Hello friends,
It occurs to me that lesser languages like Java, etc. succeed in
the modern world where Lisp seems like a computer science lesson from days
of old because they have, or are perceived to have, an easy way to
write/design a GUI, and to integrate well with low-level OS
libraries/functions. I love Lisp, but there are things that I would never
attempt with it that I would do in a snap with Python (actually a great
language). I could use TK or WxPython to design a GUI frontend to my
functions in less than an hour. Java, Python, Perl, Tcl/Tk etc. also are
"web aware", i.e. they acknowledge that for a language to be "hot", it has
to appeal to the web-using public, and be usable for the web by the
web-using public.
When Lisp gets its elegance across, as well as having easy access
to all the things people like about things like Tcl/Tk, Java, Perl,
Python; and not just obscure kits like Garnet, etc. (One of the problems
is that various implementations go different lengths to provide such
functionality--Java sucks, but at least you know what you're getting and
what you're able to do with it!) There's only one Python, Perl, and
Tcl/Tk, and that helps them stay central and release one version of the
language--not the fragmented state of affairs that both Lisp as a language
and Linux as an OS suffer.
Aaron Johnson.
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 08:52:14 -0600, "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
wrote:
>
>Hello friends,
>
> It occurs to me that lesser languages like Java, etc. succeed in
>the modern world where Lisp seems like a computer science lesson from days
>of old because they have, or are perceived to have, an easy way to
>write/design a GUI, and to integrate well with low-level OS
CAPI, CLIM, Common Graphics and whatever gui toolkit MCL has aren't
enough? :-)
>libraries/functions. I love Lisp, but there are things that I would never
>attempt with it that I would do in a snap with Python (actually a great
Obviously, since Python and CL are very different languages with
different goals. Python is a scripting language, great for quick sysadmin
wizardry, but not for building big, complex apps. Use both. :-)
>language). I could use TK or WxPython to design a GUI frontend to my
>functions in less than an hour. Java, Python, Perl, Tcl/Tk etc. also are
>"web aware", i.e. they acknowledge that for a language to be "hot", it has
>to appeal to the web-using public, and be usable for the web by the
>web-using public.
Well... yes, some _standard_ support for doing web stuff would be
nice.
>what you're able to do with it!) There's only one Python, Perl, and
>Tcl/Tk, and that helps them stay central and release one version of the
>language--not the fragmented state of affairs that both Lisp as a language
>and Linux as an OS suffer.
I don't think so: there's plenty of implementations of c and c++ and
they're freaking popular; there's only one Windows and it doesn't make things
easier for it's users... :-P
//-----------------------------------------------
// Fernando Rodriguez Romero
//
// frr at mindless dot com
//------------------------------------------------
In article <··································@4ax.com>, Fernando
Rodr?guez <·······@must.die> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 08:52:14 -0600, "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Hello friends,
> >
> > It occurs to me that lesser languages like Java, etc. succeed in
> >the modern world where Lisp seems like a computer science lesson from days
> >of old because they have, or are perceived to have, an easy way to
> >write/design a GUI, and to integrate well with low-level OS
>
> CAPI, CLIM, Common Graphics and whatever gui toolkit MCL has aren't
> enough? :-)
The Macintosh GUI toolkit is amazingly simple and powerful. Digitool
ships almost all of their Lisp system in source code (you
get the full source code for everything GUI related: editor,
interface builder, graphics functionality, inpector,
backtrace). If you look at the contrib directory at
ftp.digitool.com or on the MCL CDROM, you will find literally
MEGABYTES of cool extensions. MCL has stuff to interface
to MIDI, control video disk players, full access to
QuickTime (people have been programming authoring environments
in MCL), speech I/O, QuickDraw 3d, business graphics,
drag&drop, diverse browers, ...
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <8vkmob$a1l$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <····························@news.is-europe.net>,
Rainer Joswig <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote:
> In article <··································@4ax.com>, Fernando
> Rodr?guez <·······@must.die> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 08:52:14 -0600, "Aaron K . Johnson"
<···@21stcentury.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Hello friends,
> > >
> > > It occurs to me that lesser languages like Java, etc. succeed in
> > >the modern world where Lisp seems like a computer science lesson
from days
> > >of old because they have, or are perceived to have, an easy way to
> > >write/design a GUI, and to integrate well with low-level OS
> >
> > CAPI, CLIM, Common Graphics and whatever gui toolkit MCL has
aren't
> > enough? :-)
>
> The Macintosh GUI toolkit is amazingly simple and powerful. Digitool
> ships almost all of their Lisp system in source code (you
> get the full source code for everything GUI related: editor,
> interface builder, graphics functionality, inpector,
> backtrace). If you look at the contrib directory at
> ftp.digitool.com or on the MCL CDROM, you will find literally
> MEGABYTES of cool extensions. MCL has stuff to interface
> to MIDI, control video disk players, full access to
> QuickTime (people have been programming authoring environments
> in MCL), speech I/O, QuickDraw 3d, business graphics,
> drag&drop, diverse browers, ...
>
sound great- wish I could say that there were something Lisp provided
to us linuxers like that- there'd be no reason for any other languages!
aaron.
> --
> Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
> Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
> Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <8vkmft$9pt$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
Fernando Rodr�guez <·······@must.die> wrote:
> Obviously, since Python and CL are very different languages with
> different goals. Python is a scripting language, great for quick
sysadmin
> wizardry, but not for building big, complex apps. Use both. :-)
>
Look at www.python.org for a listing of python success stories. i think
you'll find that Python is quite robust and capable of very large apps.
> >language). I could use TK or WxPython to design a GUI frontend to my
> >functions in less than an hour. Java, Python, Perl, Tcl/Tk etc. also
are
> >"web aware", i.e. they acknowledge that for a language to be "hot",
it has
> >to appeal to the web-using public, and be usable for the web by the
> >web-using public.
>
> Well... yes, some _standard_ support for doing web stuff would
be
> nice.
>
> >what you're able to do with it!) There's only one Python, Perl, and
> >Tcl/Tk, and that helps them stay central and release one version of
the
> >language--not the fragmented state of affairs that both Lisp as a
language
> >and Linux as an OS suffer.
>
> I don't think so: there's plenty of implementations of c and
c++ and
> they're freaking popular; there's only one Windows and it doesn't
make things
> easier for it's users... :-P
C/C++ is popular for 2 reasons- speed, and OS functionality. (and i
suppose public gullibility ;) )
>
> //-----------------------------------------------
> // Fernando Rodriguez Romero
> //
> // frr at mindless dot com
> //------------------------------------------------
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <nkjofz5k832.fsf@tfeb.org>
········@my-deja.com writes:
> C/C++ is popular for 2 reasons- speed, and OS functionality. (and i
> suppose public gullibility ;) )
>
I think you really mean `speed of the 10 line programs that fit in 1st
level cache that are all people ever benchmark'. Certainly I don't
think you can mean `speed of delivered large applications': I've used
some impressively slow C++ applications.
--tim
On 24 Nov 2000, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> ········@my-deja.com writes:
>
> > C/C++ is popular for 2 reasons- speed, and OS functionality. (and i
> > suppose public gullibility ;) )
> >
>
> I think you really mean `speed of the 10 line programs that fit in 1st
> level cache that are all people ever benchmark'. Certainly I don't
> think you can mean `speed of delivered large applications': I've used
> some impressively slow C++ applications.
>
> --tim
>
Apparently, I'm told this is because C was forced into something it was
never meant to do in the first place: Object-Oriented programming.
BTW, I find the whole OO paradigm sort of an annoying catch-phrase
phenomenon that has turned me off to really investigating it, other than
being forced to use it in wxPython.....
-Aaron
In article
<······································@ajohnson.21stcentury.net>,
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> wrote:
> Hello friends,
>
> It occurs to me that lesser languages like Java, etc. succeed in
> the modern world where Lisp seems like a computer science lesson from days
> of old because they have, or are perceived to have, an easy way to
> write/design a GUI, and to integrate well with low-level OS
> libraries/functions. I love Lisp, but there are things that I would never
> attempt with it that I would do in a snap with Python (actually a great
> language). I could use TK or WxPython to design a GUI frontend to my
> functions in less than an hour.
Why does it take so long? On my Mac I use either the interactive
interface builder or a GUI description tool like CLIM.
> Java, Python, Perl, Tcl/Tk etc. also are
> "web aware", i.e. they acknowledge that for a language to be "hot", it has
> to appeal to the web-using public, and be usable for the web by the
> web-using public.
That's what I use CL-HTTP for.
> When Lisp gets its elegance across, as well as having easy access
> to all the things people like about things like Tcl/Tk, Java, Perl,
> Python; and not just obscure kits like Garnet, etc.
> (One of the problems
> is that various implementations go different lengths to provide such
> functionality--Java sucks, but at least you know what you're getting and
> what you're able to do with it!) There's only one Python, Perl, and
> Tcl/Tk
There is not one implementation of those that comes near
the performance of commercial Lisp implementations. If you
are a script kiddie - go use PERL. If you want to be a programmer,
use Common Lisp.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> wrote in message
···········································@ajohnson.21stcentury.net...
>
> Hello friends,
>
> It occurs to me that lesser languages like Java, etc. succeed in
> the modern world where Lisp seems like a computer science lesson from days
> of old because they have, or are perceived to have, an easy way to
> write/design a GUI, and to integrate well with low-level OS
> libraries/functions. I love Lisp, but there are things that I would never
> attempt with it that I would do in a snap with Python (actually a great
> language). I could use TK or WxPython to design a GUI frontend to my
> functions in less than an hour. Java, Python, Perl, Tcl/Tk etc. also are
> "web aware", i.e. they acknowledge that for a language to be "hot", it has
> to appeal to the web-using public, and be usable for the web by the
> web-using public.
> When Lisp gets its elegance across, as well as having easy access
> to all the things people like about things like Tcl/Tk, Java, Perl,
> Python; and not just obscure kits like Garnet, etc. (One of the problems
> is that various implementations go different lengths to provide such
> functionality--Java sucks, but at least you know what you're getting and
> what you're able to do with it!) There's only one Python, Perl, and
> Tcl/Tk, and that helps them stay central and release one version of the
> language--not the fragmented state of affairs that both Lisp as a language
> and Linux as an OS suffer.
What Lisp needs to gain more audience (still, I think, a desirable goal),
is:
1. A corporate sponsor with deep pockets and an axe to grind in the form of
a new platform; a sponsor who is willing to lose money on languages and
tools to gain platform market share. This sponsor needs to choose Lisp as
the language of choice for the new platform.
2. An updated spec so the sponsored Lisp dialect can take advantage of the
new platform's splendid characteristics.
3. Some compelling reason for people to use the new platform.
I base this conclusion on analogies to the three current popular languages,
C/C++ (Unix and to some extent Windows platforms, sponsored by AT&T and then
Microsoft), Visual Basic (Windows sponsored by Microsoft), and Java (the
Internet "platform" sponsored by Sun). Similar analogies to even older
languages could be made, such as PL/I (or whatever) for OS/360 and so on.
BTW, I believe these characterstics are necessary but not sufficient for
widespread success of a serious application programming language.
As none of those things are on the horizon, I don't think Lisp is quite out
of the trenches yet.
-- Harley
"Stock Crack" <··········@flashcom.com> wrote in message
···················@corp.supernews.com...
>
> What Lisp needs to gain more audience (still, I think, a desirable goal),
> is:
>
> 1. A corporate sponsor with deep pockets and an axe to grind in the form
of
> a new platform; a sponsor who is willing to lose money on languages and
> tools to gain platform market share. This sponsor needs to choose Lisp as
> the language of choice for the new platform.
>
> 2. An updated spec so the sponsored Lisp dialect can take advantage of the
> new platform's splendid characteristics.
>
> 3. Some compelling reason for people to use the new platform.
>
> I base this conclusion on analogies to the three current popular
languages,
> C/C++ (Unix and to some extent Windows platforms, sponsored by AT&T and
then
> Microsoft), Visual Basic (Windows sponsored by Microsoft), and Java (the
> Internet "platform" sponsored by Sun). Similar analogies to even older
> languages could be made, such as PL/I (or whatever) for OS/360 and so on.
> BTW, I believe these characterstics are necessary but not sufficient for
> widespread success of a serious application programming language.
>
> As none of those things are on the horizon, I don't think Lisp is quite
out
> of the trenches yet.
I think it would take much less than this to give Lisp a shot in the arm.
The language stands on its own merits. People either love it or hate it, and
those who hate it can look elsewhere - who needs them? Unfortunately those
who love it often look elsewhere too. Those are the people who would gladly
be persuaded to stay without corporate sponsorship or marketing slogans.
I think there's little point in looking at the big issues until the small
ones are taken into account. The reason for Lisp's lack of growth in
popularity is very simple in my opinion.
Current and future generations of good programmers are learning their craft
with cheap and free tools on Linux and the BSDs. Suppose you're a 17 year
old fledgeling programmer and you want to test your skill with a simple IRC
client or a graphical logic game. You might have dabbled with clisp or cmucl
and liked the Lisp language, but would you choose it to write your new toy?
You'd have a hard time doing so, in spite of the the quality of the
language.
Would you then fork out for an AllegroCL license, or would you *first* think
of using Python with Tkinter, C++ with QT or wxWindows, C with GTK+ or some
other option instead? These other options have everything you need to build
your toy - for nix. None of them come close to Lisp in language potency, but
they get the simple jobs done. And from little things, big things grow ...
Two simple features would attract a lot of young blood to the free Lisp
implementations (thence onward and upward):
1. Easy gui development
2. Easy access to comms (web, mail, ftp, etc).
I believe it really is as simple as that.
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Patrick W wrote:
>
> "Stock Crack" <··········@flashcom.com> wrote in message
> ···················@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > What Lisp needs to gain more audience (still, I think, a desirable goal),
> > is:
> >
> > 1. A corporate sponsor with deep pockets and an axe to grind in the form
> of
> > a new platform; a sponsor who is willing to lose money on languages and
> > tools to gain platform market share. This sponsor needs to choose Lisp as
> > the language of choice for the new platform.
> >
> > 2. An updated spec so the sponsored Lisp dialect can take advantage of the
> > new platform's splendid characteristics.
> >
> > 3. Some compelling reason for people to use the new platform.
> >
> > I base this conclusion on analogies to the three current popular
> languages,
> > C/C++ (Unix and to some extent Windows platforms, sponsored by AT&T and
> then
> > Microsoft), Visual Basic (Windows sponsored by Microsoft), and Java (the
> > Internet "platform" sponsored by Sun). Similar analogies to even older
> > languages could be made, such as PL/I (or whatever) for OS/360 and so on.
> > BTW, I believe these characterstics are necessary but not sufficient for
> > widespread success of a serious application programming language.
> >
> > As none of those things are on the horizon, I don't think Lisp is quite
> out
> > of the trenches yet.
>
> I think it would take much less than this to give Lisp a shot in the arm.
>
> The language stands on its own merits. People either love it or hate it, and
> those who hate it can look elsewhere - who needs them? Unfortunately those
> who love it often look elsewhere too. Those are the people who would gladly
> be persuaded to stay without corporate sponsorship or marketing slogans.
>
> I think there's little point in looking at the big issues until the small
> ones are taken into account. The reason for Lisp's lack of growth in
> popularity is very simple in my opinion.
>
> Current and future generations of good programmers are learning their craft
> with cheap and free tools on Linux and the BSDs. Suppose you're a 17 year
> old fledgeling programmer and you want to test your skill with a simple IRC
> client or a graphical logic game. You might have dabbled with clisp or cmucl
> and liked the Lisp language, but would you choose it to write your new toy?
> You'd have a hard time doing so, in spite of the the quality of the
> language.
>
> Would you then fork out for an AllegroCL license, or would you *first* think
> of using Python with Tkinter, C++ with QT or wxWindows, C with GTK+ or some
> other option instead? These other options have everything you need to build
> your toy - for nix. None of them come close to Lisp in language potency, but
> they get the simple jobs done. And from little things, big things grow ...
>
> Two simple features would attract a lot of young blood to the free Lisp
> implementations (thence onward and upward):
>
> 1. Easy gui development
> 2. Easy access to comms (web, mail, ftp, etc).
>
> I believe it really is as simple as that.
>
Excellent points. I couldn't have said it better. In particular, i believe
that Lisp needs a more centralized GUI like Tk. It should be universal,
and easy to use. When I say universal I mean EVERY Lisp implementation
should support it, so that code could be portable to any machine. That
Lisp is as popular as it is at all is a miracle (even though its truly
awesome), because most Lisp/scheme code is nowhere near being portable. I
think the portability issue and the GUI issue are of paramount importance.
Consider this from the Lisp FAQ-a list of how the different Lisps have you
save an image-
Lucid: DISKSAVE
Symbolics: Save World [CP command]
CMU CL: SAVE-LISP
Franz Allegro: EXCL:DUMPLISP (documented)
SAVE-IMAGE (undocumented)
Medley: IL:SYSOUT or IL:MAKESYS
MCL: SAVE-APPLICATION <pathname>
&key :toplevel-function :creator
:excise-compiler
:size :resources :init-file :clear-clos-caches
KCL: (si:save-system "saved_kcl")
LispWorks: LW:SAVE-IMAGE
Is it any wonder that the GUI state of things is any better?
-Aaron
In article
<······································@ajohnson.21stcentury.net>,
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> wrote:
> Excellent points. I couldn't have said it better. In particular, i believe
> that Lisp needs a more centralized GUI like Tk. It should be universal,
> and easy to use. When I say universal I mean EVERY Lisp implementation
> should support it, so that code could be portable to any machine. That
> Lisp is as popular as it is at all is a miracle (even though its truly
> awesome), because most Lisp/scheme code is nowhere near being portable. I
> think the portability issue and the GUI issue are of paramount importance.
>
> Consider this from the Lisp FAQ-a list of how the different Lisps have you
> save an image-
>
> Lucid: DISKSAVE
> Symbolics: Save World [CP command]
> CMU CL: SAVE-LISP
> Franz Allegro: EXCL:DUMPLISP (documented)
> SAVE-IMAGE (undocumented)
> Medley: IL:SYSOUT or IL:MAKESYS
> MCL: SAVE-APPLICATION <pathname>
> &key :toplevel-function :creator
> :excise-compiler
> :size :resources :init-file :clear-clos-caches
> KCL: (si:save-system "saved_kcl")
> LispWorks: LW:SAVE-IMAGE
If this hinders you to write a Common Lisp application, I think you
should better look at another comp.lang.XXX with (not (eq XXX Lisp)).
> Is it any wonder that the GUI state of things is any better?
Take the file systems. Similar important compared to GUIs.
How does C-based software manage to open files on the different
platforms (VMS, Unix, DOS, Windows XXXX, MacOS HFS, MacOS HFS+, ...)?
Is there a standard for that? For pathnames? File attributes?
Still there seems to be plenty software that has been written,
capable of accessing a file system. Common Lisp has a unified
model of pathnames and stream-based IO - still it does not better
than C.
Actually those who manage to write commercially successful
Lisp software seem to be very silent. Those who can't are
telling us once a week.
I once wrote a small application together with a student to
access our telephone system (German Telekom Octopus) and to provide
us daily usage and billing reports. I think I developed it
on MCL and Genera. It got deployed with CLisp on a SUN Enterprise 250
- the core code ran almost unchanged for a year.
The student ported it to LispWorks on Windows. Later it got
a CLIM GUI. Despite what you are saying, carefully written Lisp
code is extremely portable and able to run for years.
I once talked to people who are maintaining an application with a
million+ (!!) lines of Lisp code. They develop on Lisp machine
and deploy on ACL. A port of this application to LispWorks
took them just three months. For a million lines of Lisp code...
Now you tell me Lisp is not portable. (The joke was when they
looked at CL-HTTP, it was a refreshingly small application for
them.)
If you, for example, use CL-HTTP you can deploy your code with a web
interface on several platforms virtually unchanged (Windows,
Unix, Mac, Lispm). John Mallery takes great care to publish
new devos as Mac, tar.gz and Lispm distribution. I often wish
there were more Lisp developers that are as fearless as he is.
Would you, when the White House asked you to write a web
application to distribute government documents, write your
own web server in Lisp, patch the Lisp machine mailer so that
it actually works, write your own document distribution system
for web and mail access in Lisp, use a CLOS database, and ***deploy***
it on a Lisp machine? Without a single line of C/Java/Perl/... code?
Sure not, you would give up *******************long************************
before, just because there are ten ways to dump a Lisp application??!!
John's approach is different: If there is an obstacle (say a bug
in a TCP interface), it gets debugged and fixed once and forever.
If there is an incompatibility in the different Lisps, he provides
a portable version. What's the result: the code he wrote runs at
the White House for several years now and the White House is actively
**using** it. The system even survived the rush hours during the
Lewinsky affair. ;-) Other used the system on different platforms
(NASA: MCL, Honda: ACL, Incops: MCL, XXX: LispWorks, ...) to
deploy complex user interfaces. Have you ever looked at the Lisp course
(http://www.psychologie.uni-trier.de:8000/elmart) that's running
in MCL+CL-HTTP over the web? This application received an "European
Academic Software Award" in 1998.
I also used Paul Meurer's ODBC interface in MCL
and LWW (works also for ACL). Code runs without any changes.
What's wrong using one of those libraries on top of CLX
for X graphics? Say CLUE, CLIO, XIT, CLIM, ...? Choose one.
Most of can be made running in any Lisp. I even once changed
CLX to run in MCL - this is work of a few hours. MCL than
will connect to an X server. If you are really interested, some
companies are offering portable Lisp GUI libraries. IISY
offered a MCL compatible GUI library for ACL, GBB is offering
"Chalkbox", even students seem to be capable of connecting
Java with Lisp (http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/cvince/date/screen-navigator.html).
To give you a last example. Here in Hamburg, a company developed a
Lisp-based application for the telephone support staff of
the local public transport system. It finds routes through
the extensive public transport system (bus, underground train, trains and
ships). The application has been prototyped and later deployed
in three versions: a) for the support staff with SUN+Screen+Keyboard,
b) SUN + touchscreen + printer using a special console that survives
unfriendly usage for the public and c) a CGI version for the web. (now there
is also a Java version for PCs). If you go to
the Hamburg Central station you will be able to use a such a public
terminal - sure nobody knows that it is written in Common Lisp + CLX.
But it is ***cool***. So damn cool.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
"Rainer Joswig" <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote in message
·································@news.is-europe.net...
>
> Actually those who manage to write commercially successful
> Lisp software seem to be very silent. Those who can't are
> telling us once a week.
Maybe they have a point (beyond the obvious implication that they lack the
ability).
I don't think Aaron intended to imply it's not possible to write
commercially successful software in Lisp. I didn't either. I think both of
us, in contrast to you, were discussing aspects of Lisp's lack of surface
appeal to new generations of programmers, *not* suggesting it isn't a great
practical tool for experienced Lispers.
