Hi,
I've read all the responses so far, and I'm pretty convinced that Lisp
isn't that poorly (thank-you!). On the other hand, a couple of posts
seem to reflect a certain ghetto mentality, especially this last one:
Lisp is not the kind of language that insecure losers would use.
people do not want to learn Lisp because they stand a better chance
of
beating another unskilled fool in the job race. fact is: you don't
get a job by lying about your Lisp skills. all of this means that
there is very little activity at the front gate, where all the
journalists and the media are. there are no people struggling like
mad to get into the Lisp world. they don't have to. if you want to
learn Lisp, you go learn Lisp and talk to nice people who probably
have time for you, and you make yourself good at it. then you go do
complex stuff that insecure losers who lie about their Java skills
can't even imagine, and therefore do not consider part of the
competition.
I've been in both academia and industry (academia wasn't computer
science, but I don't think that's important here) and I can see where
this is coming from - it was a big surprise to get into "the real
world" and find people who were scared of learning more. But I don't
think this is a language issue. I've met some very good programmers
who work in C (and a few who work in Java) and they aren't good
despite using C, or because they are using C rather than Lisp - they
are simply good, and would be good whatever language they were using
(OK, a certain amount of experience is required, but the dominant
factor is an inate ability to "program").
Over the last few evenings I've been writing a small program in Python
that pushes the functional aspects of that language about as far as it
will go. I'm doing it like that because it seems the most elegant
way, but I know I could get the same results using it's more OO
aspects. And I could also translate it into Java (the original
development in Java would have been different because of the lack of
dynamic typing - I would have had to think through more of the ideas
before starting). I don't feel I am a "better" programmer when I use
one language rather than another, I'm simply using a different tool (I
feel I am a better programmer because I have learnt from learning and
using different languages, but that is not the same thing....).
There is a difference between Lisp and Java, say, which the example
above illustrates. Static typing can certainly change the development
process, and this can lead to hierarchical "code shops" where
creativity and coding are separated. But it doesn't have to, and
there are other advantages to a more formal design approach,
especially if you are in a commercial situation where it is better to
clarify exactly what the customer wants before implementation.
I can see how a language like Java allows less skilled people to
*produce* code, but *designing* code in any language requires a
similar level of ability. Different languages provide different
pathways to a solution, and have different costs and advantages in
development / analysis / specification / modification / maintenance.
This does not imply that a Java programmer is necessarily worse than a
Lisp programmer.
So, finally, my summary is: if Java attracts less skilled programmers
that is more because it is popular (maybe because it is more suited to
a code-shop approach) than because Lisp is necessarily "better".
A popular tool is not necessarily a bad tool. On the other hand, a
good tool, even if it requires skill to use, is often a popular tool -
possibly mis-used and abused.
Of course, Lisp may well be a good but (comparatively) rare tool - I
hope so.
Andrew (Which may be what the original post meant anyway...)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Andrew Cooke wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've read all the responses so far, and I'm pretty convinced that Lisp
> isn't that poorly (thank-you!). On the other hand, a couple of posts
> seem to reflect a certain ghetto mentality, especially this last one:
>
> Lisp is not the kind of language that insecure losers would use.
> people do not want to learn Lisp because they stand a better chance
> of
> beating another unskilled fool in the job race. fact is: you don't
> get a job by lying about your Lisp skills. all of this means that
> there is very little activity at the front gate, where all the
> journalists and the media are. there are no people struggling like
> mad to get into the Lisp world. they don't have to. if you want to
> learn Lisp, you go learn Lisp and talk to nice people who probably
> have time for you, and you make yourself good at it. then you go do
> complex stuff that insecure losers who lie about their Java skills
> can't even imagine, and therefore do not consider part of the
> competition.
>
> I've been in both academia and industry (academia wasn't computer
> science, but I don't think that's important here) and I can see where
> this is coming from - it was a big surprise to get into "the real
> world" and find people who were scared of learning more. But I don't
> think this is a language issue. I've met some very good programmers
> who work in C (and a few who work in Java) and they aren't good
> despite using C, or because they are using C rather than Lisp - they
> are simply good, and would be good whatever language they were using
> (OK, a certain amount of experience is required, but the dominant
> factor is an inate ability to "program").
