into their 
> flesh. It's just taken for granted that they need to do this. After 
> all, haven't they always had to do this?
> 
> Using Lisp, on the other hand, is like sitting on a beanbag. There are 
> people who can't believe this can be done. When I began reading this 
> newsgroup, 5 years ago, I could see programmers who refused to believe 
> in this "heresy", and felt a bizzare need to tell us Lisp people that 
> we were doing things "wrong". For the last few years, I've been 
> equally bemused by the people saying that Java is "wrong", or won't 
> work, and various other nonsense that has also been said about Lisp.
> 
> The more things change, eh?
> -- 
> Please note: my email address is munged; You can never browse enough
>                   "Oh knackers!" - Mark Radcliffe
From: Martin Rodgers
Subject: Re: Why a lisp OS? Re: Help required on Limitations of Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <MPG.edb6143457bad4298970c@news.demon.co.uk>
John Arley Burns wheezed these wise words:

> I listen!

As I've noticed. ;)

Thanks.
-- 
Please note: my email address is munged; You can never browse enough
                  "Oh knackers!" - Mark Radcliffe
From: Pierre Mai
Subject: Re: Why a lisp OS? Re: Help required on Limitations of Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <m3btzie4r3.fsf@torus.cs.tu-berlin.de>
>>>>> "MW" == Marc Wachowitz <··@ipx2.rz.uni-mannheim.de> writes:


    MW> Would you call someone a good professional programmer if he or
    MW> she didn't ever have think and read about programming style
    MW> and program organization, even without getting that as
    MW> background message from some other book? I'd surely hesitate
    MW> to do so. This attitude of learning a heap of application-
    MW> specific tricks and details, but never seriously caring for
    MW> fundamental principles of program design and implementation,
    MW> is a disease of which one has to be cured if one wants to be a
    MW> professional programmer, IMO. That a lot of people in the
    MW> field get by without this is one (certainly not the only)
    MW> reason for the poor quality of the products.

This just bears repeating over and over!!!

People are just _so_ small-minded, whether w.r.t. programming
languages, methodologies, style, operating systems, etc.

Rarely does one see a programmer sitting down and evaluating possible
tools/solutions when confronted with a new problem.  Mostly the
attitude is "I have/can use XYYADFZ.  What do you want me to do?", and
then just spending many manhours trying to implement a "solution",
which with proper tools would have been solved in 2 minutes, leaving
28 minutes for documentation and testing, and the other half hour for
lunch ;)

This not only leads to the poor code/implementation reuse we see in
the industry, but also to the high-cost, low-reliability,
poorly-documented "solutions" we see.

Changing this is one of the main goals to solve before computing will
enter a new level of productivity/security, that will allow it to
leave it's "wild-west" era and move on to become a civilized and
responsible citizen in todays world, contributing towards solving
humanities most pressing problems...

Sadly, nowadays the trend seems to move even more towards
one-tool/one-paradigma programmers...

Regs, Pierre.
From: David Hanley
Subject: Re: Why a lisp OS? Re: Help required on Limitations of Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <347310E8.F94BFC72@netright.com.delete.me.silly>
Pierre Mai wrote:


> This just bears repeating over and over!!!
>
> People are just _so_ small-minded, whether w.r.t. programming
> languages, methodologies, style, operating systems, etc.
>
> Rarely does one see a programmer sitting down and evaluating possible
> tools/solutions when confronted with a new problem.  Mostly the
> attitude is "I have/can use XYYADFZ.  What do you want me to do?", and
> then just spending many manhours trying to implement a "solution",
> which with proper tools would have been solved in 2 minutes, leaving
> 28 minutes for documentation and testing, and the other half hour for
> lunch ;)

    It's worse than that.  Most people simply don't design code for
thefuture.  When I write code in an application, unless I'm dead sure I'll

never extend it, or need to use the code elsewhere, I write the code in
the mose general&bulletproof way that I can--so that it will be very, very

easy to extend it later, use it in a slightly different way, in the same
or
a different application.

    Most other people's code I see is desaigned to do exactly what that
spec says( if they're lucky--usually it's not conforming ) and if the
spec changes or expands, even a bit, they have to dump the old code,
or write new code.

    Functional & interactive languages make it much easier to write
code that is very general and can be used later for a slightly different
purpose.  But your everage programmer doesn't understand this anyways.

    dave