[ John Mallery's fearlessness]
> Sure not, you would give up
*******************long************************
> before, just because there are ten ways to dump a Lisp application??!!
> John's approach is different: If there is an obstacle (say a bug
> in a TCP interface), it gets debugged and fixed once and forever.
> If there is an incompatibility in the different Lisps, he provides
> a portable version.
Would you step back a bit and look at the context of the discussion? I
notice you've got a Lisp machine on your home page, so is it a fair
assumption you've been around Lisp for a long time? I'm assuming you know
what a great language it is, you're comfortable with the tools you use, and
you're confident in your ability to make Lisp do whatever you desire. John
Mallery's fearlessness must have come from a similar confidence. It's not
something that one would or could do having only a passing acquaintance with
Lisp.
Having more people like John Mallery would be a nice side effect of making
Lisp more accessible to new generations of programmers. Not the only side
effect, to be sure. There would be a lot more noise and stupidity as well.
But if 1% of those who pick up on Lisp are enthusiastic and talented, there
will be progress - in tools, literature, community, momentum, public
profile. Without the bare minimum of surface appeal, there will be fewer
talented people who even *try* Lisp. (I don't know JM, but I know a few who
have the same attitude. Most of them have never touched Lisp They're using
Python).
Not knowing what you're missing is a strong disincentive to perseverance.
You and John Mallery may not have that problem. Others ... well ... don't
know what they're missing.
In article <······················@ozemail.com.au>, "Patrick W"
<······@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Would you step back a bit and look at the context of the discussion? I
> notice you've got a Lisp machine on your home page, so is it a fair
> assumption you've been around Lisp for a long time? I'm assuming you know
> what a great language it is, you're comfortable with the tools you use, and
> you're confident in your ability to make Lisp do whatever you desire. John
> Mallery's fearlessness must have come from a similar confidence. It's not
> something that one would or could do having only a passing acquaintance with
> Lisp.
But I started somehow sometime, writing my share of Pascal, Basic,
Assembler and Modula 2.
> Having more people like John Mallery would be a nice side effect of making
> Lisp more accessible to new generations of programmers.
Maybe it is also the other way round? "The new generation of programmers"
needs to be more accessible? Maybe after some time of experimenting
they will. Like children experimenting with smoking and after
some time the will discover that it is unhealthy not at lot
of fun (besides many telling you).
> Not the only side
> effect, to be sure. There would be a lot more noise and stupidity as well.
Yes, but this is normal.
> But if 1% of those who pick up on Lisp are enthusiastic and talented, there
> will be progress - in tools, literature, community, momentum, public
> profile.
Much of what others want to achieve, is already there. But maybe not
in a way they expect.
If people feel the need for (new) tools, literature, community. etc.
I'd say, go ahead. Create tools, write books, build a community.
You can't expect me to do it for you. I have my own agenda
and write my own tools.
There is also no need to discover and use Lisp. Many programmers can
get along and can survive without ever touching it. Other
programming languages and tools are also productive.
There is no obvious need to drive a Mercedes. But those
who did will know that it is well-engineered and reliable.
> Without the bare minimum of surface appeal, there will be fewer
> talented people who even *try* Lisp. (I don't know JM, but I know a few who
> have the same attitude. Most of them have never touched Lisp They're using
> Python).
They need to learn and discover Lisp. They even need to form the
language for their needs (like the previous generations of users formed
Lisp for their purposes). Lot's of things are simply there and
need to discovered. An example: people would get the impression
that there are no books about Lisp - they look into their
bookstore and they see hundred books about Java and maybe none
about Lisp. They just need to discover that one can order books
and there are book catalogs that one can browse. They also
need to discover that there is a thing called the Internet,
where some of the most important Lisp books are available (CLtL2,
ANSI CL HyperSpec, ...) in various formats.
What they need to be? They need to be programmers in the first
place. Having written 5KLOC of Python doesn't make you a programmer.
Much of the source code you can see at Sourceforge scares me,
it is of incredible poor quality and I wouldn't let it into
my software. Just writing it again gives me much more confidence
in the code. I would agree with Peter Norvig's observations
(http://www.norvig.com/21-days.html) and his motto:
"Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years".
Lisp is the Zen way of Programming.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
"Rainer Joswig" <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote in message
·································@news.is-europe.net...
> In article <······················@ozemail.com.au>, "Patrick W"
> <······@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Would you step back a bit and look at the context of the discussion? I
> > notice you've got a Lisp machine on your home page, so is it a fair
> > assumption you've been around Lisp for a long time? I'm assuming you
know
> > what a great language it is, you're comfortable with the tools you use,
and
> > you're confident in your ability to make Lisp do whatever you desire.
John
> > Mallery's fearlessness must have come from a similar confidence. It's
not
> > something that one would or could do having only a passing acquaintance
with
> > Lisp.
>
> But I started somehow sometime, writing my share of Pascal, Basic,
> Assembler and Modula 2.
Of course. I'm not suggesting you old-timers had all the breaks and life's
so much tougher than it used to be. In a lot of ways beginners today have it
much easier - but they're pampered with the wrong luxuries - like junk
food - plenty of fat but no real nourishment.
> > Having more people like John Mallery would be a nice side effect of
making
> > Lisp more accessible to new generations of programmers.
>
> Maybe it is also the other way round? "The new generation of programmers"
> needs to be more accessible?
Sure. I wouldn't argue with that. However, it's not one or the other. It's
both.
> > But if 1% of those who pick up on Lisp are enthusiastic and talented,
there
> > will be progress - in tools, literature, community, momentum, public
> > profile.
>
> Much of what others want to achieve, is already there. But maybe not
> in a way they expect.
Fair comment. But IMO the current state of affairs is dangerously close to:
"much of what others want once was there, and still may be if you look hard
enough".
> If people feel the need for (new) tools, literature, community. etc.
> I'd say, go ahead. Create tools, write books, build a community.
> You can't expect me to do it for you. I have my own agenda
> and write my own tools.
A bit more vibrant community wouldn't be a bad thing. I know that's anathema
to some of you guys, but the attitude in c.l.l. sometimes reminds me of a
clan of rich retirees languishing in luxury in an exclusive suburb. If
someone under thirty arrives you can almost people muttering: "There goes
the neighbourhood".
> There is also no need to discover and use Lisp. Many programmers can
> get along and can survive without ever touching it. Other
> programming languages and tools are also productive.
> There is no obvious need to drive a Mercedes. But those
> who did will know that it is well-engineered and reliable.
And the rarer the Mercedes, the better you enjoy yours hmm? ;-)
>... people would get the impression
> that there are no books about Lisp - they look into their
> bookstore and they see hundred books about Java and maybe none
> about Lisp. They just need to discover that one can order books
> and there are book catalogs that one can browse. They also
> need to discover that there is a thing called the Internet,
> where some of the most important Lisp books are available (CLtL2,
> ANSI CL HyperSpec, ...) in various formats.
True, the books are few - but of a standard you don't find elsewhere.
(Norvig's PAIP is worth more than any number of C++ books I've bought).
> What they need to be? They need to be programmers in the first
> place. Having written 5KLOC of Python doesn't make you a programmer.
> Much of the source code you can see at Sourceforge scares me,
> it is of incredible poor quality and I wouldn't let it into
> my software. Just writing it again gives me much more confidence
> in the code. I would agree with Peter Norvig's observations
> (http://www.norvig.com/21-days.html) and his motto:
> "Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years".
Yes, an interesting article. It concurs with my experience in other fields.
> Lisp is the Zen way of Programming.
Eh? Vague? Unpredictable? Mind-bendingly illogical? Without structure?
Inscrutable? Liable to whack you over the head with a thick stick at any
moment? Jesus, man, what sort of software you creating?? ;-)
"Patrick W" <······@my-deja.com> writes:
> A bit more vibrant community wouldn't be a bad thing. I know that's anathema
> to some of you guys, but the attitude in c.l.l. sometimes reminds me of a
> clan of rich retirees languishing in luxury in an exclusive suburb. If
> someone under thirty arrives you can almost people muttering: "There goes
> the neighbourhood".
I was thirthy-ish when I discovered CL but I don't think your image is
correct. I think one of the strengths of Lisp is that is has been used
for forty years to solve the most challenging and complex problems of
the time. The language has been designed with large and complex
applications in mind. This means that to see the advantages of CL it
helps to have experience with other languages in large applications.
A beginning programmer with his shining new C++ compiler and GUI
toolkit reads the tutorial, writes 100 lines of code and has a small
graphical application with an edit widget, some buttons and an
image. Now you show him that you can do this with 40 lines of
Lisp. This isn't going to convince him. Now go to a team of C++
programmers with 10 million lines of code that is such a tangle of
includes and dependencies that it takes a day to compile on an Ultra
10. Give them a demonstration that you can redefine a class in the
listener, write an update function and have the existing instances in
your system consistent with the new definition, and you'll have their
attention.
But it takes a few years of experience of other languages to
appreciate CL. The same thing goes on with the debate of pricing
(esp. Franz's). If you approach it from the hobbyist programmer's
point of view and compare the price of MS Visual
Whatever-it-is-called-these-days to a commercial Lisp, you'll find it
excessive. If you compare it to stuff from Platinum, Computer
Associates or Rational for Enterprise development it's cheap. Note
that these vendors don't target the home market at all. It is in fact
a significant contribution to the Lisp community by Franz and Xanalys
to make available trial versions. Some people here tend to assume they
have a right to them and for them to be free, but these projects cost
real money to Franz and Xanalys.
Lastly, on the lack of libraries, I'd like to suggest to the people
that complain about it to write some and make them available. Some
complainers seem to think it their right to demand such things from
the people who use CL to write applications. Even setting issues of
intellectual property aside, making available code to the public has a
real cost. But even on the availability of libraries, the comparison
should be made carefully. There is in the {Perl, Python, Java, ...}
community a plethora of libraries for the more simple things like
HTTP, SMTP etc. This stuff is so trivial in CL that I usually roll my
own since looking for a library, evaluating the licence, compiling it
and getting it integrated in my environment would take longer than
just writing it myself. On the other hand, libraries for somewhat more
complex stuff are rare in any language since they take a lot of
work. I'm not aware of too many libraries for z39.50 or free asn.1
compilers or stuff like that.
--
Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be>
Lambda calculus - Call us a mad club
Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be> writes:
> A beginning programmer with his shining new C++ compiler and GUI
> toolkit reads the tutorial, writes 100 lines of code and has a small
> graphical application with an edit widget, some buttons and an
> image. Now you show him that you can do this with 40 lines of
> Lisp. This isn't going to convince him. Now go to a team of C++
> programmers with 10 million lines of code that is such a tangle of
> includes and dependencies that it takes a day to compile on an Ultra
> 10. Give them a demonstration that you can redefine a class in the
> listener, write an update function and have the existing instances in
> your system consistent with the new definition, and you'll have their
> attention.
Probably they just won't believe you that it's possible. That would mean
they had wasted their life and that's hard to admit. "And anyway",
they'd add to reassure themselves, "if it were possible, it would surely
have been something someone would have made noise about long before now.
No, probably it's just smoke and mirrors and not serious technology I can
gamble 10 million lines of code on."
From: Peter Vaneynde
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <6xr93xg1bn.fsf@lant.be>
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be> writes:
>
> > A beginning programmer with his shining new C++ compiler and GUI
> > toolkit reads the tutorial, writes 100 lines of code and has a small
> > graphical application with an edit widget, some buttons and an
> > image. Now you show him that you can do this with 40 lines of
> > Lisp. This isn't going to convince him. Now go to a team of C++
> > programmers with 10 million lines of code that is such a tangle of
> > includes and dependencies that it takes a day to compile on an Ultra
> > 10. Give them a demonstration that you can redefine a class in the
> > listener, write an update function and have the existing instances in
> > your system consistent with the new definition, and you'll have their
> > attention.
>
> Probably they just won't believe you that it's possible.
Been there, done that, got accused of 'cheating'. They just couldn't
believe my 'interpreted old LISP' thingie was faster then their C++
monster. Common Lisp with a good environment is so good it scares even
me at times...
Groetjes, Peter
--
LANT nv/sa, Research Park Haasrode, Interleuvenlaan 15H, B-3001 Leuven
·····················@lant.be Phone: ++32 16 405140
http://www.lant.be/ Fax: ++32 16 404961
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <3A270629.AD6BED1@fisec.com>
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Probably they just won't believe you that it's possible. That would
> mean they had wasted their life and that's hard to admit. "And
> anyway", they'd add to reassure themselves, "if it were possible, it
> would surely have been something someone would have made noise about
> long before now. No, probably it's just smoke and mirrors and not
> serious technology I can gamble 10 million lines of code on."
Or the more knowledgeable would say, "of course, Lisp is interpreted".
Robert
On 25 Nov 2000 15:13:12 +0100, Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be> wrote:
>But it takes a few years of experience of other languages to
>appreciate CL. The same thing goes on with the debate of pricing
>(esp. Franz's). If you approach it from the hobbyist programmer's
>point of view and compare the price of MS Visual
>Whatever-it-is-called-these-days to a commercial Lisp, you'll find it
>excessive.
Xanalys and Digitool's pricing and licensing _is_ "little-guy"
friendly. Two out of three. This comparatively high pricing affaire isn't a
generic CL's issue...
//-----------------------------------------------
// Fernando Rodriguez Romero
//
// frr at mindless dot com
//------------------------------------------------
The interchange below is extremely funny :) . I just want to say this-we
are all friends here, because we all care about the future os an
elegant language. Rainer, obviously, you are a Lisp guru of sorts who
would have much to bring to the community. I think Patrick is doing a
better job of understanding my points here. I don't mean to insult Lisp,
but merely wish to discuss some of the potential reasons why it isn't more
popular than it should be. You may not agree that it isn't popular, but if
you said that, I'd say you are living in isolation, perhaps working for
one of the few companies that DOES use Lisp.
To re-iterate my points, and I want to say Rainer, that your previous
points were well-taken (in particular re:the filesystem).
1) Lisp may never really well take off like say, Python, if the
public doesn't get a free implemetation that they feel and perceive to be
more or as powerful as Python. This means whipping up a GUI in short order
that will without fuss be portable, handsome/eyecatching, easily
maintained, etc.
2) Lisp has to fight an uphill Public Relations battle at this
point that a new language like Python doesn't. Lisp is doing well
considering the years of apprehension and misunderstanding about it being
an ancient academic language.
3) Tutorials must be written (yes, with pretty screenshots, etc.)
that show a powerful Lisp in action, with colorful GUI's. I cannot
understress this point enough. Its human psychology to consider the "cool"
things to be handsome and colorful. Just Look at Tcl/Tk. As a language,
and how it performs-its terrible. But people look at Tk and think "that's
really attractive". Its sounds superficial, but its true, and, after all,
aesthetics ARE important. I still have a hard time imagining Lisp as being
a visually striking platform to code in. Most people do. Again you could
argue with me, but you'd be wrong because you'd be blind to the hard
numbers of where people are looking (Java, Tcl/Tk, Python)
I'll take this up later....gotta go now.
-Aaron
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Patrick W wrote:
>
> "Rainer Joswig" <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote in message
> ·································@news.is-europe.net...
> > In article <······················@ozemail.com.au>, "Patrick W"
> > <······@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Would you step back a bit and look at the context of the discussion? I
> > > notice you've got a Lisp machine on your home page, so is it a fair
> > > assumption you've been around Lisp for a long time? I'm assuming you
> know
> > > what a great language it is, you're comfortable with the tools you use,
> and
> > > you're confident in your ability to make Lisp do whatever you desire.
> John
> > > Mallery's fearlessness must have come from a similar confidence. It's
> not
> > > something that one would or could do having only a passing acquaintance
> with
> > > Lisp.
> >
> > But I started somehow sometime, writing my share of Pascal, Basic,
> > Assembler and Modula 2.
>
> Of course. I'm not suggesting you old-timers had all the breaks and life's
> so much tougher than it used to be. In a lot of ways beginners today have it
> much easier - but they're pampered with the wrong luxuries - like junk
> food - plenty of fat but no real nourishment.
>
> > > Having more people like John Mallery would be a nice side effect of
> making
> > > Lisp more accessible to new generations of programmers.
> >
> > Maybe it is also the other way round? "The new generation of programmers"
> > needs to be more accessible?
>
> Sure. I wouldn't argue with that. However, it's not one or the other. It's
> both.
>
> > > But if 1% of those who pick up on Lisp are enthusiastic and talented,
> there
> > > will be progress - in tools, literature, community, momentum, public
> > > profile.
> >
> > Much of what others want to achieve, is already there. But maybe not
> > in a way they expect.
>
> Fair comment. But IMO the current state of affairs is dangerously close to:
> "much of what others want once was there, and still may be if you look hard
> enough".
>
> > If people feel the need for (new) tools, literature, community. etc.
> > I'd say, go ahead. Create tools, write books, build a community.
> > You can't expect me to do it for you. I have my own agenda
> > and write my own tools.
>
> A bit more vibrant community wouldn't be a bad thing. I know that's anathema
> to some of you guys, but the attitude in c.l.l. sometimes reminds me of a
> clan of rich retirees languishing in luxury in an exclusive suburb. If
> someone under thirty arrives you can almost people muttering: "There goes
> the neighbourhood".
>
> > There is also no need to discover and use Lisp. Many programmers can
> > get along and can survive without ever touching it. Other
> > programming languages and tools are also productive.
> > There is no obvious need to drive a Mercedes. But those
> > who did will know that it is well-engineered and reliable.
>
> And the rarer the Mercedes, the better you enjoy yours hmm? ;-)
>
> >... people would get the impression
> > that there are no books about Lisp - they look into their
> > bookstore and they see hundred books about Java and maybe none
> > about Lisp. They just need to discover that one can order books
> > and there are book catalogs that one can browse. They also
> > need to discover that there is a thing called the Internet,
> > where some of the most important Lisp books are available (CLtL2,
> > ANSI CL HyperSpec, ...) in various formats.
>
> True, the books are few - but of a standard you don't find elsewhere.
> (Norvig's PAIP is worth more than any number of C++ books I've bought).
>
> > What they need to be? They need to be programmers in the first
> > place. Having written 5KLOC of Python doesn't make you a programmer.
> > Much of the source code you can see at Sourceforge scares me,
> > it is of incredible poor quality and I wouldn't let it into
> > my software. Just writing it again gives me much more confidence
> > in the code. I would agree with Peter Norvig's observations
> > (http://www.norvig.com/21-days.html) and his motto:
> > "Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years".
>
> Yes, an interesting article. It concurs with my experience in other fields.
>
> > Lisp is the Zen way of Programming.
>
> Eh? Vague? Unpredictable? Mind-bendingly illogical? Without structure?
> Inscrutable? Liable to whack you over the head with a thick stick at any
> moment? Jesus, man, what sort of software you creating?? ;-)
>
>
>
>
In article
<·······································@ajohnson.21stcentury.net>,
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> wrote:
> better job of understanding my points here. I don't mean to insult Lisp,
> but merely wish to discuss some of the potential reasons why it isn't more
> popular than it should be.
You make the assumption that "it should be popular". Why? You are
talking about Lisp in general (which is popular) or about
Common Lisp?
> You may not agree that it isn't popular, but if
> you said that, I'd say you are living in isolation, perhaps working for
> one of the few companies that DOES use Lisp.
No, I'm not simply working for a company that does use Lisp.
If necessary, I make the company use Lisp.
> 1) Lisp may never really well take off like say, Python,
Look, there are areas where Python not even comes close to Lisp.
You are bound to this scripting is programming thing.
> 3) Tutorials must be written (yes, with pretty screenshots, etc.)
> that show a powerful Lisp in action, with colorful GUI's.
See David Lamkins presentation of Macintosh Common Lisp.
See some screenshots of MCL applications on my tiny web site.
> and how it performs-its terrible. But people look at Tk and think "that's
> really attractive".
Then we have a different idea about "attractiveness". The latest
thing that looks relatively attractive is the new MacOS X GUI.
Compared to that most of the stuff out there is UGLY. Plain UGLY
and ANCIENT.
> aesthetics ARE important. I still have a hard time imagining Lisp as being
> a visually striking platform to code in.
See the Sk8 and Igor Engraver screenshots on my web site
(a version of Igor Engraver will be available from Noteheads
for Windows soon - doing cross-platform development for an
application with extreme graphics/font demands using Macintosh
Common Lisp and LispWorks for Windows).
Go to www.wingededge.com and look at the screen shots of Mirai
(an Allegro Common Lisp application). This is as mindblowing as it
gets. Or read a bit about the hundred projects that were done with Sk8:
http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/sigchi/bulletin/1998.2/spohrer.html
See some screenshots of an application called "Eon":
http://www.cs.umass.edu/~tmurray/papers/JLSEon/JLS96.html .
There are lots of examples of highly visual applications
done in Lisp. You just don't know it. Nobody told you.
And you didn't look.
> Most people do. Again you could
> argue with me, but you'd be wrong because you'd be blind to the hard
> numbers of where people are looking (Java, Tcl/Tk, Python)
I'm very fond of visual appeal when it comes to programming, that's
why I most of the time use a Mac. Look&feel is simply so much
better than the Java/Python/TCL/PERL GUI crap.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Rainer Joswig wrote:
> Look, there are areas where Python not even comes close to Lisp.
> You are bound to this scripting is programming thing.
>
Scripting is a proper subset of programming, yes. Python is considered a
"programming language" , as is Perl, etc. Your point? BTW, have you ever
even tried Python? You strike me just as a pure Lisp zealot who won't
accept any critical observations. Don't you have a wish list for Lisp, at
all? Perhaps you don't care whether its free or not? Perhaps you don't
care whether more people use it? I care that more people use it, because
the more people use it, the more its developed, and more money goes into
it (e.g. JAVA) Python has its limitations, yes. Most languages do,
including Lisp. Lisp is great, but its not the fucking holy grail.....
> > 3) Tutorials must be written (yes, with pretty screenshots, etc.)
> > that show a powerful Lisp in action, with colorful GUI's.
>
> See David Lamkins presentation of Macintosh Common Lisp.
> See some screenshots of MCL applications on my tiny web site.
>
The web site you have is really quite slow. Just curious, what's it
running on?
I have to say honestly, I'm really not impressed. Flat 2D look, like the
system was from 1983 or something. The Window themes are what Macintosh
stole from the Linux community (IceWm), only they look much cooler in
Linux.
> Then we have a different idea about "attractiveness". The latest
> thing that looks relatively attractive is the new MacOS X GUI.
> Compared to that most of the stuff out there is UGLY. Plain UGLY
> and ANCIENT.
>
And your screenshots don't. Have a look at www.gnome.org, or
www.enlightenment.org for some real look&feel....