You seem to have read a meaning into that paragraph
that was the exzact opposite of what I saw.
My interpretation:
Insecure losers may lie about their skills in order to get a job.
However, lying about your Lisp expertise is of little benefit in
today's job market.
To contradict this you'd have to produce an example
of an insecure loser who had successfully lied h(er|is)
way into a Lisp job. Instead you present non-losers
in non-Lisp jobs.
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:02:20 GMT, Andrew Cooke
<······@andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>I've read all the responses so far, and I'm pretty convinced that Lisp
>isn't that poorly (thank-you!). On the other hand, a couple of posts
>seem to reflect a certain ghetto mentality, especially this last one:
>
> Lisp is not the kind of language that insecure losers would use.
> people do not want to learn Lisp because they stand a better chance
"Loser" is an old technical term which means roughly "one who is
unskilled and not bright enough to know it". It is not the same
pejorative that people throw around today - its a different one :)
George Neuner
Dynamic Resolutions, Inc.
===================================================
The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not
reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
===================================================
In article <··················@asgard>,
·······@dyn.com (George Neuner) writes:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:02:20 GMT, Andrew Cooke
> <······@andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I've read all the responses so far, and I'm pretty convinced that Lisp
>>isn't that poorly (thank-you!). On the other hand, a couple of posts
>>seem to reflect a certain ghetto mentality, especially this last one:
>>
>> Lisp is not the kind of language that insecure losers would use.
>> people do not want to learn Lisp because they stand a better chance
>
>
> "Loser" is an old technical term which means roughly "one who is
> unskilled and not bright enough to know it". It is not the same
> pejorative that people throw around today - its a different one :)
But I thought that version was spelled "luser".
Mike McDonald
·······@mikemac.com
·······@mikemac.com (Mike McDonald) writes:
> In article <··················@asgard>,
> ·······@dyn.com (George Neuner) writes:
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:02:20 GMT, Andrew Cooke
> > <······@andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>I've read all the responses so far, and I'm pretty convinced that Lisp
> >>isn't that poorly (thank-you!). On the other hand, a couple of posts
> >>seem to reflect a certain ghetto mentality, especially this last one:
> >>
> >> Lisp is not the kind of language that insecure losers would use.
> >> people do not want to learn Lisp because they stand a better chance
> >
> >
> > "Loser" is an old technical term which means roughly "one who is
> > unskilled and not bright enough to know it". It is not the same
> > pejorative that people throw around today - its a different one :)
>
> But I thought that version was spelled "luser".
Doesn't that refer to the user losing in some system call failures?
Sunil
Sunil Mishra <·······@whizzy.cc.gatech.edu> writes:
> ·······@mikemac.com (Mike McDonald) writes:
>
> > In article <··················@asgard>,
> > ·······@dyn.com (George Neuner) writes:
> > > On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:02:20 GMT, Andrew Cooke
> > > <······@andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >>I've read all the responses so far, and I'm pretty convinced that Lisp
> > >>isn't that poorly (thank-you!). On the other hand, a couple of posts
> > >>seem to reflect a certain ghetto mentality, especially this last one:
> > >>
> > >> Lisp is not the kind of language that insecure losers would use.
> > >> people do not want to learn Lisp because they stand a better chance
> > >
> > >
> > > "Loser" is an old technical term which means roughly "one who is
> > > unskilled and not bright enough to know it". It is not the same
> > > pejorative that people throw around today - its a different one :)
> >
> > But I thought that version was spelled "luser".
>
> Doesn't that refer to the user losing in some system call failures?
"luser" AFAIK comes from sysadmin culture e.g, "My lusers are always
complaining that disk quotas are too small and that I should install
Emacs so that the machine will be slow for everyone else."
Christopher
The word "luser" is not from "the sysadmin culture", or anything else
having to do with UNIX, or with systems that required "admins".