> Go to www.wingededge.com and look at the screen shots of Mirai
> (an Allegro Common Lisp application). This is as mindblowing as it
> gets.
Fairly decent. I hope not as mindblowing as it gets though. Still pretty
good.
> Or read a bit about the hundred projects that were done with Sk8:
> http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/sigchi/bulletin/1998.2/spohrer.html
> See some screenshots of an application called "Eon":
> http://www.cs.umass.edu/~tmurray/papers/JLSEon/JLS96.html .
> There are lots of examples of highly visual applications
> done in Lisp. You just don't know it. Nobody told you.
> And you didn't look.
Now I did, and I must say my initial impression remains. Lisp could look
much slicker....
> I'm very fond of visual appeal when it comes to programming, that's
> why I most of the time use a Mac. Look&feel is simply so much
> better than the Java/Python/TCL/PERL GUI crap.
I think the Mac, although it kind of started the GUI pc thing, has since
really fallen behind the FREE desktops that the Open Source community has
come up with. Notice now that Mac realizes this, they are going to steal
FreeBSD ideas for OS X. Open Source is the best thing that ever happened
to software, and I think the Lisp companies would do well to get with the
spirit of it. Mac will be taking the step. I don't really fucking care if
windows does or not.
-Aaron.
In article
<······································@ajohnson.21stcentury.net>,
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> wrote:
> Scripting is a proper subset of programming, yes. Python is considered a
> "programming language" , as is Perl, etc.
With one implementation (mostly)? Without native code compilers?
Without a "standard"? With ever changing languages?
> all? Perhaps you don't care whether its free or not?
"free" is "good"? What is "free"? I don't really mind
to pay a few $ for a Lisp from a vendor. Cars are not "free",
using a bus is not "free", ... Actually being "free" is
not really an important criteria, atleast to me. More
important are things like "fun", "efficient", "fast",
"supported", "elegant", "stable", "effective", "available",
...
> Perhaps you don't
> care whether more people use it?
I do care about that. But I'm not interested in
making everybody use Lisp. There are enough alternatives.
If you look closely you will see that languages like
Python/Smalltalk/Dylan/Java/ML/... took quite some ideas from
Lisp, repackaged them and added other ideas. This
is all good.
I'm interested in a programming language that:
- allows exploratory programming
- allows application deployment
- is evolvable
- is efficient
- is stable
- is widely supported
- does support a wide variety of programming styles
- supports the implementation of higher level programming
and representation mechanisms
- does have tools for AI and Web programming
Common Lisp seems to fit the bill quite nicely.
Since other people have different needs, they will
come to a different list of priorities.
> The web site you have is really quite slow. Just curious, what's it
> running on?
Look, a web site can be "slow" because of several reasons.
The reason here is that it is my home machine behind
an ISDN 64k line.
> I have to say honestly, I'm really not impressed. Flat 2D look, like the
> system was from 1983 or something. The Window themes are what Macintosh
> stole from the Linux community (IceWm), only they look much cooler in
> Linux.
Well, I don't think the Mac community stole anything from Linux.
It might be the other way round.
> And your screenshots don't. Have a look at www.gnome.org, or
> www.enlightenment.org for some real look&feel....
I did. You know what the first thing is what I see:
ugly fonts. Really ugly fonts. No antialiasing, etc. If you
step back and look at the Gnome screenshots - they are really
ugly and primitive. This is all technologywise a decade behind
the Macs GUI mechanisms (from true system wide themes,
to a standard scripting architecture, application resources
are standardized, ...).
Well, finally I'd say people should stop complaining and
deliver something. What really impresses me more than
a well written tirade on Usenet is code. Real lines of
cool code.
This still impresses me most.
Rainer Joswig
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:40:38 +0100, Rainer Joswig
<······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote:
>I once talked to people who are maintaining an application with a
>million+ (!!) lines of Lisp code. They develop on Lisp machine
=:-O Damn, I never went past the 80.000... ;-) What does this app
do? Just curious...
>If you, for example, use CL-HTTP you can deploy your code with a web
>interface on several platforms virtually unchanged (Windows,
>Unix, Mac, Lispm). John Mallery takes great care to publish
I was planning to take a look at it or Allegro serve. How would you
compare both (features, documentation, performance...)? O:-)
>deploy complex user interfaces. Have you ever looked at the Lisp course
>(http://www.psychologie.uni-trier.de:8000/elmart) that's running
Yes, and it's _really_ cool. :-)
//-----------------------------------------------
// Fernando Rodriguez Romero
//
// frr at mindless dot com
//------------------------------------------------
From: ······@corporate-world.lisp.de
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <8vs1qq$ida$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
Fernando Rodr�guez <·······@must.die> wrote:
> >I once talked to people who are maintaining an application with a
> >million+ (!!) lines of Lisp code. They develop on Lisp machine
>
> =:-O Damn, I never went past the 80.000... ;-) What does this app
> do? Just curious...
It's something like a battle management system for the US Army, IIRC.
> I was planning to take a look at it or Allegro serve. How would you
> compare both (features, documentation, performance...)? O:-)
CL-HTTP is not "free" in the RMS meaning (see its license). It
is portable, ported, and includes contributions like an XML
parser, HTML parser, etc. CL-HTTP itself includes web server,
client, web walker, proxy, etc. It is not the easiest code to
understand, but carefully written. I haven't used the code
from Franz, but it is "Open Source", supported "only" on ACL,
and of a simpler architecture.
> >deploy complex user interfaces. Have you ever looked at the Lisp course
> >(http://www.psychologie.uni-trier.de:8000/elmart) that's running
>
> Yes, and it's _really_ cool. :-)
CL-HTTP has been used in some tutoring projects. The guys
in Trier were especially productive, their technology is spreading:
http://www.psychologie.uni-trier.de:8000/projects/ELM/elm.html
http://apsymac33.uni-trier.de:8080/incops
http://cogpsy.uni-trier.de:8000/TLServ.html
http://cogpsy.uni-trier.de:8000/TEServ.html
http://www.net-coach.de/system/system.htm
http://www.sds-akademie.de/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
> Current and future generations of good programmers are learning their craft
> with cheap and free tools on Linux and the BSDs. Suppose you're a 17 year
> old fledgeling programmer and you want to test your skill with a simple IRC
> client or a graphical logic game. You might have dabbled with clisp or cmucl
> and liked the Lisp language, but would you choose it to write your new toy?
> You'd have a hard time doing so, in spite of the the quality of the
> language.
On the other hand, sometimes you get to a point where you're *tired*
of jumping through hoops just to do simple things- and really sick of
being pushed around by a bunch of "features" that some committee of
marketers think you need. Then you start looking for a stable, well
specified environment, which lets you just do what you want without a
lot of fuss and bother. Given those requirements, the list of
languages gets small pretty fast. Notably, Lisp stays on the list-
suffering not from language problems but from a perceived lack of
"integrability". I find ramping up skill in Lisp is lots more
enjoyable than doing so in C++. But, at some point you get annoyed at
the lack of a thorough, organized top to bottom infrastructure in
clisp/cmucl and then Allegro/Lispworks start to look appealing.
Me, as a nominal Lisp amateur, I'm bartering some time working for my
Dad's company in exchange for them buying me a copy of LispWorks.
Why? Because it makes me think differently. C/C++ is all very well,
but I really value how Lisp makes me reconsider everything. The
recent Sapir-Whorf references on this list make that point especially
germane, as C/C++ and all their brood certainly engender particular
approaches- sometimes nearly programming cliches. "Software
Patterns", indeed. Its kind of fun to think "mapcar" when I see a
menu in restaurant... and I can't even begin to say how much I
appreciate NOT having to fiddle with pointers. People can say all
they like about how 'strange' Lisp syntax is- but those that do have
likely not compared it in detail to some of the more exotic C++
notation.
I'm all for cheap/free tools, I think that is certainly the way to
learn. After acquiring a degree of skill, I think a programmer may
end up at a point where choices must be made to satisify their need
for performance and efficiency in their tools, and I think thats where
the commercial Lisp environments come in.
William James suggested people choose their religions to suit their
tempraments, maybe a similar function occurs with programmers & their
languages. Of course, that means some people tend towards COBOL. To
each their own.. ;)
Gregm
In article <··············@corp.supernews.com>, "Stock Crack"
<··········@flashcom.com> wrote:
> What Lisp needs to gain more audience (still, I think, a desirable goal),
> is:
>
> 1. A corporate sponsor with deep pockets and an axe to grind in
> the form of a new platform; a sponsor who is willing to lose money
> on languages and tools to gain platform market share. This sponsor
> needs to choose Lisp as the language of choice for the new platform.
>
> 2. An updated spec so the sponsored Lisp dialect can take advantage of
> the new platform's splendid characteristics.
>
> 3. Some compelling reason for people to use the new platform.
> As none of those things are on the horizon, I don't think Lisp
> is quite out of the trenches yet.
Well, Apple once started to try to do it with a Lisp-family language.
They axed the project along with many others when they started to lose
money.
Now they have a new platform coming out which, being a Unix with a
pretty face, may well be quite compelling for many people.
-- Bruce
"Bruce Hoult" <·····@hoult.org> wrote in message
································@news.nzl.ihugultra.co.nz...
> In article <··············@corp.supernews.com>, "Stock Crack"
> <··········@flashcom.com> wrote:
>
> > What Lisp needs to gain more audience (still, I think, a desirable
goal),
> > is:
> >
> > 1. A corporate sponsor with deep pockets and an axe to grind in
> > the form of a new platform; a sponsor who is willing to lose money
> > on languages and tools to gain platform market share. This sponsor
> > needs to choose Lisp as the language of choice for the new platform.
> >
> > 2. An updated spec so the sponsored Lisp dialect can take advantage of
> > the new platform's splendid characteristics.
> >
> > 3. Some compelling reason for people to use the new platform.
>
> > As none of those things are on the horizon, I don't think Lisp
> > is quite out of the trenches yet.
>
>
> Well, Apple once started to try to do it with a Lisp-family language.
> They axed the project along with many others when they started to lose
> money.
>
> Now they have a new platform coming out which, being a Unix with a
> pretty face, may well be quite compelling for many people.
First, I said the conditions were necessary but not sufficient. Second,
Apple did not exactly show a lot of commitment to pushing Dylan, axing the
project before it even reached the market with a commericial release.
-- Harley
Some day ago I had following idea:
In UNIX versions of the free CLs (CLISP,CMUCL) we can find several
GUI-Toolkits that talk down a socket to a GUI-Server.
The systems I know of are CLM, CLX and cl-gtk (which is outdated).
While reaching some portability over CL-implementations through
the use of the socket-connection, we have no real
cross-plattform-capabilities by using CLM or CLX (Add itionally we have the
fact that this toolkits are ugly compared to higher or more "Lispy"
toolkits like CAPI)
So why not building a GUI-Server in wxWindows - which would run nice on
win32, Linux(Motif), Linux(GTK) and so far I know on BeOS and MacOS too.
wxWindows doesn't provide only GUI it provides us also with a very good
socket-interface (on all supported plattforms).
Most parts would be written on the Lisp side using the GUI-Server whenever
something has to go concrete.
I would prefer a very simple approuch like LispWorks CAPI (or simpler for
the beginnigs).
IMHO if we concentrate on simplicity we could have it in _very_ short time.
What would we get:
A real crossplattform GUI-Toolkit for:
- Linux, Win32, MacOS, BeOS
- Most free and commercial Lisps (e. g. CLISP, CMUCL, ACL, Lispworks...)
- Network distributed GUI (similar to X11 but on a much higher level)
What do you think upon that?
Regards,
Jochen
Aaron K . Johnson wrote:
>
> Hello friends,
>
> It occurs to me that lesser languages like Java, etc. succeed in
> the modern world where Lisp seems like a computer science lesson from days
> of old because they have, or are perceived to have, an easy way to
> write/design a GUI, and to integrate well with low-level OS
> libraries/functions. I love Lisp, but there are things that I would never
> attempt with it that I would do in a snap with Python (actually a great
> language). I could use TK or WxPython to design a GUI frontend to my
> functions in less than an hour. Java, Python, Perl, Tcl/Tk etc. also are
> "web aware", i.e. they acknowledge that for a language to be "hot", it has
> to appeal to the web-using public, and be usable for the web by the
> web-using public.
> When Lisp gets its elegance across, as well as having easy access
> to all the things people like about things like Tcl/Tk, Java, Perl,
> Python; and not just obscure kits like Garnet, etc. (One of the problems
> is that various implementations go different lengths to provide such
> functionality--Java sucks, but at least you know what you're getting and
> what you're able to do with it!) There's only one Python, Perl, and
> Tcl/Tk, and that helps them stay central and release one version of the
> language--not the fragmented state of affairs that both Lisp as a language
> and Linux as an OS suffer.
>
> Aaron Johnson.
>
>
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Jochen Schmidt wrote:
> Some day ago I had following idea:
>
> In UNIX versions of the free CLs (CLISP,CMUCL) we can find several
> GUI-Toolkits that talk down a socket to a GUI-Server.
> The systems I know of are CLM, CLX and cl-gtk (which is outdated).
> While reaching some portability over CL-implementations through
> the use of the socket-connection, we have no real
> cross-plattform-capabilities by using CLM or CLX (Add itionally we have the
> fact that this toolkits are ugly compared to higher or more "Lispy"
> toolkits like CAPI)
> So why not building a GUI-Server in wxWindows - which would run nice on
> win32, Linux(Motif), Linux(GTK) and so far I know on BeOS and MacOS too.
> wxWindows doesn't provide only GUI it provides us also with a very good
> socket-interface (on all supported plattforms).
> Most parts would be written on the Lisp side using the GUI-Server whenever
> something has to go concrete.
> I would prefer a very simple approuch like LispWorks CAPI (or simpler for
> the beginnigs).
> IMHO if we concentrate on simplicity we could have it in _very_ short time.
>
> What would we get:
> A real crossplattform GUI-Toolkit for:
>
> - Linux, Win32, MacOS, BeOS
> - Most free and commercial Lisps (e. g. CLISP, CMUCL, ACL, Lispworks...)
> - Network distributed GUI (similar to X11 but on a much higher level)
>
> What do you think upon that?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jochen
>
Jochen and Lispers-
Sounds great. I know so little about how we'd go about coding it.
Is there some sort of documentation about how to begin getting Lisp to
talk to wxWindows. I've used wxPython, and found it to be a faster,
slightly less good-looking version of Tk. My dream-Tk without Tcl slowing
it down, so something like TkInter for Python, but for Lisp. Note that
TkInter still suffers from making calls to Tcl. I never understood why the
Python developers went the route of TkInter instead of wxPython from the
start. After all, since Python is so much better that Tcl in every way,
why rely on Tcl for Gui stuff?
Anyway, is it even possible to make low-level calls to Tk from
another language without Tcl? This would be the cross-platform dream for
Lispers!
Aaron.
Jochen Schmidt <···@dataheaven.de> writes:
> In UNIX versions of the free CLs (CLISP,CMUCL) we can find several
> GUI-Toolkits that talk down a socket to a GUI-Server.
> The systems I know of are CLM, CLX and cl-gtk (which is outdated).
Actually CLX works differently: CLX is the CL equivalent of xlib,
i.e. it talks X protocol directly to the X server. This is a direct
consequence of the fact that X11 had been intended to be used
cross-language from the beginning, without having to go through ugly
foreign function interfaces. Sadly this idea was lost later on, when
most widget sets need to be linked to directly.
> While reaching some portability over CL-implementations through
> the use of the socket-connection, we have no real
> cross-plattform-capabilities by using CLM or CLX (Add itionally we have the
> fact that this toolkits are ugly compared to higher or more "Lispy"
> toolkits like CAPI)
CMUCL's CLM can be made quite similar to CAPI with the use of a couple of
convenience macros. Of course you still have to use CLX instead of GP
for the low-level stuff, should that be needed.
The problems I've found with CMUCL's CLM (which is a different
implementation than the portable CLM part of GINA) is that the server
is not very stable when compiled with LessTif, and is slow as a dog
when compiled with a real Motif.
> What would we get:
> A real crossplattform GUI-Toolkit for:
>
> - Linux, Win32, MacOS, BeOS
> - Most free and commercial Lisps (e. g. CLISP, CMUCL, ACL, Lispworks...)
> - Network distributed GUI (similar to X11 but on a much higher level)
>
> What do you think upon that?
I'd think this would be a nice project for someone, so get started
already ;)
Regs, Pierre.
--
Pierre R. Mai <····@acm.org> http://www.pmsf.de/pmai/
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents. -- Nathaniel Borenstein
Jochen Schmidt <···@dataheaven.de> writes:
> So why not building a GUI-Server in wxWindows - which would run nice on
> win32, Linux(Motif), Linux(GTK) and so far I know on BeOS and MacOS too.
> wxWindows doesn't provide only GUI it provides us also with a very good
> socket-interface (on all supported plattforms).
If you plan to go that way, why not use Java? It seems that the push
in GUI is in that front nowadays. Moreover, if you want some parts of
the application to run on the GUI server (a'la NeWS), then I would
quite prefer Java to C++ when extending the server.
--
Pertti Kellom\"aki, Tampere Univ. of Technology, Software Systems Lab
Kellom{ki Pertti wrote:
> Jochen Schmidt <···@dataheaven.de> writes:
> > So why not building a GUI-Server in wxWindows - which would run nice on
> > win32, Linux(Motif), Linux(GTK) and so far I know on BeOS and MacOS too.
> > wxWindows doesn't provide only GUI it provides us also with a very good
> > socket-interface (on all supported plattforms).
>
> If you plan to go that way, why not use Java? It seems that the push
> in GUI is in that front nowadays. Moreover, if you want some parts of
> the application to run on the GUI server (a'la NeWS), then I would
> quite prefer Java to C++ when extending the server.
There are several reasons why I've not chosen Java:
- It is not planned to run parts of the application on the GUI server (as
you mentioned)
- Native Look: wxWindows is using the native look of the several platforms.
- Speed: You can say what you want, actual Java GUIs are _really_ slow
(particularily those written with swing)
- Because I prefer C++ over Java.
But - and there's the point - if someone jumps in to collaborate I could
also live with a Java-Solution. The sideeffect of collaboration would be
that it is much more likely that we end with an working program.
My aim would be to integrate this GUI-Toolkit as good in the several Lisps
I can. At the best there should be no difference between this solution and
e. g. an inbuilt toolkit like CAPI in LispWorks.
Regards,
Jochen Schmidt
Jochen Schmidt <···@dataheaven.de> writes:
> - Speed: You can say what you want, actual Java GUIs are _really_ slow
several serious java programmers I've talked have no problems admitting
that java is not suitable for serious GUIs. "BUT", they tend to add,
"it's perfect for servers". However, the java servers I've seen so far
that have really been put to stress tests (real life stress tests,
running on really heavy Sun iron serving a *lot* of clients), have
performed almost unbelievably lousy.
--
(espen)
On 24 Nov 2000 16:21:15 +0100, Espen Vestre
<·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> wrote:
>several serious java programmers I've talked have no problems admitting
>that java is not suitable for serious GUIs. "BUT", they tend to add,
I don't have much experience with Java, but the few java apps I've
used were a serious memory hog and slower than Visual Basic. This is why I'm
not sure if I like the idea (Kent's idea?) of adding extensive support for
calling java libs: I'm scared that java libs will bring java performance...
:-P
>"it's perfect for servers". However, the java servers I've seen so far
>that have really been put to stress tests (real life stress tests,
>running on really heavy Sun iron serving a *lot* of clients), have
>performed almost unbelievably lousy.
Maybe CL vendors should go for that market: java programmers who were left
stranded by java's performance. CL seems like the perfect tool for "servlets"
and it might be a good way to increase our small community.
//-----------------------------------------------
// Fernando Rodriguez Romero
//
// frr at mindless dot com
//------------------------------------------------
Jochen Schmidt <···@dataheaven.de> writes:
> Kellom{ki Pertti wrote:
>
> > Jochen Schmidt <···@dataheaven.de> writes:
> > > So why not building a GUI-Server in wxWindows - which would run nice on
> > > win32, Linux(Motif), Linux(GTK) and so far I know on BeOS and MacOS too.
> > > wxWindows doesn't provide only GUI it provides us also with a very good
> > > socket-interface (on all supported plattforms).
> >
> > If you plan to go that way, why not use Java? It seems that the push
> > in GUI is in that front nowadays. Moreover, if you want some parts of
> > the application to run on the GUI server (a'la NeWS), then I would
> > quite prefer Java to C++ when extending the server.
>
> There are several reasons why I've not chosen Java:
>
> - It is not planned to run parts of the application on the GUI server (as
> you mentioned)
> - Native Look: wxWindows is using the native look of the several platforms.
> - Speed: You can say what you want, actual Java GUIs are _really_ slow
> (particularily those written with swing)
> - Because I prefer C++ over Java.
>
Why not stick with GTK? Just curious.
--
Marco Antoniotti =============================================================
NYU Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://galt.mrl.nyu.edu/valis
Like DNA, such a language [Lisp] does not go out of style.
Paul Graham, ANSI Common Lisp
Jochen Schmidt <···@dataheaven.de> wrote:
+---------------
| So why not building a GUI-Server in wxWindows - which would run nice on
| win32, Linux(Motif), Linux(GTK) and so far I know on BeOS and MacOS too.
+---------------
This is exactly why the Rice PLT group chose wxWindows for their
"MrEd" <URL:http://www.cs.rice.edu/CS/PLT/packages/mred/index.html>
GUI application toolkit (upon which the "DrScheme" development & teaching
environment is built). MrEd runs on all of Windows 95/98/NT/2000, MacOS,
and Unix/X (including Linux here as a "Unix").[*] It provides:
- A windowing toolbox for creating windows and menus
- A drawing toolbox for drawing to windows, bitmaps,
and printer devices
- An editor toolbox for creating multimedia editors
MrEd's GUI toolbox is integrated with a thread system.
MrEd dispatches each GUI event to the handler thread via
synchronous (single-threaded) callback procedures, but
MrEd also supports multiple eventspaces, which permit
asynchronous (multi-threaded) event handling among
different sets of windows.
MrEd's underlying Scheme engine, "MzScheme", provides a fairly typical
interface to TCP/IP networking, so hooking a Common Lisp application
to a MrEd-based GUI over sockets should be relatively straightforward.
The *real* question is going to be the protocol between the CL application
and a MrEd-based GUI. I don't mean the syntax -- you can certainly use
S-exprs & READ [though one would of course want to stick to the common
subset of the CL & Scheme S-exprs syntaxes] -- I mean the semantics.
There's the inevitable question of trading off simplicity of interface
(which many presume to equate with portability, though that's really a
*different* issue) versus exposing the full functionality (or most of it)
of the backend GUI. Look at this and you'll see what I'm talking about:
<URL:http://www.cs.rice.edu/CS/PLT/packages/doc/mred/index.htm>
The good news is that there's a lot more than Tk there.
The bad news is that there's a lot more than Tk there. ;-} ;-}
+---------------
| I would prefer a very simple approuch like LispWorks CAPI (or simpler
| for the beginnigs). IMHO if we concentrate on simplicity we could
| have it in _very_ short time.
+---------------
Suggestion: Start by defining the protocol. Then publish it for comments.
-Rob
[*] While MzScheme itself does run on BeOS [and even on "bare" x86
PCs, as a kernel based on Utahs' "OSKit"], unfortunately MrEd doesn't,
at least not as distributed. If, as you say, wxWindows *does* run on
BeOS, it might be possible to port MrEd fairly straightforwardly
(though note that the wxWindows which MrEd uses has diverged somewhat
from Julian Smart's original version).
-----
Rob Warnock, 31-2-510 ····@sgi.com
Network Engineering http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/
Silicon Graphics, Inc. Phone: 650-933-1673
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy. PP-ASEL-IA
Mountain View, CA 94043
From: Kevin Russell
Subject: Re: Lisp and wxWindows (was: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.)
Date:
Message-ID: <3A25FFEC.E15D9443@home.com>
Jochen Schmidt wrote:
>
> So why not building a GUI-Server in wxWindows - which would run nice on
> win32, Linux(Motif), Linux(GTK) and so far I know on BeOS and MacOS too.
> wxWindows doesn't provide only GUI it provides us also with a very good
> socket-interface (on all supported plattforms).
> Most parts would be written on the Lisp side using the GUI-Server whenever
> something has to go concrete.
> I would prefer a very simple approuch like LispWorks CAPI (or simpler for
> the beginnigs).
> IMHO if we concentrate on simplicity we could have it in _very_ short time.
>
> What would we get:
> A real crossplattform GUI-Toolkit for:
>
> - Linux, Win32, MacOS, BeOS
> - Most free and commercial Lisps (e. g. CLISP, CMUCL, ACL, Lispworks...)
> - Network distributed GUI (similar to X11 but on a much higher level)
>
> What do you think upon that?
I think it would be a tremendous benefit to have access to the wxWindows
system from Common Lisp. Like you say, it shouldn't be all that hard to
do, but I think you're underestimating how hard it would be to do *right*.
By "right", I mean the result should actually feel like Lisp, and not
just a C++ library invoked with Lisp-like syntax.
To get a feel for the kinds of challenges you'd be facing in order to do
it right, you might want to look more closely at wxPython and at early
versions of MrEd (the Scheme port/interface of wxWindows).
I'll say up front that I adore MrEd (it was the first GUI system that I
actually got anything to work in). But even it's makers wouldn't claim
that it was Schemely perfection in its early stages.
Say you wanted to create a modal top-level window that's labelled "Info"
and has a thick frame. You might expect a Lisp expression to do this to
look something like:
(frame :label "Info" :modal t :frame 'thick)
Which is kind of what it would look like in STk. The equivalent in the
MrEd version of August 1996 (whose manual I have for some reason never
got around to throwing out) was:
(make-object mred:frame% null "Info" -1 -1 -1 -1
(bitwise-or wx:const-stay-on-top wx:const-thick-frame))
The null says the new frame has no parent. The "Info" is its title.
The first two -1's say to use the default values for the x and y position
of the window. The second two -1's say to use the default values for its
width and height. The last piece specifies the window's style and is a
transparently direct translation of wxWindow's underlying C++ hack of using
bit-flags. You could have got away without the -1's if you'd been happy
with the default window style. But since MzScheme did not support keyword
arguments, if you wanted to spell out the eighth argument slot, you had no
choice but to also spell out the preceding seven.
There's no earthly reason why a programmer should have to remember (or even
look up) the exact order and proper default flags of the arguments to every
kind of widget creator there is, simply to be able to tell the system to
ignore them. But that's just the way it was.
Now say you wanted to ask your window what its size was. You could ask for
the width and the height with separate method calls, but if you wanted them
both at the same time, you'd have to create two MzScheme data structures
called boxes, pass them as arguments to the method, then unpack the boxes
after the method call and examine the number inside.
(define width-box (box 0))
(define height-box (box 0))
(send my-modal-frame get-size width-box height-box)
(do-something-with (unbox width-box) (unbox height-box))
Since C++ can't create multiple return values (and in 1996 MzScheme couldn't
have handled them anyway IIRC), the only option was to put a flimsy wrapper
around the C++ pointers that are passed as arguments to fake the multiple
return values. (Yeah, I know, it's easier just to ask for width and height
separately, but for some widget types, this was the *only* way to access the
size).
Over several years, the MrEd folks have sanded away most of these rough
edges. MrEd might now be about as cool as it could be, given basic design
considerations like the continued absence of keyword arguments in the core
language.
But now look at wxPython. The Python language has all of the function-
calling conveniences of Common Lisp: optional arguments with default
values, positional argument passing if you want it, keyword argument
passing if you want it, etc. The conveniences get used to great advantage
in the Python interface to Tk, which easily handles the equivalent of the
STk-ish example above. But in wxPython -- nothing. If you want a frame
with a weird style, you're back to bit-fiddling with flag constants and
spelling out place-holders in every argument position, none of which are
optional. wxPython has all the language resources it needs to offer
Tk-like invocation to a wxWindows GUI, but it doesn't use them.
Why? Because it's tons of work.
It's hard enough mechanically running SWIG over the wxWindows libraries
and patching up the zillions of places where that didn't quite work.
To save the programmer from idiotic book-keeping work (which is how I see
having to memorize or look up the order of arguments before you can even
ignore them), the wrapper designer would have to put in loads of
non-book-keeping work. You'd have to make many hard policy decisions (like
how are you going to treat wxWindow's horde of bit-flags), then apply them
with ruthless consistency. You'd have to sit down with the wxWindows manual
(which is currently running over a thousand pages IIRC) and -- class by
class, method by method -- decide what the best keyword names should be,
what the appropriate default values should be, and so on. Often you'll
need to completely re-write the API for a class to make it consistent with
Lisp idioms, and then manually write the code that translates the Lisp
calls into the right C++ calls.
I might sound like I'm discouraging you. On the contrary, I really,
really, *really* hope you choose to do all this. (Just don't say I
didn't warn you. :-))
-- Kevin
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> wrote :
> It occurs to me that lesser languages like Java, etc. succeed
> in the modern world where Lisp seems like a computer science lesson
> from days of old because they have, or are perceived to have, an easy
> way to write/design a GUI, and to integrate well with low-level OS
> libraries/functions.
Java, Python, Perl, VB, etc. succeed because of their libraries:
I'm not talking of libraries supporting the language (� la Common
Lisp), but libraries for GUIs, databases, Internet, etc...
> I love Lisp, but there are things that I would never attempt with it
> that I would do in a snap with Python (actually a great language). I
> could use TK or WxPython to design a GUI frontend to my functions in
> less than an hour. Java, Python, Perl, Tcl/Tk etc. also are "web
> aware", i.e. they acknowledge that for a language to be "hot", it
> has to appeal to the web-using public, and be usable for the web by
> the web-using public.
As Kent Pitman said, (implementations of) Common Lisp should annex
these libraries. As these languages have an interactive mode, they
may be used by Lisp as interfaces to these libraries by generating
code for that language (cf Erik Naggum in
<················@naggum.net>) and communicating through pipes,
sockets, ... For example, you could say:
(setq data (py:call (urllib (urlopen url) (read))))
to tell Python to return you the result of:
urllib.urlopen(url).read()
where `url' is actually replaced by the value of the Lisp variable
`url'.
Here is a POP protocol example (from the book Learning Python):
from poplib import *
server = POP3('mailserver.spam.org')
print server.getwelcome()
server.user('da')
server.pass_('youllneverguess')
|
|
V
(py:import poplib *)
(py:set server (py:call '(POP3 "mailserver.spam.org"))) ;; `server` is a
(format t "~A" (py:call '(server (getwelcome))) ;; variable in
(py:call '(server (user "da"))) ;; the Python world
(py:call '(server (pass_ "youllneverguess")))
Of course, from here, you can write things like :
(with-pop-account (account "mailserver.spam.org" "da" "youllneverguess")
...))
or wrap the whole stuff in nice packages...
The `glue' would deal with conversions between data structures :
(py:call '((range 1 10))) Lisp world
|
V
range(1, 10) Python world
|
V
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] Python world
|
V
'(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) Lisp world
> When Lisp gets its elegance across, as well as having easy
> access to all the things people like about things like Tcl/Tk, Java,
> Perl, Python; and not just obscure kits like Garnet, etc. (One of the
> problems is that various implementations go different lengths to
> provide such functionality--Java sucks, but at least you know what
> you're getting and what you're able to do with it!)
Actually, if stuff described above could be achieved with Perl,
Tcl/Tk, Java, etc. as well, then Lisp would be the Emacs of the
languages ! The language stack would then be :
_____________________________________________
| |
| Lisp |
|_____________________________________________|
| | | | | | |
| | Perl+ | Java+ | Python | Tcl/Tk | What |
| | libs | libs | + libs | + libs | Ever |
| |_______|_______|________|________|______|
| |
| C |
|_____________________________________________|
As (new) languages become more and more interactive, Lisp can
easily talk to all these languages and use their libraries...
> There's only one Python, Perl, and Tcl/Tk, and that helps them stay
> central and release one version of the language--not the fragmented
> state of affairs that both Lisp as a language and Linux as an OS
> suffer.
What's important is that they keep interfacing with all the new
technologies so that Lispers can annex them without having to learn
new languages. Let them work for us: use the libs, dump the
languages !
--
Georges KO (Taipei, Taiwan) ···@gko.net
D�cade I, Tridi de Frimaire de l'Ann�e 209 de la R�volution
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <8vkmts$a35$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <··············@symbiose.gko.net>,
Georges KO <···@gko.net> wrote:
> Java, Python, Perl, VB, etc. succeed because of their libraries:
> I'm not talking of libraries supporting the language (� la Common
> Lisp), but libraries for GUIs, databases, Internet, etc...
I agree 100%
>
> As Kent Pitman said, (implementations of) Common Lisp should annex
> these libraries. As these languages have an interactive mode, they
> may be used by Lisp as interfaces to these libraries by generating
> code for that language (cf Erik Naggum in
> <················@naggum.net>) and communicating through pipes,
> sockets, ... For example, you could say:
>
> (setq data (py:call (urllib (urlopen url) (read))))
>
> to tell Python to return you the result of:
>
> urllib.urlopen(url).read()
>
> where `url' is actually replaced by the value of the Lisp variable
> `url'.
>
> Here is a POP protocol example (from the book Learning Python):
>
> from poplib import *
> server = POP3('mailserver.spam.org')
> print server.getwelcome()
> server.user('da')
> server.pass_('youllneverguess')
>
> |
> |
> V
>
> (py:import poplib *)
> (py:set server (py:call '(POP3 "mailserver.spam.org"))) ;; `server`
is a
> (format t "~A" (py:call '(server (getwelcome))) ;; variable in
> (py:call '(server (user "da"))) ;; the Python
world
> (py:call '(server (pass_ "youllneverguess")))
>
> Of course, from here, you can write things like :
>
> (with-pop-account
(account "mailserver.spam.org" "da" "youllneverguess")
> ...))
>
> or wrap the whole stuff in nice packages...
>
> The `glue' would deal with conversions between data structures :
>
> (py:call '((range 1 10))) Lisp world
>
> |
> V
>
> range(1, 10) Python world
>
> |
> V
>
> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] Python world
>
> |
> V
>
> '(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) Lisp world
>
> Actually, if stuff described above could be achieved with Perl,
> Tcl/Tk, Java, etc. as well, then Lisp would be the Emacs of the
> languages ! The language stack would then be :
>
> _____________________________________________
> | |
> | Lisp |
> |_____________________________________________|
> | | | | | | |
> | | Perl+ | Java+ | Python | Tcl/Tk | What |
> | | libs | libs | + libs | + libs | Ever |
> | |_______|_______|________|________|______|
> | |
> | C |
> |_____________________________________________|
>
> As (new) languages become more and more interactive, Lisp can
> easily talk to all these languages and use their libraries...
.
>
> What's important is that they keep interfacing with all the new
> technologies so that Lispers can annex them without having to learn
> new languages. Let them work for us: use the libs, dump the
> languages !
cool- but will we lose some speed doing all those foreign language
calls that are not to C libs?
Aaron.
> --
> Georges KO (Taipei, Taiwan)
···@gko.net
> D�cade I, Tridi de Frimaire de l'Ann�e 209 de la
R�volution
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
········@my-deja.com writes:
> cool- but will we lose some speed doing all those foreign language
> calls that are not to C libs?
I personally never recommended not calling a C lib. I've merely observed
that there was no C lib to call in many cases and said it's better to
call something than to say "we don't have that". And I think Java has
tons more off the shelf solutions than does C, with new ones appearing
all the time.
Java sucks as an implementation language, IMO, but that's objectively not
enough to stop people from programming in it. And if we don't want to find
ourselves programming in it, then we'd better not ignore the fact that others
are willing to. We can't keep up, except by tying ourselves to it in a way
that makes innovations to it available to us in realtime. If there's a time
lag, we're screwed because we're doomed to be forever at a temporal
disadvantage and not usable as a leading edge tool. If there's no time lag
in accessing cool things, the slowness of an occasional callout (which is
O(1) loss in speed in most cases) can be compensated by the smartness of
other Lisp facilities and even by intangibles like Lisp's ability to debug
things quickly and deliver better "time to market".
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <8vmg7r$dfm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <···············@world.std.com>,
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> wrote:
> ········@my-deja.com writes:
>
> > cool- but will we lose some speed doing all those foreign language
> > calls that are not to C libs?
>
> I personally never recommended not calling a C lib. I've merely
observed
> that there was no C lib to call in many cases and said it's better to
> call something than to say "we don't have that". And I think Java has
> tons more off the shelf solutions than does C, with new ones appearing
> all the time.
I am learning Lisp. I have a pretty good grasp of C, Python, and Perl.
I really think that Lisp lends itself to many programs I previously
wrote with the languages I mentioned, but I cannot find a Lisp library
that provides basic networking facilities that are needed to write the
type of programs I want to. I looked at clocc
<http://clocc.sourceforge.net>, but it has almost no documentation or
examples that come with it, and I cannot get it to work. I found many
networking libraries for Scheme (SLIB and libraries in Bigloo) but I
want to use Common Lisp. I know there must be certain libraries like
this, because I heard of people using CL to write network programs -- do
you know of any?
Thanks,
-- John
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:40:43 GMT, ········@my-deja.com wrote:
> wrote with the languages I mentioned, but I cannot find a Lisp library
> that provides basic networking facilities that are needed to write the
> type of programs I want to. I looked at clocc
> <http://clocc.sourceforge.net>, but it has almost no documentation or
> examples that come with it, and I cannot get it to work. I found many
Part of the reason why you don't find much documentation included with
CLOCC is that the project is still relatively young--about 9 months, if I
remember well. Simply put, there are currently few resources for writing
documentation or examples.
As for CLOCC basic networking facilities, I suggest that you look at
src/port/net.lisp, particularly the function names (mostly
self-explanatory), the lambda lists and the documentation strings. Since
the file is short--around 350 lines--you may also try reading the code
itself. For examples of use check src/cllib/url.lisp. At times beginners
overestimate the difficulties of reading source code.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> wrote:
> > cool- but will we lose some speed doing all those foreign language
> >calls that are not to C libs?
Well, you can write code in that language, much like when you want
to write some parts in C to speed up things, and ask the interpreter
to load it at startup.
> I personally never recommended not calling a C lib. I've merely
> observed that there was no C lib to call in many cases and said it's
> better to call something than to say "we don't have that". And I
> think Java has tons more off the shelf solutions than does C, with new
> ones appearing all the time.
The nature of the "dialog" with C and the other languages are not
of the same nature: with C, it would be by using the classic FFI
approach, whereas with the higher level, the dialog would be through
socket, pipe, whatever: the later has the advantage of not having to
touch the Lisp side when a new module is added to a "slave" language:
you can call it in that language, you can call it in Lisp.
> Java sucks as an implementation language, IMO, but that's objectively
> not enough to stop people from programming in it. And if we don't
> want to find ourselves programming in it, then we'd better not ignore
> the fact that others are willing to. We can't keep up, except by
> tying ourselves to it in a way that makes innovations to it available
> to us in realtime. If there's a time lag, we're screwed because we're
> doomed to be forever at a temporal disadvantage and not usable as a
> leading edge tool.
By having this bridge mechanism, the other languages would do the
dirty job for us.
> If there's no time lag in accessing cool things, the slowness of an
> occasional callout (which is O(1) loss in speed in most cases) can
> be compensated by the smartness of other Lisp facilities and even by
> intangibles like Lisp's ability to debug things quickly and deliver
> better "time to market".
Example: how to get GTK bindings in Common Lisp?
Well, there's a Lisp called librep that binds GTK, so if librep
can be annexed (can be talked to from your Common Lisp
implementation), then GTK would be yours and whenever a better librep
comes out, you just upgrade librep... And if the librep bindings suck,
then you can turn into Python's version... without upgrading anything
on your Lisp side...
That's great, it means that we would have actually MORE choices
than if we were programming in one specific language !
Imagine a Lisp application using Python (libs) to fetch mail, Java
(libs) for the GUI and Perl (libs) for database access stuff :-) or
whatever ...
--
Georges KO (Taipei, Taiwan) ···@gko.net
D�cade I, Quartidi de Frimaire de l'Ann�e 209 de la R�volution
>
> Example: how to get GTK bindings in Common Lisp?
>
> Well, there's a Lisp called librep that binds GTK, so if librep
> can be annexed (can be talked to from your Common Lisp
> implementation), then GTK would be yours and whenever a better librep
> comes out, you just upgrade librep... And if the librep bindings suck,
> then you can turn into Python's version... without upgrading anything
> on your Lisp side...
>
> That's great, it means that we would have actually MORE choices
> than if we were programming in one specific language !
>
> Imagine a Lisp application using Python (libs) to fetch mail, Java
> (libs) for the GUI and Perl (libs) for database access stuff :-) or
> whatever ...
> --
> Georges KO (Taipei, Taiwan) ···@gko.net
> D�cade I, Quartidi de Frimaire de l'Ann�e 209 de la R�volution
>
I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the crawl-speed of things like
STk, that I'm skeptical of the language intercommunication
approach. Again, this is a subjective observation- I don't have
benchmarks.
-Aaron
"Kent M Pitman" <······@world.std.com> wrote in message
····················@world.std.com...
> Java sucks as an implementation language, IMO, but that's objectively not
> enough to stop people from programming in it. And if we don't want to
find
> ourselves programming in it, then we'd better not ignore the fact that
others
> are willing to.
>
> We can't keep up, except by tying ourselves to it in a way
> that makes innovations to it available to us in realtime.
By making it available to "us", it would make Lisp more available to "them".
That's a win, whichever way you look at it.
Perhaps of the two, the latter is the more important in the long run.
* "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
| It occurs to me that lesser languages like Java, etc. succeed in the
| modern world where Lisp seems like a computer science lesson from days
| of old because they have, or are perceived to have, an easy way to
| write/design a GUI, and to integrate well with low-level OS
| libraries/functions.
Are you referring to ANSI Common Lisp, the Standard, when you make
these claims? If so, do you consider standardization of a language to
be a negative aspect of its usability? In other words, would you
rather use an unstandardized language with many useful bells and
whistles over a standardized language with many useful, unstandardized
bells and whistles?
All too many of those who complain about Common Lisp have very little
idea what they can do with the language in the available environments,
and seem awfully preoccupied with specific (free) implementations and
what they can do, just like they are willing to use one-implementation
"languages" in ways they _claim_ they would never use a standardized
language, so one must assume that they have some sort of weird hangup
against implementation-specific features unless there is only _one_
implementation.
| I love Lisp, but there are things that I would never attempt with it
| that I would do in a snap with Python (actually a great language).
I'm extremely wary of people who say "I love Lisp, but ...".
There is _nothing_ I would not write in Common Lisp, because just like
Python and whatever other "great" tools are out there, somebody had to
write them and they chose a to build a _language_ to make that tool.
Well, guess what? Common Lisp is the language-building language par
excellence. Why do you need a whole new syntax and cruft just to add
a few nice pieces? That's just an insane abuse of scarce resources,
and a completely misguided notion of "competition".
| I could use TK or WxPython to design a GUI frontend to my functions in
| less than an hour.
Good for you! Have you tried Allegro CL's GUI builder?
| Java, Python, Perl, Tcl/Tk etc. also are "web aware", i.e. they
| acknowledge that for a language to be "hot", it has to appeal to the
| web-using public, and be usable for the web by the web-using public.
Only Java is web-aware qua language as far as I can tell. The rest
have some software written _in_ their language that could make a claim
to being web-aware, but qua language? No way!
You are not really talking about languages, Aaron, but about tools.
If you insist on comparing tools with languages, languages must lose.
An application with an input language that can modify its behavior is
very different from a full-blown programming language with a separate
specification from its implementations, plural.
| When Lisp gets its elegance across, as well as having easy access to
| all the things people like about things like Tcl/Tk, Java, Perl,
| Python; and not just obscure kits like Garnet, etc.
So what's wrong with the _language_ Common Lisp because of this?
| There's only one Python, Perl, and Tcl/Tk, and that helps them stay
| central and release one version of the language--not the fragmented
| state of affairs that both Lisp as a language and Linux as an OS
| suffer.
And what would happen if you added all the stuff that you want to
Common Lisp? I cannot see how it could possibly lead to _less_
fragmentation. You would not use the software written in Common Lisp
if it were there because it is not part of the language (standard),
and so there is no way for Common Lisp to overcome that "I love Lisp,
but" stand that you have chosen to take, is there?
Where, exactly, did you look before you decided what Lisp is missing?
The _only_ way you can get better able to use Common Lisp is, *gasp*,
to _use_ Common Lisp, just like someone decided to _use_ Python, Perl,
etc. If some hypothetical "I love Perl, but ..." crowd had complained
like you do, _nothing_ of what you apparently like about these tools
would ever have happened. Why do these people just get the work done?
Is it because do _not_ "love" their languages? Why is it OK to use
"love" for Common Lisp as an excuse _not_ to use it?
#:Erik, seriously annoyed.
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
On 25 Nov 2000, Erik Naggum wrote:
> * "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
> | It occurs to me that lesser languages like Java, etc. succeed in the
> | modern world where Lisp seems like a computer science lesson from days
> | of old because they have, or are perceived to have, an easy way to
> | write/design a GUI, and to integrate well with low-level OS
> | libraries/functions.