It comes from the hackers at the MIT AI lab about two decades ago.
It comes from the verb "to lose", which means to not succeed, or to be
a bad idea, or perhaps to be slightly clueless, depending on the context.
In particular, the spelling "luser" was a pun on "user", referring to
someone who uses the computer, but who is not what might today be
called a "system wizard" (a kernel developer). It was not particularly
derisive, at least not in a serious way.
The spelling is from the source code of ITS, the PDP-10 (originally PDP-6)
operating system written there. ITS stands for "Incompatible Timesharing System",
and that name is also a joke (referring to the contrast with the CTSS project.)
There was also an ITS system call "LOSE" (or the UUO version ".LOSE")
that terminated a program with an optional error code. On the PDP-10,
test instructions and system-calls PC-skipped on success, so typically
after a system call (such as "OPEN" a file) would be a call to "LOSE".
LUSER was also the name of an ITS application program. Typing the command "LUSER"
would send an interactive message ("Help me -- I'm a luser!") to a special list
of logged-in helpers; it summoned a hacker to help you. Most people who used
this command wondered what an "el-user" was.
Suggesting that this (or any of the other cutsey "hacker" words and
phrases) had anything to do with UNIX, at the time, bring to mind
another word that we used to use a lot. Actually, some years later
we often used the word in sentences that also contained the word "UNIX".
That word is "barf".
Chris
On 1999-07-15 21:02 +0000,
Christopher R. Barry wrote:
> Sunil Mishra <·······@whizzy.cc.gatech.edu> writes:
>
> > ·······@mikemac.com (Mike McDonald) writes:
> >
> > > In article <··················@asgard>,
> > > ·······@dyn.com (George Neuner) writes:
[...]
> > > > "Loser" is an old technical term which means roughly "one who is
> > > > unskilled and not bright enough to know it". It is not the same
> > > > pejorative that people throw around today - its a different one :)
> > >
> > > But I thought that version was spelled "luser".
> >
> > Doesn't that refer to the user losing in some system call failures?
>
> "luser" AFAIK comes from sysadmin culture e.g, "My lusers are always
> complaining that disk quotas are too small and that I should install
> Emacs so that the machine will be slow for everyone else."
There is of course an explanation of <luser> in the New Hacker's
Dictionary. I don't have an electronic copy handy; the essence:
A <user>; esp. one who is also a <loser>. [MIT, ca. 1975]
(See entry for full story, and also entries for <loser> and <user>.)
Posted by the Deja mail-to-news gateway.
Vassil Nikolov
Permanent forwarding e-mail: ········@poboxes.com
For more: http://www.poboxes.com/vnikolov
Abaci lignei --- programmatici ferrei.
The word "luser" is not from "the sysadmin culture", or anything else
having to do with UNIX, or with systems that required "admins".
It comes from the hackers at the MIT AI lab about two decades ago.
It comes from the verb "to lose", which means to not succeed, or to be
a bad idea, or perhaps to be slightly clueless, depending on the context.
In particular, the spelling "luser" was a pun on "user", referring to
someone who uses the computer, but who is not what might today be
called a "system wizard" (a kernel developer). It was not particularly
derisive, at least not in a serious way.
The spelling is from the source code of ITS, the PDP-10 (originally PDP-6)
operating system written there. ITS stands for "Incompatible Timesharing System",
and that name is also a joke (referring to the contrast with the CTSS project.)
There was also an ITS system call "LOSE" (or the UUO version ".LOSE")
that terminated a program with an optional error code. On the PDP-10,
test instructions and system-calls PC-skipped on success, so typically
after a system call (such as "OPEN" a file) would be a call to "LOSE".
LUSER was also the name of an ITS application program. Typing the command "LUSER"
would send an interactive message ("Help me -- I'm a luser!") to a special list
of logged-in helpers; it summoned a hacker to help you. Most people who used
this command wondered what an "el-user" was.