>
> Are you referring to ANSI Common Lisp, the Standard, when you make
> these claims? If so, do you consider standardization of a language to
> be a negative aspect of its usability? In other words, would you
> rather use an unstandardized language with many useful bells and
> whistles over a standardized language with many useful, unstandardized
> bells and whistles?
>
Ok, I'll answer: I want standards and "bells and whistles"
I refer you to http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/keith/crisis/crisis.html I
understand this man's sentiment. He says "...the programming languages I
like I feel I can't use". I DO want to use Lisp more. Its syntax (or lack
of it)is just plain superior. See also , in relation to Python:
http://www.strout.net/python/pythonvslisp.html A very fair assessment is
made, I think, of the strengths and weaknesses of both.
> All too many of those who complain about Common Lisp have very little
> idea what they can do with the language in the available environments,
> and seem awfully preoccupied with specific (free) implementations and
> what they can do, just like they are willing to use one-implementation
> "languages" in ways they _claim_ they would never use a standardized
> language, so one must assume that they have some sort of weird hangup
> against implementation-specific features unless there is only _one_
> implementation.
>
Just what language are you trying to insult here? I LIKE Lisp, but I'm
starting to find from a couple of people some religious zealot knee-jerk
reaction to ANY commentary about some potential problems it has to
overcome. I do have a problem with shelling out serious dough for a more
powerful Lisp , yes, and I'm just observing that for all of Lisp's
wonderful syntactical elegence, its a shame that it can't be more than it
is in the public eye. This is not a language war, at least I didn't intend
it to be. I guess Lisp zealots just get infuriated when they hear anything
good about any other language that they might learn from. Python (for
example) learned from Lisp. Now, its Lisp's turn to learn from Python,
which is winning the popular vote. I keep bring up Python, and I want to
say in advance, I'm not trying to provoke a language war. please keep the
tone cordial. So don't write belligerent responses like "Oh yeah, well
take that Python scripting pseudo-language and shove it up your -----" :)
> I'm extremely wary of people who say "I love Lisp, but ...".
>
> There is _nothing_ I would not write in Common Lisp, because just like
> Python and whatever other "great" tools are out there, somebody had to
> write them and they chose a to build a _language_ to make that tool.
> Well, guess what? Common Lisp is the language-building language par
> excellence. Why do you need a whole new syntax and cruft just to add
> a few nice pieces? That's just an insane abuse of scarce resources,
> and a completely misguided notion of "competition".
>
> | I could use TK or WxPython to design a GUI frontend to my functions in
> | less than an hour.
>
> Good for you! Have you tried Allegro CL's GUI builder?
>
I'd be happy to. Wanna write me the check for the cost?
> You are not really talking about languages, Aaron, but about tools.
> If you insist on comparing tools with languages, languages must lose.
> An application with an input language that can modify its behavior is
> very different from a full-blown programming language with a separate
> specification from its implementations, plural.
>
Ok, so I'm talking about tools....then where the f**k are all those cool
Lisp tools that other languages seem to have for no cost and active
development? Am I getting this wrong here? Is Lisp pro-or-anti Open
Source?
> | When Lisp gets its elegance across, as well as having easy access to
> | all the things people like about things like Tcl/Tk, Java, Perl,
> | Python; and not just obscure kits like Garnet, etc.
>
> So what's wrong with the _language_ Common Lisp because of this?
>
Nothing.
> | There's only one Python, Perl, and Tcl/Tk, and that helps them stay
> | central and release one version of the language--not the fragmented
> | state of affairs that both Lisp as a language and Linux as an OS
> | suffer.
>
> And what would happen if you added all the stuff that you want to
> Common Lisp? I cannot see how it could possibly lead to _less_
> fragmentation. You would not use the software written in Common Lisp
> if it were there because it is not part of the language (standard),
> and so there is no way for Common Lisp to overcome that "I love Lisp,
> but" stand that you have chosen to take, is there?
>
> Where, exactly, did you look before you decided what Lisp is missing?
>
The CMU repository for one. The Association of Lisp users. The Johns
Hopkins site. Shall I continue? Most of the GUI tools have stopped being
developed in 1992 or so. NOT an acceptable state of affairs for the
world's hippest language. Read the article "Good News, Bad News, and How
to Win Big". By Richard Gabriel, of Lucid
http://www.ai.mit.edu/docs/articles//good-news/good-news.html
In it he says:
"The real problem has been that almost no progress in Lisp environments
has been made in the last 10 years."
He also says:
"Retain the High Ground in Environments
I think there is a mistake in following an environment path that creates
monolithic environments. It should be possible to use a variety
of tools in an environment, and it should be possible for those who create
new tools to be able to integrate them into the environment.
I believe that it is possible to build a tightly integrated environment
that is built on an open architecture in which all tools, including
language processors, are protocol-driven. I believe it is possible to
create an environment that is multilingual and addresses the
software lifecycle problem without imposing a particular software
methodology on its users.
Our environments should not discriminate against non-Lisp programmers the
way existing environments do. Lisp is not the center of
the world. "
> The _only_ way you can get better able to use Common Lisp is, *gasp*,
> to _use_ Common Lisp, just like someone decided to _use_ Python, Perl,
> etc. If some hypothetical "I love Perl, but ..." crowd had complained
> like you do, _nothing_ of what you apparently like about these tools
> would ever have happened. Why do these people just get the work done?
> Is it because do _not_ "love" their languages? Why is it OK to use
> "love" for Common Lisp as an excuse _not_ to use it?
>
> #:Erik, seriously annoyed.
> --
Don't be annoyed. Peace, man. I'm not the enemy. Just conversing. Don't
get zealous.
> Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
> Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
> very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
>
I like that idea. Bush can take the whole fucking South, too.
Regards,
-Aaron
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> writes:
> ... I do have a problem with shelling out serious dough for a more
> powerful Lisp , yes, and I'm just observing that for all of Lisp's
> wonderful syntactical elegence, its a shame that it can't be more than it
> is in the public eye. [...]
> Erik> Good for you! Have you tried Allegro CL's GUI builder?
>
> I'd be happy to. Wanna write me the check for the cost?
I started to write a long reply to this but it mostly came down to this:
Beggars can't be choosers.
You seem to think we can't take criticism, but the truth is that the
criticisms you raise are well known and tedious to hear from people
who have nothing to offer in the way of time or money. Some of us have
devoted our entire lives to getting things as far as they are. When
you criticize things with a tone that suggests you expect us to slap our
foreheads and say "oh my god, we forgot about gui's" or "damn it, why didn't
we think of giving software away for free?", you seriously underestimate
the very real obstacles to the kind of world you are asking for.
Oh, and by the way, if you think it's so easy to build a large, professional
quality system--perhaps a Lisp implementation, or "just" a GUI builder--and
then give it away for free, please do it. I'm sure we'll all welcome your
very generous offer. But if you can't bring yourself to expend such energy
and then take no compensation for it, don't be so quick to suggest that
others should.
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> writes:
>
> > ... I do have a problem with shelling out serious dough for a more
> > powerful Lisp , yes, and I'm just observing that for all of Lisp's
> > wonderful syntactical elegence, its a shame that it can't be more than it
> > is in the public eye. [...]
>
> > Erik> Good for you! Have you tried Allegro CL's GUI builder?
> >
> > I'd be happy to. Wanna write me the check for the cost?
>
> I started to write a long reply to this but it mostly came down to this:
> Beggars can't be choosers.
>
> You seem to think we can't take criticism, but the truth is that the
> criticisms you raise are well known and tedious to hear from people
> who have nothing to offer in the way of time or money. Some of us have
> devoted our entire lives to getting things as far as they are. When
> you criticize things with a tone that suggests you expect us to slap our
> foreheads and say "oh my god, we forgot about gui's" or "damn it, why didn't
> we think of giving software away for free?", you seriously underestimate
> the very real obstacles to the kind of world you are asking for.
>
> Oh, and by the way, if you think it's so easy to build a large, professional
> quality system--perhaps a Lisp implementation, or "just" a GUI builder--and
> then give it away for free, please do it. I'm sure we'll all welcome your
> very generous offer. But if you can't bring yourself to expend such energy
> and then take no compensation for it, don't be so quick to suggest that
> others should.
>
In truth, I'm sorry to have insulted. It wasn't intentional, and I do want
to avoid yet another usenet flame thread!
I guess my reply is simply that I'm curious as to why there is such good
software out there for free if the economic model of Open Source Free
Software is so wrong? Why are Linux and FreeBSD so much better than
windows, and cost the price of a CD?
Secondly, for what my limited experience and time are worth, I'd be very
open to picking up a shovel and coding in the trenches. Any one else care
to set up a project? Perhaps a web page that agressively touts Lisp as the
strong language of the past, and most importantly the FUTURE.
Yes, I do still think that Lispers need more PR, and the successes need to
be hyped, and momentum needs to be built. I certainly don't mean to
deflate any of you who have devoted so much effort. So thanks.
Regards,
Aaron.
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> writes:
> I guess my reply is simply that I'm curious as to why there is such good
> software out there for free if the economic model of Open Source Free
> Software is so wrong? Why are Linux and FreeBSD so much better than
> windows, and cost the price of a CD?
Money doesn't come from nowhere. You have to have something ELSE to get
your money from.
Sun sells iron, for example. That's how it could afford to subsidize the
creation of Java. I was darned surprised they didn't roll out Java hardware
to finally pay for the huge expenditure on Java. Maybe they found some other
way to make money, or maybe they still operate Java at a loss, I don't know.
But the point is that they surely had to take a huge loss up front for years
while conditioning the market to Java, and there is no Lisp vendor that can
afford such a hit.
Gnu sells support, for example. And it's not doing so well financially.
It could hardly be called an economic success. Moral success? Sure. You
can always be a hero by making something of value and giving it away. But
all my interactions with Stallman over the years show him to be extraordinarily
frightened of not having a revenue stream in the future. Redhat? Well,
personally I think it remains to be seen if they have a stable business model
or if they've given away the store by allowing other vendors to copy their
stuff. Sure, there's a huge market of linux stuff out there, but is it just
feeding on the generosity of others or will it eventually cannibalize the
source? I personally think the jury's still out. Yes, Lisp developers
could go after short term riches and then hope the thing has enough life to
just keep going after, but that's a big risk it will fall in the toilet
after. I'd like to see a sustainable model.
You can give away something if you plan to build a vertical market. For
example, if your company is switching to the next layer up. For example,
Harlequin or Franz could decide to be only an AI solutions company, and to
give away Lisp for free. This would be especially advantageous if it hoped
someone else would pick up Lisp and maintain it for them while they invested
in other areas, but then it begs the question of whether they can count on
it for the long run. And if they continue to maintain it, then the problem
comes that a key ingredient of their vertical power (their Lisp engine) is
free for others to take and use as a base to build competing vertical
products. That's dangerous as well. So this is a tricky strategy.
The last model I can think of is the market of people who make stuff and give
it away because they have no business sense. I'm sure there are lots of
people doing that and that people flock to them and say nice things about them
hoping they'll keep doing this. I mostly see this in younger people. As
people age, I think they get burned enough along the way, and they start to
better appreciate the value of the dollar or the relation of "work" to
"dollars" such that they want fair compensation for all they have contributed
and they become less willing to give it away. Sure, a few figure out how to
live cheaply and just always give things away, but that's hardly a model
of economic success either.
I guess my point is that the "market" will always find a way to make money
on just about anything. Any time money trades hands, there are winners and
losers. People make short-term money, sometimes very good money, without
investing in the long term economic health of the market. But if you have
a plan for Lisp to have a long-term sustainable business, rather than ask
the simplistic "why doesn't it work to give it away for free?" why not sit
around and figure out how many person-years go into building a quality product
and how much money is being given away up front. Then ask who can afford
to do that and what their chances of a good return are. The market is kind
of passing the point where it's willing to invest in new companies that only
lose money up front and is returning to traditional models of business that
make more sense. I think that's good. It doesn't mean no innovative solutions
can make money--it just means that being innovative is not a substitute for
being thoughtful. VC people want a 10fold return on their money in three
years. When you figure out how by giving away software you can get a 10fold
return on your money in three years, you might write it up as a business
plan and submit it to a VC outfit. If it makes sense, the fact that you are
poor will not impede you. They will fund you for sure and you'll be on your
way to rescuing us. If you can't get to the point of figuring out these
"little details", then you're at the point we're all at: the clear
understanding that it's tricky to make the transition.
Lisp is ESPECIALLY hampered because the kinds of things people mostly take
risks on in investment are "new" things. Lisp has to be reborn in disguise
to succeed. Some of us like it's tried-and-true nature and it serves us
as a community. Making it new might solve a short-term problem but also might
lose control of what it is out to do. (See my paper on Lisp as a political
party, at http://world.std.com/~pitman/PS/Lambda.html ) You can put lisp's
features into another language, but that may not make it Lisp. Or it may.
But it's tricky in any case. And meanwhile there are a lot of people who
think Lisp has had its time to succeed and has failed. Personally, my take
is rather different: I think people have had their chance to kill Lisp.
God knows they've tried very hard. The reason it doesn't die is that it
continues to offer features not available in other languages, and those
features continue to solve problems other languages don't. It will likely
survive until some language makes a sincere political commitment to care
about those issues--and if another language does, I frankly won't mind Lisp
dying. But it hasn't happened yet.
> Secondly, for what my limited experience and time are worth, I'd be very
> open to picking up a shovel and coding in the trenches. Any one else care
> to set up a project? Perhaps a web page that agressively touts Lisp as the
> strong language of the past, and most importantly the FUTURE.
This presupposes that Lisp's position must be evangelical. The fact is that
one reason Lisp doesn't succeed is partly that it's true that Java or C will
suffice fine for "hello world". One doesn't see the merit of Lisp until
very large applications, where the presuppositions of those other languages
break down. Then, often, Lisp will succeed. But people, because of so-called
"practice effects", prefer to use the language they started with and work
harder and harder to shoehorn their problems into that. THey don't reconsider
their language choice at the right time. So they don't switch. And mostly
they get by--or they get into such complexity they don't see clearly what
was holding them back. It's a very tricky problem since most people think
the kind of problems that Lisp solves are fairy-tale kinds of problems.
I think evangelizing the language is wrong. It just makes you fuss infinitely
against people who argue philosophically to no good end. What will make
Lisp succeed in the sense you want, if anything, is succesful applications.
Build something useful out of Lisp and sell it. WHen it makes money,
people will take note. (Incidentally, this is another reason not to go
open source. There are already open source lisps and (to round numbers)
no one took note. If there is a solution, it is down another path.)
> Yes, I do still think that Lispers need more PR, and the successes need to
> be hyped, and momentum needs to be built. I certainly don't mean to
> deflate any of you who have devoted so much effort. So thanks.
I don't see why this victory cannot be stealth. I think people will take
note if Lisp makes money. But if they don't, let's just all reap the rewards
of using Lisp and let them all wonder forever. I do think Lisp is hampered
by lack of some practical features. But by that I mean only that I personally
am hampered in my ability to get specific features from specific vendors.
That's not something we can legislate as a community. It's something
each vendor has to decide for themselves--which customer is "typical" for
the market segment they need to survive. IMO, the right thing to do is
largely to pester vendors for extensions you need to survive.
The community need is to standardize (formally or informally) those things
which are de facto agreed upon. If all vendors have a drawing interface,
and it's using the same model of relevant factors like brushes, cursors, etc.,
we should make it so you don't have gratuitously different interfaces.
If they all have processes in pretty much the same form, then common
interfaces help. But if only some offer gui builders, then it's premature
to say the community needs a gui standard. The right thing is to get
the vendors that are supporting real commercial work to put out what is
needed to support successes, and if that leads to gui builders all around,
let's standardize. But if it's only one vendor, a standard isn't needed and
will only hold things back. It's not until there is substantial agreement
among vendors that standards help.
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> writes:
>
> > I guess my reply is simply that I'm curious as to why there is such good
> > software out there for free if the economic model of Open Source Free
> > Software is so wrong? Why are Linux and FreeBSD so much better than
> > windows, and cost the price of a CD?
>
> Money doesn't come from nowhere. You have to have something ELSE to get
> your money from.
>
> Sun sells iron, for example. That's how it could afford to subsidize the
> creation of Java. I was darned surprised they didn't roll out Java hardware
> to finally pay for the huge expenditure on Java. Maybe they found some other
> way to make money, or maybe they still operate Java at a loss, I don't know.
> But the point is that they surely had to take a huge loss up front for years
> while conditioning the market to Java, and there is no Lisp vendor that can
> afford such a hit.
They tried. I have seen (and tried to use) a JavaStation. It was
essentially the same stupid idea of the old SparcStations (diskless).
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti =============================================================
NYU Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://galt.mrl.nyu.edu/valis
Like DNA, such a language [Lisp] does not go out of style.
Paul Graham, ANSI Common Lisp
From: Valeriy E. Ushakov
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <8vrtb0$ua1$1@news.spbu.ru>
Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
> Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
>
> > Sun sells iron, for example. That's how it could afford to
> > subsidize the creation of Java. I was darned surprised they
> > didn't roll out Java hardware to finally pay for the huge
> > expenditure on Java.
>
> They tried. I have seen (and tried to use) a JavaStation. It was
> essentially the same stupid idea of the old SparcStations (diskless).
I think that Sun's MAJC processor is closer to what Kent refer to.
JavaStation was a lame attempt at *java* station (microSparc is not
powerful enough), but unused JS make good cheap X-Terminals...
SY, Uwe
--
···@ptc.spbu.ru | Zu Grunde kommen
http://www.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/ | Ist zu Grunde gehen
* "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
| I guess my reply is simply that I'm curious as to why there is such
| good software out there for free if the economic model of Open Source
| Free Software is so wrong? Why are Linux and FreeBSD so much better
| than windows, and cost the price of a CD?
The Open Source/Free Software model is not _economic_ in the first
place. Money does not even enter the picture. Understanding this is
crucial to why people are whining like a presidential candidate about
not getting all the stuff they want for free and why people make stuff
available for others for free, as well.
There _is_ no compensation model for Open Source and Free Software.
That is the trick. That is why it _cannot_ succeed economically and
financially. To make this fundamentally flawed model succeed requires
that Open Source and Free Software be instruments of something else
that generates money enough both to fund its own operation as well as
supporting the massively loss-making software creation process.
Let's put it another way: Money will _not_ get you any Open Source or
Free Software. People create software like this because they want to,
_not_ because they get paid. Money is a basically a _detractor_ for
creative people who want others to use their software and through that
become personally visible. It is pretty sad, but money does not offer
visibility to someone who is begging for others to notice him. Open
Source and Free Software are proofs that computers are alienating in
the old Marxist sense and the Open Source and Free Software projects
are reactions to this sense of alienation, in order to make the person
stand out from the computerized nothingness.
Yet another way: If _all_ you have to offer a programmer is money,
what he will create for you is not going to be Open Source or Free
Software. There has to be personal pride, wide usage, some of that
good feeling of having contributed to a community with one's name on
the contribution. Money can't buy that feeling. Neither can the
feeling be sold.
People who need Free Software and Open Source _have_ no money, either.
If you have lots of money, it may not be economically feasible to use
Free Software or Open Source because of the numerous strings attached
to such software, and it may in fact be economically _infeasible_ to
use software for which you assume _all_ risks. The question "who you
gonna call?" may be _very_ hard to answer in a pinch. Nobody is fully
responsible for the product in ways that owned software is. To get a
commitment from someone to support you on Open Source or Free Software
may well be much _more_ expensive than some regular software product
designed to be supported. Very few people are actually aware of these
costs until they have to get their business back on track after a
disaster of some kind. Free Software and Open Source are _very_ good
for hobbyists and in an educational setting where the purpose is to
improve your own ability to write better software. I support both for
this reason alone. However, production quality code is harder to come
by in these communities because there is no incentive to bring the
code from functional to excellent. What we get is very high quality
"laboratory code", not highly polished systems software that costs at
least twice as much to produce and maintain as the former.
Some of these things _are_ changing, but we are still years away from
a financial model for Open Source and Free Software that rewards
people in a way that fits the normal models for return on investment.
Wall Street was incredible harsh on the first few attempts, if you
recall, and the "business model" of the Internet (dot-com) companies
is not exactly being rewarded, either. (Nor should it be.)
| Secondly, for what my limited experience and time are worth, I'd be
| very open to picking up a shovel and coding in the trenches. Any one
| else care to set up a project? Perhaps a web page that agressively
| touts Lisp as the strong language of the past, and most importantly
| the FUTURE.
Why do fail to understand what it means that you need someone else to
set up the project for you? This tells everybody with at least half a
brain that you need somebody else to provide you with the rationale
for using Common Lisp, too, and that you are _not_ a self-starter.
Why a _follower_ would whine and complain about not finding relevant
_leaders_ is truly beyond me. Usually they just follow whatever they
feel like being their leaders.
| Yes, I do still think that Lispers need more PR, and the successes
| need to be hyped, and momentum needs to be built. I certainly don't
| mean to deflate any of you who have devoted so much effort. So thanks.
Why do you worry so much about marketing? Is it because marketing is
what you are influenced by? Popularity figures count more to people
who want to be popular than to people who are quite happy just being
good at what they do. Morover, excellence does not _need_ popularity.
Popularity is what you crave when you are _not_ excellent. Popularity
also _destroys_ excellence.
I have this notion that if somebody _wants_ me to like them before I
get a chance to know what to like them for, they must be _really_ bad
people. Con artists, prostitutes, sleazy sales people, etc, go for
that warm, fuzzy feeling where I'm supposed to feel happy about them
_instead_ of what they have done and are likely to do. Others harbor
the notion that liking other people and being liked is the first and
most important property of life on earth. These are likely to rub me
the wrong way and go from "don't-care" to "active dislike" in a very
short amount of time if they try to force their personal needs on me.
I mention this because I actively loath people who seek popularity and
judge both things and people by how popular they are. That's not even
a second-hand kind of ethics, it's a _statistical_ second-hand ethics.
Hyping is lying, basically, and you only engage in that if you have no
other way to reach people -- like marketing something people are not
very likely to want. Hype and lies and such marketing insult people's
intelligence and you only reach people who don't mind it. Why anyone
would want to reach such people with an excellent software system is
beyond me, but if you see a software product advertised on TV or on
big billboards, just don't buy it -- it's some overpriced crap suited
for the ignorant mass market that is actually affected by advertising.
For Common Lisp to succeed, people only need to use it. That's it,
there is no need for somebody else to use it for you to use it. Just
do it, yourself. Quit whining, start programming. Write what you
miss, contribute. Get paid if you can, write software for free if you
can't, but _program_. You improve your chances of getting paid the
more you have actually written. Likewise, you improve the chances of
Common Lisp being more widely used if you contribute mainly by using
it. In the end, working code matters, hype and marketing does not.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
On 27 Nov 2000, Erik Naggum wrote:
> * "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
> | I guess my reply is simply that I'm curious as to why there is such
> | good software out there for free if the economic model of Open Source
> | Free Software is so wrong? Why are Linux and FreeBSD so much better
> | than windows, and cost the price of a CD?
>
> The Open Source/Free Software model is not _economic_ in the first
> place. Money does not even enter the picture.
What about Red Hat? VA Linux? Caldera? Any Linux distro. They make
money. Granted not Microsoft $, but they work for a profit, bundling the
work of others.
> Understanding this is
> crucial to why people are whining like a presidential candidate about
> not getting all the stuff they want for free and why people make stuff
> available for others for free, as well.
You really haven't addressed whether you agree or disagree about Open
Source software being of counter-intuitively high quality....
>
> There _is_ no compensation model for Open Source and Free Software.
> That is the trick. That is why it _cannot_ succeed economically and
> financially. To make this fundamentally flawed model succeed requires
> that Open Source and Free Software be instruments of something else
> that generates money enough both to fund its own operation as well as
> supporting the massively loss-making software creation process.
Loss-making? Perhaps in man hours, but the quick development time of Lisp
would fix that.....
>
> Let's put it another way: Money will _not_ get you any Open Source or
> Free Software.
Not true. It's too early to see whether the many entrepreneurial projects
which have sprung up because of the Linux phenomenon will ultimately
produce cash. It's impossible to say either way
> People create software like this because they want to,
> _not_ because they get paid. Money is a basically a _detractor_ for
> creative people who want others to use their software and through that
> become personally visible. It is pretty sad, but money does not offer
> visibility to someone who is begging for others to notice him. Open
> Source and Free Software are proofs that computers are alienating in
> the old Marxist sense and the Open Source and Free Software projects
> are reactions to this sense of alienation, in order to make the person
> stand out from the computerized nothingness.
>
??? What on earth do you mean by the "nothingness"? How are Open Source
and Free Software projects a reflection of alienation. I would say they
are a celebration of a grassroots community. A strange point of view to
have, I think.
> Yet another way: If _all_ you have to offer a programmer is money,
> what he will create for you is not going to be Open Source or Free
> Software. There has to be personal pride, wide usage, some of that
> good feeling of having contributed to a community with one's name on
> the contribution. Money can't buy that feeling. Neither can the
> feeling be sold.
>
> People who need Free Software and Open Source _have_ no money, either.
> If you have lots of money, it may not be economically feasible to use
> Free Software or Open Source because of the numerous strings attached
> to such software, and it may in fact be economically _infeasible_ to
> use software for which you assume _all_ risks.
Nonsense. One of the few NASDAQ web-based companies that is turning a
profit, last I checked, is Yahoo. Guess what, they use FreeBSD. Are you
really one to believe that because a person has to pay more for Windows
that for a free OS, that Windows is of greater quality. A naive assumption
to say the least...
> To get a commitment from someone to support you on Open Source or Free
> Software
> may well be much _more_ expensive than some regular software product
> designed to be supported. Very few people are actually aware of these
> costs until they have to get their business back on track after a
> disaster of some kind. Free Software and Open Source are _very_ good
> for hobbyists and in an educational setting where the purpose is to
> improve your own ability to write better software. I support both for
> this reason alone. However, production quality code is harder to come
> by in these communities because there is no incentive to bring the
> code from functional to excellent. What we get is very high quality
> "laboratory code", not highly polished systems software that costs at
> least twice as much to produce and maintain as the former.
>
> Some of these things _are_ changing, but we are still years away from
> a financial model for Open Source and Free Software that rewards
> people in a way that fits the normal models for return on investment.
> Wall Street was incredible harsh on the first few attempts, if you
> recall, and the "business model" of the Internet (dot-com) companies
> is not exactly being rewarded, either. (Nor should it be.)
>
> | Secondly, for what my limited experience and time are worth, I'd be
> | very open to picking up a shovel and coding in the trenches. Any one
> | else care to set up a project? Perhaps a web page that agressively
> | touts Lisp as the strong language of the past, and most importantly
> | the FUTURE.
>
> Why do fail to understand what it means that you need someone else to
> set up the project for you? This tells everybody with at least half a
> brain that you need somebody else to provide you with the rationale
> for using Common Lisp, too, and that you are _not_ a self-starter.
> Why a _follower_ would whine and complain about not finding relevant
> _leaders_ is truly beyond me. Usually they just follow whatever they
> feel like being their leaders.
>
> | Yes, I do still think that Lispers need more PR, and the successes
> | need to be hyped, and momentum needs to be built. I certainly don't
> | mean to deflate any of you who have devoted so much effort. So thanks.
>
> Why do you worry so much about marketing? Is it because marketing is
> what you are influenced by?
I'm losing my patience for your assumptions about my character. They are
both unwarranted and nasty, and reflect badly on your interpersonal
instincts, to say the least.
> Popularity figures count more to people
> who want to be popular than to people who are quite happy just being
> good at what they do. Morover, excellence does not _need_ popularity.
> Popularity is what you crave when you are _not_ excellent. Popularity
> also _destroys_ excellence.
>
> I have this notion that if somebody _wants_ me to like them before I
> get a chance to know what to like them for, they must be _really_ bad
> people. Con artists, prostitutes, sleazy sales people, etc, go for
> that warm, fuzzy feeling where I'm supposed to feel happy about them
> _instead_ of what they have done and are likely to do. Others harbor
> the notion that liking other people and being liked is the first and
> most important property of life on earth. These are likely to rub me
> the wrong way and go from "don't-care" to "active dislike" in a very
> short amount of time if they try to force their personal needs on me.
> I mention this because I actively loath people who seek popularity and
> judge both things and people by how popular they are. That's not even
> a second-hand kind of ethics, it's a _statistical_ second-hand ethics.
>
> Hyping is lying, basically, and you only engage in that if you have no
> other way to reach people -- like marketing something people are not
> very likely to want. Hype and lies and such marketing insult people's
> intelligence and you only reach people who don't mind it. Why anyone
> would want to reach such people with an excellent software system is
> beyond me, but if you see a software product advertised on TV or on
> big billboards, just don't buy it -- it's some overpriced crap suited
> for the ignorant mass market that is actually affected by advertising.
>
> For Common Lisp to succeed, people only need to use it. That's it,
> there is no need for somebody else to use it for you to use it. Just
> do it, yourself. Quit whining, start programming. Write what you
> miss, contribute. Get paid if you can, write software for free if you
> can't, but _program_. You improve your chances of getting paid the
> more you have actually written. Likewise, you improve the chances of
> Common Lisp being more widely used if you contribute mainly by using
> it. In the end, working code matters, hype and marketing does not.
>
Ditto my above sentiments. Whats your point. Have you even begun to
address anything pertaining to the following premises:
1) Lisp is a great language which encourages the writing of good,
correct, and elegant solutions to software problems.
2) The more people know Lisp, the more a healthy programming
paradigm is potentially spread. More frquent, better software for all.
3) Lisp is plagued by its old myths, and some minor flaws, which
hamper its dissemination. As a result anti-languages (Java) fill the void.
Erik, you have a fondness for Lisp, and a distaste for mediocrity....why
get so upset about someone, who, after all, shares your sentiments in
these matters, and thinks the world should hear more about Lisp?
-Aaron
> #:Erik
> --
> Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
> Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
> very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
>
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> writes:
> Ditto my above sentiments. Whats your point. Have you even begun to
> address anything pertaining to the following premises:
> 1) Lisp is a great language which encourages the writing of good,
> correct, and elegant solutions to software problems.
> 2) The more people know Lisp, the more a healthy programming
> paradigm is potentially spread. More frquent, better software for all.
> 3) Lisp is plagued by its old myths, and some minor flaws, which
> hamper its dissemination. As a result anti-languages (Java) fill the void.
>
> Erik, you have a fondness for Lisp, and a distaste for mediocrity....why
> get so upset about someone, who, after all, shares your sentiments in
> these matters, and thinks the world should hear more about Lisp?
ok, i'm a lisp nobody, but here are my thoughts anyway:
the relationship between quantity and quality is horrendously difficult
to characterize, unless you've given up on finding correlation (this is
the common wisdom) in which case Why are we talking about this?
but let's say common wisdom is wrong and that there is a potential
correlation in this particular case (lisp hype -> better software). i
still find it more interesting to focus on the "->" aka the realization
of "potentially" (point 2), rather than the hype. by way of sketchy
analogy: all ideas have a vapor pressure curve, so to speak, so it's
important to realize there are many ways to influence that curve, and
adding heat is only one way (and arguably a wasteful way, heat being the
universal Waste Product).
perhaps finding the right catalyst, or since you have awareness, being
the right catalyst, can help bring about better software in a more good,
correct and elegant manner. which would be nicely congruent. which is
why people often advise "do" rather than "spew".
to ask probing questions is the first step. after awareness comes
understanding (and who can do that for you but yourself?) and if you
can channel your energy, action...
(or do what i do, procrastinate multitaskingly (posting to usenet ;-).)
thi
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <8vugn7$8us$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <···············@glug.org>,
thi <···@glug.org> wrote:
> "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> writes:
>
> > Ditto my above sentiments. Whats your point. Have you even begun to
> > address anything pertaining to the following premises:
> > 1) Lisp is a great language which encourages the writing of good,
> > correct, and elegant solutions to software problems.
> > 2) The more people know Lisp, the more a healthy programming
> > paradigm is potentially spread. More frquent, better software for
all.
> > 3) Lisp is plagued by its old myths, and some minor flaws, which
> > hamper its dissemination. As a result anti-languages (Java) fill the
void.
> >
> > Erik, you have a fondness for Lisp, and a distaste for
mediocrity....why
> > get so upset about someone, who, after all, shares your sentiments
in
> > these matters, and thinks the world should hear more about Lisp?
>
> ok, i'm a lisp nobody, but here are my thoughts anyway:
>
> the relationship between quantity and quality is horrendously
difficult
> to characterize, unless you've given up on finding correlation (this
is
> the common wisdom) in which case Why are we talking about this?
Well, advocacy. In some cases, an good idea being spread turns out
alright. The author Richard Dawkins talks about "memes", or idea genes,
i.e., and idea, or paradigm, spreading from mind to mind, culture to
culture. Think about your life before and after you heard about some
cool idea or thing. Think of programming before and after Lisp. What's
wrong in principle with "spreading the word" of Lisp? Its not Christian
Evangelicalism after all....
>
> but let's say common wisdom is wrong and that there is a potential
> correlation in this particular case (lisp hype -> better software). i
> still find it more interesting to focus on the "->" aka the
realization
> of "potentially" (point 2), rather than the hype. by way of sketchy
> analogy: all ideas have a vapor pressure curve, so to speak, so it's
> important to realize there are many ways to influence that curve, and
> adding heat is only one way (and arguably a wasteful way, heat being
the
> universal Waste Product).
>
I don't quite get your analogy here, or to what end you're bringing it,
can you clarify?
> perhaps finding the right catalyst, or since you have awareness, being
> the right catalyst, can help bring about better software in a more
good,
> correct and elegant manner. which would be nicely congruent. which
is
> why people often advise "do" rather than "spew".
>
I program in Lisp. I feel its a great general tool. I also happen to
think that there's a lot of noise around other languages that get in the
way of people even considering using it,too. My life will go on, and I
will continue to use Lisp when I want to, and I won't be affected by
others not seeing what I see. I just think saying "hey this is cool, and
is a great tool" is not a bad idea. So I "do" (program), and "spew"
(tell others, discuss Lisp)
> to ask probing questions is the first step. after awareness comes
> understanding (and who can do that for you but yourself?) and if you
> can channel your energy, action...
>
While I agree that understanding is the first step, and you are
responsible for yourself, I just disagree that one should stop there.
After action comes helping others to understand, and they act, and so
on.
> (or do what i do, procrastinate multitaskingly (posting to usenet
;-).)
>
> thi
>
Regards,
Aaron
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> wrote in message
···········································@ajohnson.21stcentury.net...
> 1) Lisp is a great language which encourages the writing of good,
> correct, and elegant solutions to software problems.
When used by good programmers. One of the WONDERFUL things about Lisp right
now is that the community that uses it is self-selecting, self-motivated
towards high-quality, and very well-rounded (at least in the programming
sense, probably others as well :-). Bad programmers would do more damage to
the community than any good they could contibute. I'd rather have 1 BMW
than 100 Yugos.
> 2) The more people know Lisp, the more a healthy programming
> paradigm is potentially spread. More frequent, better software for all.
No. The more people that know Lisp, the more bad Lisp code will be writen
and spread, the more it will be touted as a silver bullet (which ultimately
will not work), and the worse off Lisp will be in the long run. Lisp went
that route before. Do you remember the days of Lisp Machines when AI would
save us all and the subsequent AI winter whose cold winds still blow around
Lisp? If nothing else, the Lisp community has learned the dangers of
over-promotion that comes with broad usage. We're beginning to see this
happen again with disillusioned Java worshipers (just as the C++ worshipers
have been bitten). Why would we want to put ourselves in that place again?
The bottom line is that Lisp is a harsh master, a language that pays the
prepared mind high dividends, but that can backfire when used by someone
that doesn't take time to understand it well. Lisp is THE high-leverage
programming tool in both a positive AND negative sense. It is the
interaction of quality programmers and Lisp that lead to the healthy
paradigm you tout. Remove the quality of the programmers and all you get is
more crap code in the world.
> 3) Lisp is plagued by its old myths, and some minor flaws, which
> hamper its dissemination. As a result anti-languages (Java) fill the void.
Lisp is not plagued. It is used to good end by those who take the time to
understand it and ignored by the rest of the world. This is good (see
above).
> why
> get so upset about someone, who, after all, shares your sentiments in
> these matters, and thinks the world should hear more about Lisp?
The answers to your questions should explain why I don't believe that "the
world should hear more about Lisp". Most of "the world" will get along fine
without Lisp and Lisp will get along fine without most of "the world".
If you want to help Lisp, write some. Open-CLIM needs some help, if you
don't want to start your own project.
faa
"Frank A. Adrian" <·······@uswest.net> writes:
> "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> wrote in message
> ···········································@ajohnson.21stcentury.net...
> > 1) Lisp is a great language which encourages the writing of good,
> > correct, and elegant solutions to software problems.
> When used by good programmers. One of the WONDERFUL things about Lisp right
> now is that the community that uses it is self-selecting, self-motivated
> towards high-quality, and very well-rounded (at least in the programming
> sense, probably others as well :-). Bad programmers would do more damage to
> the community than any good they could contibute. I'd rather have 1 BMW
> than 100 Yugos.
I think this effect is very real, and a very nice description of it
comes from an unexpected side. Bjarne Stroustrup descrives it very
nicely at <http://ww.research.att.com/~bs/blast.html> under the
heading "C++ programmers are idiots" ;-)
--
Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be>
Lambda calculus - Call us a mad club
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <8vuhmp$ooj$1@nnrp2.deja.com>
Frank and Lispers,
Funny how many Lispers will claim on the one hand, that bad languages
are a big reason why programs that break come into being, and Lisp
programs tend not to break; but on the other hand, have a hard time with
the idea that promoting Lisp more would help the general state of
software.
Yes, there are good programmers and bad programmers,
Lisp makes good software design easier for a Good programmer
and makes a bad programmer better (in terms of their thinking
paradigm)....so why object to the idea that more people ought to use it.
The rising tide lifts ALL boats. So what about 4 BMW's, and 400 yugos.
There will be more BMW's the more people who happen to be good at lesser
languages discover Lisp! (refering to your car analogy below)....Its
like saying that Quantum Theory shouldn't be taught, because few will
understand. Well, I say, paradigm shifts only happen because someone
does care to teach the new paradigm.
Frank, on hand you say below that "the cold AI winter winds still blow
around Lisp", and then turn around a bit later and refute my claim that
Lisp is plagued with myths. You contradict yourself. What is your real
argument. It appears we are trying to say the same thing, that is that
Lisp still to this day carries some negative baggage. My only point here
is that I really believe it keeps people from not examining Lisp, and as
a side-effect, keeps the neat things Lisp has to offer away from many
people.
Kind Regards,
Aaron
In article <·····················@news.uswest.net>,
"Frank A. Adrian" <·······@uswest.net> wrote:
> "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> wrote in message
>
···········································@ajohnson.21stcentury.net...
> > 1) Lisp is a great language which encourages the writing of good,
> > correct, and elegant solutions to software problems.
> When used by good programmers. One of the WONDERFUL things about Lisp
right
> now is that the community that uses it is self-selecting,
self-motivated
> towards high-quality, and very well-rounded (at least in the
programming
> sense, probably others as well :-). Bad programmers would do more
damage to
> the community than any good they could contibute. I'd rather have 1
BMW
> than 100 Yugos.
>
> > 2) The more people know Lisp, the more a healthy programming
> > paradigm is potentially spread. More frequent, better software for
all.
> No. The more people that know Lisp, the more bad Lisp code will be
writen
> and spread, the more it will be touted as a silver bullet (which
ultimately
> will not work), and the worse off Lisp will be in the long run. Lisp
went
> that route before. Do you remember the days of Lisp Machines when AI
would
> save us all and the subsequent AI winter whose cold winds still blow
around
> Lisp? If nothing else, the Lisp community has learned the dangers of
> over-promotion that comes with broad usage. We're beginning to see
this
> happen again with disillusioned Java worshipers (just as the C++
worshipers
> have been bitten). Why would we want to put ourselves in that place
again?
>
> The bottom line is that Lisp is a harsh master, a language that pays
the
> prepared mind high dividends, but that can backfire when used by
someone
> that doesn't take time to understand it well. Lisp is THE
high-leverage
> programming tool in both a positive AND negative sense. It is the
> interaction of quality programmers and Lisp that lead to the healthy
> paradigm you tout. Remove the quality of the programmers and all you
get is
> more crap code in the world.
>
> > 3) Lisp is plagued by its old myths, and some minor flaws, which
> > hamper its dissemination. As a result anti-languages (Java) fill the
void.
> Lisp is not plagued. It is used to good end by those who take the
time to
> understand it and ignored by the rest of the world. This is good (see
> above).
>
> > why
> > get so upset about someone, who, after all, shares your sentiments
in
> > these matters, and thinks the world should hear more about Lisp?
>
> The answers to your questions should explain why I don't believe that
"the
> world should hear more about Lisp". Most of "the world" will get
along fine
> without Lisp and Lisp will get along fine without most of "the world".
>
> If you want to help Lisp, write some. Open-CLIM needs some help, if
you
> don't want to start your own project.
>
> faa
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
<········@my-deja.com> wrote in message ·················@nnrp2.deja.com...
> Funny how many Lispers will claim on the one hand, that bad languages
> are a big reason why programs that break come into being, and Lisp
> programs tend not to break; but on the other hand, have a hard time with
> the idea that promoting Lisp more would help the general state of
> software.
Yes. Here's the point. To use Lisp profitably, you have to put work into
learning it. Especially if you've only been trained in more mainstream
languages. Since most people would not be willing to put in the effort
required to make good use of Lisp, adding these people to the world of Lisp
users would help neither Lisp NOR the general state of software.
> Yes, there are good programmers and bad programmers,
> Lisp makes good software design easier for a Good programmer
> and makes a bad programmer better (in terms of their thinking
> paradigm)
I agree with your first statement, yet disagree with the second. To the
extent that the language does allow one to increase ones productivity (even
if one IS a bad programmer), it does make one better. But (and this is a
large BUT) it does not necessarily make the resulting code more efficient,
more maintainable, or better designed WRT the language. Since this is the
stumbling block for most projects, I don't see how using Lisp automatically
makes bad programmers better. In fact, it may make it easier for a bad
programmer to crank out more lines of putrid code. Over the years, I've
found that what makes good software is not what you are able to put in, but
what you are able to leave out. Lisp would give more leverage to bad
programmers to produce ever more lines of bad code.
>....so why object to the idea that more people ought to use it.
> The rising tide lifts ALL boats. So what about 4 BMW's, and 400 yugos.
> There will be more BMW's the more people who happen to be good at lesser
> languages discover Lisp! (refering to your car analogy below)....Its
> like saying that Quantum Theory shouldn't be taught, because few will
> understand. Well, I say, paradigm shifts only happen because someone
> does care to teach the new paradigm.
We do teach the paradigm. But we teach it to those who opt in because they
are perceptive enough to see that what they have isn't good enough and are
motivated enough to find something different. Why should I pander to the
lazy and stupid when I can surround myself with a community that wants to be
a notch above the ordinary. Call me elitist. In some ways I am.
> Frank, on hand you say below that "the cold AI winter winds still blow
> around Lisp", and then turn around a bit later and refute my claim that
> Lisp is plagued with myths.
The myths are out there among the ignorant - not in the community. Let
enough riff-raff in and the myths follow and become true as they put
pressure on the community to twist the language into something it is not.
Look at Scheme and hygenic macros. A really great "idea". It makes it so
much easier to write macros that avoid accidental variable capture. Great
for novice users. But it also makes it more difficult to write macros that
do much more than simple syntactic morphing. The fact that most Schemes
still retain a "real" macro system down below the standard is a testament to
the fact that "accessibility" doesn't work very well.
Another datapoint - Dylan and its syntax change. Did it really make the
language better? I don't think so.
Both of these changes were made in the hopes of making these languages (or
features therein) more accessible.
> It appears we are trying to say the same thing, that is that
> Lisp still to this day carries some negative baggage.
Yeah. So what? The myths were around long before the AI winter. The hype
surrounding the AI boom increased them, not decreased them. More people
"knew" about Lisp, so more people believed stupid rumors. Some people will
always be dumb enough to not try something because they hear negative news
that they have little or no supporting evidence for. Most of these will
spread false rumors. For people like these I should break a sweat? I don't
think so.
> My only point here
> is that I really believe it keeps people from not examining Lisp, and as
> a side-effect, keeps the neat things Lisp has to offer away from many
> people.
If you feel that way, go ahead and evangelize. Don't expect everyone to
support you in the effort at the cost of making the language more accessible
(read "probably worse"), though. Sometimes it's better to keep the
barbarians outside the gates rather than throwing open the doors and
yelling, "Let's party!".
If you want to help Lisp, write some.
faa
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <900pnu$220$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <·····················@news.uswest.net>,
"Frank A. Adrian" <·······@uswest.net> wrote:
> <········@my-deja.com> wrote in message
·················@nnrp2.deja.com...
> > Funny how many Lispers will claim on the one hand, that bad
languages
> > are a big reason why programs that break come into being, and Lisp
> > programs tend not to break; but on the other hand, have a hard time
with
> > the idea that promoting Lisp more would help the general state of
> > software.
> Yes. Here's the point. To use Lisp profitably, you have to put work
into
> learning it. Especially if you've only been trained in more
mainstream
> languages. Since most people would not be willing to put in the
effort
> required to make good use of Lisp, adding these people to the world of
Lisp
> users would help neither Lisp NOR the general state of software.