Suggesting that this (or any of the other cutsey "hacker" words and
phrases) had anything to do with UNIX, at the time, bring to mind
another word that we used to use a lot. Actually, some years later
we often used the word in sentences that also contained the word "UNIX".
That word is "barf".
Chris
* Mike McDonald
|
| But I thought that version was spelled "luser".
* Sunil Mishra
|
| Doesn't that refer to the user losing in some system call failures?
This expands on what Christopher Stacy wrote, and seems to have some
pre-history:
<URL: http://www.wins.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/l/luser.html >
--Lars M.
On 15 Jul 1999 17:45:43 GMT, ·······@mikemac.com (Mike McDonald)
wrote:
>> "Loser" is an old technical term which means roughly "one who is
>> unskilled and not bright enough to know it". It is not the same
>> pejorative that people throw around today - its a different one :)
>
> But I thought that version was spelled "luser".
>
You could be right - I've heard it said a number of times (fortunately
not [directly] to me) but the only place I've actually seen it written
is in Levy's book "Hackers". He spelled it conventionally.
George Neuner
Dynamic Resolutions, Inc.
===================================================
The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not
reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
===================================================
* Andrew Cooke <······@andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk>
| I've read all the responses so far, and I'm pretty convinced that Lisp
| isn't that poorly (thank-you!). On the other hand, a couple of posts
| seem to reflect a certain ghetto mentality, especially this last one:
people see what they want to see, apparantly, and that might just sum up
this fruitless "discussion". but anyway, I have never heard of ghettos
being warm and welcoming towards outsiders who would like to know them --
"ghetto" to me sort of means exactly the opposite: keeping people out and
not letting insiders out, either. I have never heard of ghettos who are
willing to listen to people outside when they have a valid point, either
-- it sort of defeats the whole purpose of a ghetto. I have also never
heard of people who try to explain why they don't join the masses as
being a "ghetto". I'd might settle for "elite" in some cases, the same
way I certainly would agree some of my other tastes are "elite" even if
it were flung at me like the accusation that your "ghetto mentality" is.
obviously, you and I have very differing views about ghettos and their
mentalities, Andrew, and I'm sure we'll never find anything at all to
talk about, anyway, so let me just tell you that if you want to accuse
people of an attitude that is entirely one of your own, don't act very
surprised if you meet hostility on your way, but please be smart and
honest enough to realize that the ghetto mentality is around yourself and
is your own attitude to people _you_ want to keep a distance to, and that
that is the only reason you keep seeing it.
| I don't feel I am a "better" programmer when I use one language rather
| than another ...
I'd like to you do some soul-searching and discover for yourself where
the need to write this statement _actually_ comes from. then apologize
to me for imputing it to me. thank you.
| So, finally, my summary is: if Java attracts less skilled programmers
| that is more because it is popular (maybe because it is more suited to
| a code-shop approach) than because Lisp is necessarily "better".
you obviously equate "less skilled" with "liar". that is also an
attitude entirely of your own creation, and I would again like you to
think very carefully about why you needed to make it appear to be mine.
in my world, you don't usually need to lie if you are actually skilled,
but lying and being skilled are completely orthogonal qualities. I
challenge you to imagine these two people: person A is a very honest
person who is currently not skilled in field F, and he sets out to learn,
and he does obviously not tell anyone that is is skilled in field F.
person B is actually very skilled in field F, but is so insecure that he
is constantly lying about his skills and alsowants people to believe that
since he is skilled in field F, he is also skilled in neighboring fields
E and G. now, think very carefully about these two people, Andrew, and
read this sentence again:
then you go do complex stuff that insecure losers who lie about their
Java skills can't even imagine, and therefore do not consider part of
the competition.
is it person A of little skill or person B of much skill I am talking
about? if you think it is person A, I will conclude that you are a
deeply dishonest person yourself. if you understand that it is person B
that I might be talking about (one of little skill may also be lying), I
think you should publish your deeply felt remorse for having tried to
impute a bunch of dishonest views to me.
#:Erik
--
@1999-07-22T00:37:33Z -- pi billion seconds since the turn of the century