So, let me understand you, are you saying that Lisp requires MORE work
to write well than other languages, all else being equal? Wouldn't that
make Lisp a worse design than, say C++, by your argument? If you're not
saying that, then your saying that Lisp requires as much work as any
other language to become proficient, in which case you've made no point
about anything, and have no reason to prefer Lisp to any other language.
Surely there are benefits to Lisp, no? I can see how starting with C/C++
would cause a beginner's problem, but I started with C before Lisp, and
I prefer Lisp! What makes you assume that a person's enthusiam for Lisp
wouldn't be enough to get down to working on coding well? Did you start
with Lisp or not?
>
> > Yes, there are good programmers and bad programmers,
> > Lisp makes good software design easier for a Good programmer
> > and makes a bad programmer better (in terms of their thinking
> > paradigm)
> I agree with your first statement, yet disagree with the second. To
the
> extent that the language does allow one to increase ones productivity
(even
> if one IS a bad programmer), it does make one better. But (and this
is a
> large BUT) it does not necessarily make the resulting code more
efficient,
> more maintainable, or better designed WRT the language. Since this is
the
> stumbling block for most projects, I don't see how using Lisp
automatically
> makes bad programmers better. In fact, it may make it easier for a
bad
> programmer to crank out more lines of putrid code. Over the years,
I've
> found that what makes good software is not what you are able to put
in, but
> what you are able to leave out. Lisp would give more leverage to bad
> programmers to produce ever more lines of bad code.
>
Let me clarify. My point was, programmers' skill being what it is
(assume good for now-and if bad, teachable), do you think there are any
benefits to using Lisp over another language? And if you assume the
worst programmer, do you think Lisp is more likely to teach that bad
programmer good programming habits?
I would say that if you say no, that's a design flaw of Lisp. Because
a good language should be more likely, in an ergonomic sense, to make it
harder to get into poor habits, or style. But you won't say no, so my
point still stands about the "paradigm shift" Lisp allows. (Or you will
say no, which means that you have a neutral opinion of Lisp, and don't
care whether you write in C or Lisp.) ;)
> >....so why object to the idea that more people ought to use it.
> > The rising tide lifts ALL boats. So what about 4 BMW's, and 400
yugos.
> > There will be more BMW's the more people who happen to be good at
lesser
> > languages discover Lisp! (refering to your car analogy below)....Its
> > like saying that Quantum Theory shouldn't be taught, because few
will
> > understand. Well, I say, paradigm shifts only happen because someone
> > does care to teach the new paradigm.
> We do teach the paradigm. But we teach it to those who opt in because
they
> are perceptive enough to see that what they have isn't good enough and
are
> motivated enough to find something different. Why should I pander to
the
> lazy and stupid when I can surround myself with a community that wants
to be
> a notch above the ordinary. Call me elitist. In some ways I am.
>
Well, I agree, I suppose I wouldn't bother to force lisp on a resistant
soul-their loss. But I hesitate to grossly generalize that non-Lispers
are ALL stupid and lazy, etc. I'm fighting (a very uphill battle, I
might say) to have more and more patience for my fellow man. I'm
encouraged, though, that you at least agree that people can be taught,
and inspired down a path that others have tread which leads to
greatness. Like Newton, who said that he was able to see what he saw,
because he was standing on the shoulders of giants. This whole
conversation is because of John McCarthy, and his life was inspired by
others, too, and so on......
> > Frank, on hand you say below that "the cold AI winter winds still
blow
> > around Lisp", and then turn around a bit later and refute my claim
that
> > Lisp is plagued with myths.
> The myths are out there among the ignorant - not in the community.
Let
> enough riff-raff in and the myths follow and become true as they put
> pressure on the community to twist the language into something it is
not.
>
I don't think the community will feel ANY pressure to do anything it
doesn't want to, if you represent the normal attitude towards those
"riff-raff" ;)
Regards,
Aaron.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <nkjr93wj7kk.fsf@tfeb.org>
········@my-deja.com writes:
>
> So, let me understand you, are you saying that Lisp requires MORE work
> to write well than other languages, all else being equal? Wouldn't that
> make Lisp a worse design than, say C++, by your argument? If you're not
> saying that, then your saying that Lisp requires as much work as any
> other language to become proficient, in which case you've made no point
> about anything, and have no reason to prefer Lisp to any other language.
You can ask a similar kind of question about violins and home MIDI
keyboards. Does the fact that a violin takes more (much more!) work
to play well than a home MIDI keyboard make it a worse design? Or to
compare two somewhat more equal contenders: does the fact that it
takes more work to learn to play a grand piano really well than a home
MIDI keyboard as well as it can be make it a worse design?
The point is that the violin or the grand piano let you go *further*.
So does Lisp.
--tim
(Note I'm deliberately specifying `home MIDI keyboard' to exclude some
of the beautiful
weighted-key-and-wonderfully-synthesized/sampled-piano things you can
get in the professional realm: they still have limitations (for
instance they don't have all the changes with the weather and so on
that make real pianos interesting) but they're a lot closer.)
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <90147v$bth$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <···············@tfeb.org>,
Tim Bradshaw <···@tfeb.org> wrote:
> ········@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >
> > So, let me understand you, are you saying that Lisp requires MORE
work
> > to write well than other languages, all else being equal? Wouldn't
that
> > make Lisp a worse design than, say C++, by your argument? If you're
not
> > saying that, then your saying that Lisp requires as much work as any
> > other language to become proficient, in which case you've made no
point
> > about anything, and have no reason to prefer Lisp to any other
language.
>
> You can ask a similar kind of question about violins and home MIDI
> keyboards. Does the fact that a violin takes more (much more!) work
> to play well than a home MIDI keyboard make it a worse design? Or to
> compare two somewhat more equal contenders: does the fact that it
> takes more work to learn to play a grand piano really well than a home
> MIDI keyboard as well as it can be make it a worse design?
>
> The point is that the violin or the grand piano let you go *further*.
> So does Lisp.
>
> --tim
>
> (Note I'm deliberately specifying `home MIDI keyboard' to exclude some
> of the beautiful
> weighted-key-and-wonderfully-synthesized/sampled-piano things you can
> get in the professional realm: they still have limitations (for
> instance they don't have all the changes with the weather and so on
> that make real pianos interesting) but they're a lot closer.)
>
Tim,
You've brought up an area close to my heart, since I'm a classically
trained pianist, and teach piano/perform for a living. I appreciate your
analogy here. I think in a certain sense, loosely, the reverse of what
you are saying my apply, and still illustrate my earlier point.
Let's take a very high quality digital piano vs. an Acoustic Grand (a
vintage Mason&Hamlin or Steinway). I know for a fact that playing, i.e.
expressing artistic subtlety is much, much, easier on the acoustic
grand. So, while I agree that this subtlety is rare for an artist to
acquire, and few really have it, I disagree that once having it, an
acoustic makes you work harder. Precisely the opposite. I have a
high-quality digital piano myself, and it takes a certain effort
(inversely proportional to the quality of the piano) to make it "sing",
in the way a steinway (in the right hands) can "sing". So I know I can
sit down on a beautiful grand, and get delicate pianissimos for
instance, where the upright or digital piano sounds less dynamic. I've
seen students work "against" the inferior instruments that they have at
their disposal, only to give a recital on a grand, expressing even more
than they could have even imagined; just because the instrument was
better.
Taking your analogy further, the people who WILL get meaningful sounds
out of inferior instruments are either talented, or experienced with
high quality instruments, or both. An artist who paints well manually
will use a computer painting tool more artistically, too. (Assuming they
can negotiate the interface....a separate question of technology that I
am removing from the argument just for this point)
Going back and filling in "better instrument" for "Lisp", and you see
the point I'm trying to make...
Your thoughts?
Aaron.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <nkj8zq3m47r.fsf@tfeb.org>
········@my-deja.com writes:
> Let's take a very high quality digital piano vs. an Acoustic Grand (a
> vintage Mason&Hamlin or Steinway).
[Other stuff which I agree with excised]
I think that you've started from a different base position: I quite
deliberately was trying to specify `crufty, horrible' digital keyboard
vs real piano rather than `really nice digital keyboard' vs real
piano. The point being that on the crufy horrid keyboard there are
things you just *can't do* -- for instance it may not be touch
sensitive -- that you can do on a piano, and learning to do those
things takes a significant time.
Here's my own experience: I'm really a guitarist (well, I'm *really* a
physicist, but I'd like to be a guitarist...), but we had a rather
horrible piano with a very heavy action in my childhood which I used
to tinker on. In my teens I made a little monophonic synthesizer, and
later on acquired a string-synthesizer. Both of these things had
non-touch-sensitive keyboards. The mono synth was really OK because
it's nothing like a piano -- you really play these thigns with the
keyboard and the pitchbend/filter sweep controls at once. But the
string synth was really toxic -- because of where you played it (noisy
environments where you couldn't really hear what you were playing) and
the non-touch-sensitivity + very light keyboard, you end up really
hammering the keys, and just not caring at all how hard you play.
Now if you go back to a real piano, especially one with a decent
action you find you're completely screwed -- you can't play the thing
in a reasonable way *at all* because you can't hit the keys at a
regular volume. And it takes really a *long time* to get that skill.
Similar things go for violins -- there's a whole issue of tone
production and things like that which is a huge skill to master
because the instrument is pretty `twitchy' and unforgiving. It's
tempting to think that it would be nice to not have to do all this and
just have some electronic thing that was much more forgiving, and
wouldn't screech at you every time you make a mistake, and perhaps
would even round your finger positions on the fretboard (hmm they
can't be called fretboards on violins can they...) to the nearest
semitone. But you could play almost no good violin music on such a
thing.
Here's another gratuitous example: have you ever driven a car without
synchromesh? I have, and for the first hour or so you get an waful
lot of crashes and bangs from the gearbox, but at some point you reach
this zen state where you can *hear* what it's all doing and when you
change gear it just goes in with a wonderful kind of `zum' sound, and
you have this intuitive understanding of what double declutching does,
and when you don't need to use the clutch at *all* (this really
impresses people) and you're incredibly conscious of what all the bits
of the car are doing and it's just *great*: really satisfying. Of
course there are lots of reasons why non-synchromesh gearboxes died
out -- apart from anything you need a slow-responding engine with a
big flywheel which people don't want any more -- so it's not as very
good example, but there's still some kind of point in here.
--tim
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <nkj4s0qn7ee.fsf@tfeb.org>
While we're on the subject of musical instrument analogies:
BCPL is a VCS3
C is a minimoog
Scheme is a clavichord
Lisp is a grand piano, currently being used as a stand for...
Java is some awful home keyboard/organ thing with hundreds of knobs
and an LCD screen, and 15 midi ports on the back, all made of plastic.
No one has ever got it out of `demo mode' where it plays really
irritating tunes endlessly.
C++ I'm not sure, it's probably one of the polyphonic things
that Moog made that never worked right. Or it might be a huge
modular moog where all the contacts have got really dodgy. Both of
these are too nice for it though (I'd like to own both of these...)
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@tfeb.org> writes:
> C++ I'm not sure, it's probably one of the polyphonic things
> that Moog made that never worked right. Or it might be a huge
> modular moog where all the contacts have got really dodgy. Both of
> these are too nice for it though (I'd like to own both of these...)
A 30-ton accordion, perhaps?
--
Raymond Wiker
·············@fast.no
From: Michael Livshin
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <s3n1eilqc7.fsf@bigfoot.com>
Raymond Wiker <·············@fast.no> writes:
> Tim Bradshaw <···@tfeb.org> writes:
>
> > C++ I'm not sure, it's probably one of the polyphonic things
> > that Moog made that never worked right. Or it might be a huge
> > modular moog where all the contacts have got really dodgy. Both of
> > these are too nice for it though (I'd like to own both of these...)
>
> A 30-ton accordion, perhaps?
a Mellotron, with all the samples sounding like bagpipes.
--
(only legal replies to this address are accepted)
All ITS machines now have hardware for a new machine instruction --
BOT
Branch On Tree.
Please update your programs.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <nkj1yvun41v.fsf@tfeb.org>
Michael Livshin <········@yahoo.com> writes:
> > A 30-ton accordion, perhaps?
>
> a Mellotron, with all the samples sounding like bagpipes.
>
Neither of these quite have the feeling of vast, incomprehensible,
complexity to little effect that I was after (I did think of a
mellotron actually: yet another thing I'd like to own, if only for the
sheer madness of the thing).
Incidentally, even though the strings on the grand piano badly need
replacing before one breaks and hurts someone, people are busy
ignoring this and trying to retrofit it with MIDI, and replace the
somewhat battered french polish with a nice coat of polyurethane
varnish.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@tfeb.org> writes:
> Michael Livshin <········@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > > A 30-ton accordion, perhaps?
> >
> > a Mellotron, with all the samples sounding like bagpipes.
> >
>
> Neither of these quite have the feeling of vast, incomprehensible,
> complexity to little effect that I was after (I did think of a
> mellotron actually: yet another thing I'd like to own, if only for the
> sheer madness of the thing).
Which Pratchett book is it with Bloody Stupid Johnson's organ in it?
That has something of the right air about it. (My C++ hatred seems to
be slightly in abeyance - probably because I haven't written any for a
while...).
Cheers,
M.
--
112. Computer Science is embarrassed by the computer.
-- Alan Perlis, http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html
Michael Hudson <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> Which Pratchett book is it with Bloody Stupid Johnson's organ in it?
_Hogfather_
--
··········@acm.org phone:+49-7031-464-7698 (TELNET 778-7698)
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ fax:+49-7031-464-7351
PGP: 06 04 1C 35 7B DC 1F 26 As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
0x555DA8B5 BB A2 F0 66 77 75 E1 08 so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
Tim wrote:
>...and replace the somewhat battered french polish with a nice
> coat of polyurethane varnish.
*polyurethane*! lime-green non-drip gloss more like...
Tim Bradshaw <···@tfeb.org> writes:
> While we're on the subject of musical instrument analogies:
>
> C++ I'm not sure, it's probably one of the polyphonic things
> that Moog made that never worked right. Or it might be a huge
> modular moog where all the contacts have got really dodgy. Both of
> these are too nice for it though (I'd like to own both of these...)
C++ is one of those street musicians with the `one man band', with 27
various and sundry `found objects' such as tambourines, bicycle bells,
bulb horns, and cow bells.
At first, it looks really impressive, and hey, this guy is playing a
recognizable abridged version of the `William Tell Overture' *all by
himself*! But after you watch a few minutes, you realize some things:
Although the device looks interesting and unique, you see that it is
built out of junk and toy versions of real instruments. And some of
the elements of the instrument have no functional purpose, they only
exist to make the device look flashier.
The `one man band' device is awfully difficult to use. Yes, it is
kind of interesting that this guy taught himself to use it, but that
is part of the novelty.
The effort this guy goes through is far out of proportion to what
should be necessary. Again, it is entertaining that someone *can*
do this, but you wouldn't want to do it for a living.
The resulting `music' isn't very good at all. It isn't the entire
William Tell Overture, it is only a crude approximation. The
orchestral texture is missing. In fact, it is so bad that you would
not want to listen to it in isolation. It is the fact that it is
coming from such a contraption that is entertaining.
Unfortunately, the William Tell Overture is the *only* thing the guy
knows how to play. It is uninteresting to watch the guy perform his
act a second time.
During the off season, when he can't dazzle people with the William
Tell Overture, the performer is homeless.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
From: Kevin Russell
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <3A26027F.CC80CF89@home.com>
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>
> While we're on the subject of musical instrument analogies:
>
> BCPL is a VCS3
>
> C is a minimoog
>
> Scheme is a clavichord
>
> Lisp is a grand piano, currently being used as a stand for...
>
> Java is some awful home keyboard/organ thing with hundreds of knobs
> and an LCD screen, and 15 midi ports on the back, all made of plastic.
> No one has ever got it out of `demo mode' where it plays really
> irritating tunes endlessly.
>
> C++ I'm not sure, it's probably one of the polyphonic things
> that Moog made that never worked right. Or it might be a huge
> modular moog where all the contacts have got really dodgy. Both of
> these are too nice for it though (I'd like to own both of these...)
How 'bout this: C++ is one of those vast, disintegrating pipe organs
in old churches, which never quite worked because the builders made it
for a space half again as large as where it ended up, and whose pipes
have a habit of falling off the wall and landing on people whenever
anyone sneezes.
-- Kevin
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <nkjbsuxu732.fsf@tfeb.org>
Kevin Russell <·········@home.com> writes:
> How 'bout this: C++ is one of those vast, disintegrating pipe organs
> in old churches, which never quite worked because the builders made it
> for a space half again as large as where it ended up, and whose pipes
> have a habit of falling off the wall and landing on people whenever
> anyone sneezes.
>
With amazing systems of levers made of wood and wire, now held
together with sticky tape and chewing gum. Some of the keys are
working. Mice are nesting in some of the larger pipes.
Many of these things have now fallen into use, and had most of their
guts removed. Inside is now a plastic home keyboard which actually
does the work.
Meanwhile, people are fitting the grand piano with an LCD panel and
some knobs (very important to have these nowadays). They've had to
remove some keys to find space, but they were right up at one end of
the keyboard and no one uses those high notes anyway.
--tim
········@my-deja.com writes:
> So, let me understand you, are you saying that Lisp requires MORE work
> to write well than other languages, all else being equal? Wouldn't that
> make Lisp a worse design than, say C++, by your argument?
I dunno. It requires more work to do fusion than fission. It requires
more work to do calculus than algebra. Does this suggest these are
"bad design"? Some good design requires training, I think.
Lisp specifically allows you power, which can be used for good or evil.
You can restrict the ability to use it for evil by simultaneously
restricting the ability to do good. I'm told by others, but can't comment
first hand, that in the middle you'll reach Ada in which you can only do
any given program one way, for better or worse. Democracy is also like
this--designed for the masses, it optimizes the worst case, not the best case.
Dictatorships clearly permit a better solutions than dictatorships (as Perot
reminded us a few years ago, when he ran), they just also risk decaying
into worse solutions than democracy hopes to bring; the only difference
between a benevolent dictator and a malevolent one is luck.
(I suspect the continuum between Unitarianism (or even agnosticism) and
Fundamentalist christian points of view would allow a similar analysis,
with the underlying design difference being a trade-off between individual
choice on various issues and whether the risk of allowing choice risks
bad choice, and how acceptable such risk is.)
What people ARE saying is that up-front effort learning a language may be
longer, but the time spent to use the language is lessened. Likewise,
especially compared to a spartan language like Scheme, CL requires a lot of
up front compiler implementation but the intent is that the repetitive task
that follows is lessened. To properly weigh the cost of the solutions, you
have to weigh the cost of learning plus the cost of using that knowledge
efficiently and reliably. That's where C++ would lose, I think, since it
may not take as much work to learn but once totally learned it still has a lot
of weird bugs available that no matter how well you know the language are
going to be hard to avoid. So teaching time is certainly important, but
teaching time is a constant, and is (hopefully) dominated by application
development time, where hopefully you're going to develop lots of applications
and the cost of teaching time can be distributed over those other tasks.
If a language is fast to teach but gets you so mired in your first application
that you never go on to design a hundred more, I think that's a problem.
And it's characteristic of Lisp programmers that they look for things that
are said to be outright impossible in other languages and say "yeah, i can
knock that off for you this afternoon if i get some free time". In fact,
Symbolics used to have a sign on the wall somewhere that said "At Symbolics,
we make hard problems easy and vice versa." It was a joke, but there was
perhaps some underlying truth. All languages are optimized for something at
the expense of something else. Lisp is optimized for thinking about hard
problems. That doesn't mean it's hard to think about easy problems, but it
does mean that if we lost a few customers who only had easy problems, I think
we'd be less concerned than if we lost some who had hard problems... modulo
the problem of getting any customers at all. We need the language not to
have so few customers that it dies for lack of dollars, but we don't need it
to be come the "hello world" of choice.
> Let me clarify. My point was, programmers' skill being what it is
> (assume good for now-and if bad, teachable), do you think there are any
> benefits to using Lisp over another language? And if you assume the
> worst programmer, do you think Lisp is more likely to teach that bad
> programmer good programming habits?
Languages ought not be teachers. Teachers of languages ought be teachers.
Can Lisp be taught well? Yes. Does Lisp have in it to require such good
teaching? No. Perhaps you want Pascal or Ada.
Even Java allows and invites a lot of remarkably bad habits in the absence
of good teaching. String consing, for example, is an example of something
that almost any Java program I've seen that hasn't been specifically tuned
suffers from because the operators as provided invite bad style...
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> ``If you want to be a good guitar player, try to play a saxophone
> piece on the guitar. The average saxophonist is better than the
> average guitarist and you're bound to improve your playing.''
> --Richie Blackmore (paraphrased)
Cool quote. I've heard similar things said about Lisp programmers in other
languages--that even when they don't have Lisp to work in, they still benefit
from their training in how to think and correspondingly how to structure
code to be robust.
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Cool quote. I've heard similar things said about Lisp programmers in other
| languages--that even when they don't have Lisp to work in, they still
| benefit from their training in how to think and correspondingly how to
| structure code to be robust.
+---------------
Not just robustness, but also benefit from a Lisp view of algorithms.
Some time back, I had to help a co-worker with a problem in a Unix kernel
ATM driver, which is of course written entirely in C. The guy I was helping
had been struggling for some time with a nasty little cell-scheduling
(bandwidth allocation) algorithm. After I finally figured out just what
he was trying to do, it became suddenly clear to me that one piece of it
was just crying out to be implemented as a higher-order function which
would be passed "closures" (which in C can be faked with a two-word structs
containing a data pointer and a function pointer). Rewriting the code that
way simplified it enormously. Had I not been exposed to Lisp it would have
been unlikely that either of us would have seen the "obvious" rewrite.
-Rob
p.s. I've noticed a few "functional" ideas cropping up in other networking
code, especially dealing with hash tables, which often have some sort of
MAPHASH equivalent. Though since closures per se aren't yet a common idea in
C code, the iterator calling sequence is usually defined to pass not only
the "key" and the "value" to the argument function, but also to pass though
one or two opaque cookies that were handed to the iterator. These allow a
kind of "closure environment" for the argument function.
-----
Rob Warnock, 31-2-510 ····@sgi.com
Network Engineering http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/
Silicon Graphics, Inc. Phone: 650-933-1673
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy. PP-ASEL-IA
Mountain View, CA 94043
<········@my-deja.com> wrote:
+---------------
| "Frank A. Adrian" <·······@uswest.net> wrote:
| > Since most people would not be willing to put in the effort
| > required to make good use of Lisp, adding these people to the world
| > of Lisp users would help neither Lisp NOR the general state of software.
|
| So, let me understand you, are you saying that Lisp requires MORE work
| to write well than other languages, all else being equal? Wouldn't that
| make Lisp a worse design than, say C++, by your argument?
+---------------
No. You're missing the "dangerous sharp tool" side of the argument.
You do *not* hand surgical scapels to young children and expect them to
be more "productive" than children with soft, blunt plastic-foam hammers,
but on the other hand you do *not* handicap surgeons by requiring them
to do heart surgery with soft, blunt plastic-foam hammers.
Another analogy: An F-16 makes a *terrible* flight trainer. The controls
are extremely "twitchy". It will instantly kill any raw student you put
in it! ...and in the process, give the F-16 a *terrible* [and completely
undeserved] reputation for being "unsafe". To learn to fly an F-16 safely
you must *already* be a very good pilot, and even then must receive special
training from a good instructor. But there are things you can do (safely!)
with an F-16 you simply *cannot* do with any lesser craft.
Likewise, there are things a good Lisp programmer can do fairly
straightforwardly with Lisp that are difficult-to-impossible to
do with lesser tools, but throwing a poor programmer into Lisp
is likely to drown him (and give Lisp a bad name in the process).
The question of how to identify programmers who have sufficient talent
and how to train them to be good enough to use Lisp effectively (and the
time/expense of that training) is a *different* question from whether
Lisp is worth the effort of learning it. It's definitely worth the effort.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock, 31-2-510 ····@sgi.com
Network Engineering http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/
Silicon Graphics, Inc. Phone: 650-933-1673
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy. PP-ASEL-IA
Mountain View, CA 94043
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <nkj7l5nm3py.fsf@tfeb.org>
····@rigden.engr.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes:
> Another analogy: An F-16 makes a *terrible* flight trainer. The controls
> are extremely "twitchy". It will instantly kill any raw student you put
> in it! ...and in the process, give the F-16 a *terrible* [and completely
> undeserved] reputation for being "unsafe". To learn to fly an F-16 safely
> you must *already* be a very good pilot, and even then must receive special
> training from a good instructor. But there are things you can do (safely!)
> with an F-16 you simply *cannot* do with any lesser craft.
>
This is exactly what I was trying to say, only not so well!
--tim
> ····@rigden.engr.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes:
>
> > Another analogy: An F-16 makes a *terrible* flight trainer. The controls
> > are extremely "twitchy". It will instantly kill any raw student you put
> > in it! ...and in the process, give the F-16 a *terrible* [and completely
> > undeserved] reputation for being "unsafe". To learn to fly an F-16 safely
> > you must *already* be a very good pilot, and even then must receive special
> > training from a good instructor. But there are things you can do (safely!)
> > with an F-16 you simply *cannot* do with any lesser craft.
Hmmm, there was definitely more to the problems with the early F-16's
than that. At least one USAF Thunderbirds pilot was killed -- and if I
remember right his wing also followed him into the ground. ISTR it
being something about the force feedback or the wiring harness...
But in general I agree with the point you're (both, all) trying to make.
-- Kaelin
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <90655k$c6r$1@joe.rice.edu>
In article <··············@soyuz.arslogica.com> on
<··············@soyuz.arslogica.com>, "Kaelin Colclasure"
<······@everest.com> wrote:
> Hmmm, there was definitely more to the problems with the early F-16's
> than that. At least one USAF Thunderbirds pilot was killed -- and if I
> remember right his wing also followed him into the ground. ISTR it being
> something about the force feedback or the wiring harness...
Perhaps the analogy to Lisp would be the lack of lexical scoping in the
early implementations?
--
-> -\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=<*><*>=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/- <-
-> -/-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/ { Rahul -<>- Jain } \=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\- <-
-> -\- "I never could get the hang of Thursdays." - HHGTTG by DNA -/- <-
-> -/- http://photino.sid.rice.edu/ -=- ·················@usa.net -\- <-
|--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-|
Version 11.423.999.210020101.23.50110101.042
(c)1996-2000, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <nkjvgt8qv67.fsf@tfeb.org>
········@my-deja.com writes:
> Yes, there are good programmers and bad programmers,
> Lisp makes good software design easier for a Good programmer
> and makes a bad programmer better (in terms of their thinking
> paradigm)....so why object to the idea that more people ought to use it.
I'm not sure I agree that Lisp makes bad programmers better. Lisp
makes it possible to write absolutely horrible code and have it still
work: code so bad that if it was in C++ you'd just die because of all
the memory management issues. Not only that but lisp, ill-understood,
can lead to people using lists as arrays and ruso on and running into
horrible complexity problems.
--tim
<········@my-deja.com> wrote in message ·················@nnrp2.deja.com...
>
> [...] so why object to the idea that more people ought to use it.
> The rising tide lifts ALL boats.
There have been a few thoughtful answers to this one.
A few have even been honest about it.
In article <······································@ajohnson.21stcentury.net>,
Aaron K . Johnson wrote:
>
>
>On 27 Nov 2000, Erik Naggum wrote:
>> The Open Source/Free Software model is not _economic_ in the first
>> place. Money does not even enter the picture.
>
>What about Red Hat? VA Linux? Caldera? Any Linux distro. They make
>money. Granted not Microsoft $, but they work for a profit, bundling the
>work of others.
>
The work of others is the loss leader for Red Hat and friends that allows
them to sell books and cds and support. Open Source or Free Software is not
earning money itself.
>You really haven't addressed whether you agree or disagree about Open
>Source software being of counter-intuitively high quality....
>
Just because it's better than the 'horribly demented crapware' coming from
Microsoft does not make it high quality. Just as converts are often more
frevrent in their belief than those who have grown up in a religion, you
have managed to leave behind what you were raised with and now you've found
the one true way of perfection.
>> People create software like this because they want to,
>> _not_ because they get paid. Money is a basically a _detractor_ for
>> creative people who want others to use their software and through that
>> become personally visible. It is pretty sad, but money does not offer
>> visibility to someone who is begging for others to notice him. Open
>> Source and Free Software are proofs that computers are alienating in
>> the old Marxist sense and the Open Source and Free Software projects
>> are reactions to this sense of alienation, in order to make the person
>> stand out from the computerized nothingness.
>>
>
>??? What on earth do you mean by the "nothingness"? How are Open Source
>and Free Software projects a reflection of alienation. I would say they
>are a celebration of a grassroots community. A strange point of view to
>have, I think.
>
Yeah! Grassroots communities are cool because we can celebrate each other,
the people, rather than just getting our checks every two weeks.
You're not just asking that CL have fancy decals on the box like Java. GUI
builders, database libraries, CORBA, etc all exist. You're asking that
someone gives them to you for free.
--
-Simon Raahauge DeSantis
>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Raahauge DeSantis <······@ghostpriest.rakis.net> writes:
>> You really haven't addressed whether you agree or disagree about Open
>> Source software being of counter-intuitively high quality....
>>
Simon> Just because it's better than the 'horribly demented crapware'
Simon> coming from Microsoft does not make it high quality.
Hear, hear.
A popular analysis in the Linux community, as to why Linux has not
prevailed over Windows yet, says that UNIX (in general) is very good
but for hackers only. So in order to beat Windows, all Linux needs is
an easy-to use desktop working right of the box (or CD) for the
average newbie.
In that struggle to provide a Windows-like desktop, it seems to me
that the Linux is working hard to also reproduce the many mistakes of
Windows.
This was my conclusion after a frustrating half day worth of trying to
convince a recent Mandrake distribution with all the bells and
whistles of Gnome, KDE and friends, that I #%&#/$%$#% did want to use
my own window manager.
Not only is it becoming increasingly difficult to understand what
files determines the X session contents, but I also found out that the
"friendly" login program happily rewrote my .xsession file if I was
not very carefull with my choices!
(this is of course to bash Gnome and/or KDE as such; I am quite sure
that it works fine for a lot of people)
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech | Ericsson Telebit, Skanderborgvej 232, DK-8260 Viby J
Phone: +45 8938 5244 | email: ···@tbit.dk
Fax: +45 8938 5101 | web: www.ericsson.com
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
- ·······@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> writes:
> On 27 Nov 2000, Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> > * "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
> > | I guess my reply is simply that I'm curious as to why there is such
> > | good software out there for free if the economic model of Open Source
> > | Free Software is so wrong? Why are Linux and FreeBSD so much better
> > | than windows, and cost the price of a CD?
> >
> > The Open Source/Free Software model is not _economic_ in the first
> > place. Money does not even enter the picture.
>
> What about Red Hat? VA Linux? Caldera? Any Linux distro. They make
> money. Granted not Microsoft $, but they work for a profit, bundling the
> work of others.
All of the above companies are trying to use other means of making
money to support their Open Source activities (hardware sales, closed
source add-ons, support contracts, etc.). All of them are also not
profitable, with Red Hat "aiming" to achieve break-even at the end of
financial year 2001. Accordingly stock prices for Linux companies
have plummeted quite strongly in recent months, when the "we don't
need to make a profit today, because we'll make billions in X years
time (maybe)" stock bubble deflated.
> > Let's put it another way: Money will _not_ get you any Open Source or
> > Free Software.
> Not true. It's too early to see whether the many entrepreneurial projects
> which have sprung up because of the Linux phenomenon will ultimately
> produce cash. It's impossible to say either way
In business as elsewhere the proof is in the pudding: You can
speculate all day on business models, future markets and profits,
etc. That doesn't matter: The only way to win an argument in
business is to go out, put your own money on the line, and
_successfully_ implement your ideas. Until such a time as we have
stably operating, profit making businesses in this arena, there is
no one making money, and it's possible and necessary to say it this
way.
> ??? What on earth do you mean by the "nothingness"? How are Open Source
> and Free Software projects a reflection of alienation. I would say they
> are a celebration of a grassroots community. A strange point of view to
> have, I think.
You are completely misunderstanding Erik's point, it seems to me.
Open Source projects being a celebration of grassroots community shows
exactly that they are a reaction to a growing feeling of alienation.
That's how grassroots movements come about.
Furthermore OS projects being grassroots movements indicates the very
clear limitations of current OS projects: By their very nature, they
can't be directed by money, they are very unresponsive to
societies/customers (perceived) needs (by direct extension of their
being driven by their own needs), etc.
Note well that these same limitations are also OS projects major
strenghts. It's just that you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Regs, Pierre.
--
Pierre R. Mai <····@acm.org> http://www.pmsf.de/pmai/
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents. -- Nathaniel Borenstein
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <nkjaealsic1.fsf@tfeb.org>
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> writes:
>
> What about Red Hat? VA Linux? Caldera? Any Linux distro. They make
> money. Granted not Microsoft $, but they work for a profit, bundling the
> work of others.
Do they? I didn't have time to look up more than one, but Red Hat
don't appear to be making any money: their earnings per share is
negative. It looks like they plan to make some money in 2002. Of
course this is a pretty standard situation for most dot.com style
companies to be in, it may not have anything to do with the freedom or
otherwise of software. But it definitely is not the case --
especially at the moment -- that just because there is some commercial
organisation involved there is money to be made: many dot.coms are
busy running through the last of their funding trying not to think
what happens when it runs out. Whether this is the case for the ones
mentioned above I don't know.
--tim
"Aaron K . Johnson" wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2000, Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> > * "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
> > | I guess my reply is simply that I'm curious as to why there is such
> > | good software out there for free if the economic model of Open Source
> > | Free Software is so wrong? Why are Linux and FreeBSD so much better
> > | than windows, and cost the price of a CD?
> >
> > The Open Source/Free Software model is not _economic_ in the first
> > place. Money does not even enter the picture.
>
> What about Red Hat? VA Linux? Caldera? Any Linux distro. They make
> money. Granted not Microsoft $, but they work for a profit, bundling the
> work of others.
>
Someday, God willing, I will understand enough economics to develop the
following theory:
When two software products are competing head-to-head, one open-source and the
other not, the open-source competitor will become superior *in the long run*.
At first, the closed-source product has the advantage, because it has the
funding (from venture capital and from sales) to hire developers full-time,
while the open-source product has to struggle with a small crew of volunteers.
Over time, the open-source product will accrete developer-hours and sponsors.
Eventually, the owners of the closed-source product will be hampered by the
need to pay off their investors and creditors, while the labor that went into
the open-source product continues to attract more labor.
If you write, sponsor, or advocate open-source software, then this theory
should make you feel all warm and cozy. However, if you're a *customer* trying
to choose between an open-source and a closed-source product, believing that
the open-source version will be better in the long run doesn't do you much good
-- if the total cost of ownership doesn't make the program benefit you *now*,
then your company could go under before the open-source product grows into
something that meets your needs.
--
"The big dig might come in handy ... for a few project managers
whom I think would make great landfill." --Elaine Ashton
== seth gordon == ·······@kenan.com == standard disclaimer ==
== documentation group, kenan systems corp., cambridge, ma ==
From: Seth Gordon
Subject: the economics of software support (slightly off-topic)
Date:
Message-ID: <3A22E9F3.37A167A@kenan.com>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> If you have lots of money, it may not be economically feasible to use
> Free Software or Open Source because of the numerous strings attached
> to such software, and it may in fact be economically _infeasible_ to
> use software for which you assume _all_ risks. The question "who you
> gonna call?" may be _very_ hard to answer in a pinch.
The standard response from the FS/OS camp is "well, how much support do you
get for the closed-source software that you pay for, anyway?"
Technically competent end-users who have wandered through the tech-support
maze at [insert name of any big software vendor here] will tend to answer
"virtually none".
However, I assume that when a corporation pays heaps of money for an
"enterprise" software package, such as SAP, or buys some end-user product in
thousand-seat license packs, its complaints to the vendor get a little more
attention. I can also imagine a small company writing some useful little
tool, selling it for a few hundred bucks a pop, making enough revenue to pay
the rent, and having few enough customers that they give each one serious
attention.
Question for those with more experience in the biz: where is the dividing
line between companies that say "you should be grateful that we let you have
this program for only $500, so we'll take our own sweet time about solving
your problems with it" and companies that say "we want our customers to keep
renewing their licenses, so we will give our support team the resources it
needs"?
--
"The big dig might come in handy ... for a few project managers
whom I think would make great landfill." --Elaine Ashton
== seth gordon == ·······@kenan.com == standard disclaimer ==
== documentation group, kenan systems corp., cambridge, ma ==
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: the economics of software support (slightly off-topic)
Date:
Message-ID: <nkjsnocquk6.fsf@tfeb.org>
Seth Gordon <·······@kenan.com> writes:
>
> The standard response from the FS/OS camp is "well, how much support do you
> get for the closed-source software that you pay for, anyway?"
>
We get very reasonable support for the SW we pay support for. We
aren't some huge corporation and we don't pay huge money in support,
but we've been generally satisfied. It's unfortunately in the nature
of things that since we can (collectively) remember SunOS 1 we tend to
know more about much of the system than the people answering the
phone, but things do get fixed.
Of course I'm not talking about support for some domestic package
here: we deliberately avoid using those for anything critical.
--tim
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the economics of software support (slightly off-topic)
Date:
Message-ID: <3184409907187835@naggum.net>
* Seth Gordon <·······@kenan.com>
| The standard response from the FS/OS camp is "well, how much support
| do you get for the closed-source software that you pay for, anyway?"
Well, this is a staggeringly unintelligent response, so if somebody
actually says this, or it's even "standard", just ignore the idiots.
| Technically competent end-users who have wandered through the
| tech-support maze at [insert name of any big software vendor here]
| will tend to answer "virtually none".
You missed the point, dude. Somebody has a legal responsibility when
you have paid for support. This isn't about getting answers, this is
about who is legally responsible for answering. _Huge_ difference!
This point is routinely missed by people who do not have and do not
rely on any legal responsibilities. For all this talk about building
communities and societies, I find very little realization of what such
complex structures need among people who do not have to back their
claims with money, which is nothing more than the fruits of one's past
success. People bet their spare time, not their lives, on software
they give away. It is a luxury, not a necessity. Now, I'm all for
being rich enough that luxury is possible, such as art is, but we are
not at the point where software artists are recognized as such, in
fact everyone wants to come look at the artwork, but not pay for it.
The really, really sad part is that even while we have a whole range
of software paid for out of people's donated time, it still can't be
sold at the normal, healthy profit margins that supports future work --
they all require _more_ donations all the time.
I have argued elsewhere that I consider source access invaluable to a
programmer's education, just like any other practitioner must have
access to prior art, but this is not an argument for it being free.
Quite the contrary. We pay our educators in _every_ other field but
computer science. Here it is supposedly up to the _educators_ to make
sure that the next generation of programmers aren't illiterate and
dangerous, not up to the practitioner to get a good education. Our
society has yet to recognize the cost of bad code and bad programmers,
the way it recognized the cost of bad legal advice, bad medical advice,
bad housing construction, bad food processing, bad farming, etc, etc.
Free software and open source are _not_ helping -- they are instead
free-riders on the ability of some software companies to disclaim all
kinds of warranties for their shoddy products.
How do we solve the societal need to educate future generations through
exposure to real and living source code with the need to make sure that
the work people do in software construction and engineering is properly
rewarded? I don't know, but I do believe that the more people argue
for free, unrestricted, and uncompensated access to other people's work
and source code, the further we will be from a long-term solution.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> ...People bet their spare time, not their lives, on software
> they give away. It is a luxury, not a necessity.
What I missed from start of this FS/OS discussion is the fact,
that it neither is so that Free Software/Open Software is gratis
nor that FS/OS programmers didn`t get paid for their work.
Thats nonsense - the core programmers of the major FS/OS
Software get all paid for their work. (Apache, Postgres, KDE...)
Just to bring in some new friuts in the debate...
Regards,
Jochen Schmidt
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the economics of software support (slightly off-topic)
Date:
Message-ID: <3184530086420261@naggum.net>
* Jochen Schmidt <···@dataheaven.de>
| What I missed from start of this FS/OS discussion is the fact, that it
| neither is so that Free Software/Open Software is gratis nor that
| FS/OS programmers didn`t get paid for their work. Thats nonsense -
| the core programmers of the major FS/OS Software get all paid for
| their work. (Apache, Postgres, KDE...)
I, too, have been paid for work I have done on top of a body of work
that I had donated to the SGML community. After all was said and
done, I got about 6 dollars an hour for the work I put into the SGML
community over six years, even though I was paid _very_ well by all
standards for the work I _did_ get specifically paid for. If I had
worked with SGML for another decade, maybe I would not have regretted
the first five years and the sad unwillingness to pay someone who had
previously given away his work which several other contributors had
suffered, too, forcing them to choose between donations and paid work.
(However, I quit working with SGML for entirely different reasons: I
discovered that it is self-defeating and contradicts its own purposes
and premises. That didn't _help_ the regret, but most people in the
Open Source and/or Free Software world aren't quite as "unlucky" with
what they believe in and invest in.)
If you count the countless hours of work that precedes getting paid as
an investment on which you should expect a reasonable yield, and I
think you should, the amounts of money that are being paid to support
and maintain successful Open Source projects is almost negligible.
And of course people are paid _after_ something becomes a success.
Some of the time, people are paid by employers who don't know what
their people are doing, but some employers are also positive to such
work because they need the results, anyway. Some of the time, people
are able to use equipment and resources for free that they could never
afford to purchase on their own, including Internet connectivity --
the very _backbone_ of shared code development.
Today's situation is quite a bit different from how things started for
the things we know about, but not much so for new projects. I don't
think it is very productive to judge Open Source based solely on what
we have seen succeed after many, many years. Lots of projects have
never taken off, have lost their community support and programmers,
have never inspired enough programmers to get really going, etc. When
people are paid, they don't need the same kind of continuous rewards
that they would need if they aren't. This seriously affects how Open
Source projects get on their way. How they act when they get large
enough to sustain themselves is not very important to understand, but
how they grow from nothing to that large is. That cannot be seen by
looking at the most successful projects.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
From: David Thornley
Subject: Re: the economics of software support (slightly off-topic)
Date:
Message-ID: <wWWV5.544$%Q3.64024@ptah.visi.com>
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>* Seth Gordon <·······@kenan.com>
>| The standard response from the FS/OS camp is "well, how much support
>| do you get for the closed-source software that you pay for, anyway?"
>
> Well, this is a staggeringly unintelligent response, so if somebody
> actually says this, or it's even "standard", just ignore the idiots.
>
Why is it staggeringly unintelligent to ask whether something is worth
what you pay for it?
>| Technically competent end-users who have wandered through the
>| tech-support maze at [insert name of any big software vendor here]
>| will tend to answer "virtually none".
>
It varies. I've dealt with good and bad. Good support is worth
paying for. Bad support, well...
> You missed the point, dude. Somebody has a legal responsibility when
> you have paid for support. This isn't about getting answers, this is
> about who is legally responsible for answering. _Huge_ difference!
I don't see it. If you use a software package in a way that is important
to you (perhaps it's important for your business), and it doesn't work,
you've got a problem. If the vendor fixes the software, that's good.
If somebody else fixes the software, that's good. Having somebody
legally responsible for fixing the software is kind of pointless: if
you suffer serious financial loss, how are you going to get compensated?
The software industry came up with the warranty that "This is a floppy
disk, and is warranted to remain so for ninety days. Here's the long
list of things you can't do with any software that might happen to be
on it." They're masters at avoiding responsibility for their products,
and if they can't dodge it in court they'll lobby Congress. (There are,
of course, companies that are honorable. For now. As Kent Pitman has
pointed out, this can change at any point.)
Now, suppose you had an open-source program. You could, perhaps, pay
somebody to support it for you. That person is then legally responsible
for support, and you've got more leverage on him or her.
I've had an assortment of car problems over the years. I've taken my
car to various different sorts of places. The thing I have noticed is
that I get consistently good treatment from places that get their money
from taking care of cars, as opposed to service stations or dealers.
So, I suggest that open source software with a support contract with
a reputable software person is as good a way to go as buying software
from a company.
In order to do this, the software has to have some sort of source
availability. I can learn to fix problems in the Linux kernel, but
I'm not going to learn to fix problems in MS Windows internals. For
that, you have to go to Microsoft.
What part of this is stupendously unintelligent?
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
·····@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: the economics of software support (slightly off-topic)
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3lmty3kg4.fsf@cley.com>
* David Thornley wrote:
> I don't see it. If you use a software package in a way that is important
> to you (perhaps it's important for your business), and it doesn't work,
> you've got a problem. If the vendor fixes the software, that's good.
> If somebody else fixes the software, that's good. Having somebody
> legally responsible for fixing the software is kind of pointless: if
> you suffer serious financial loss, how are you going to get compensated?
Isn't this obvious? You have a contract with the vendor, and you can
ultimately sue them for damages if they don't fulfil the terms of that
contract. That's ultimately what a contract *is* -- the vendor agrees
to do something, and if they fail to fulfil their part of the contract
they have to pay you money. Of course you need to make sure the
contract you sign actually means something, and as you point out, most
end-user software has license terms which strenuously try and deny all
responsibility.
> Now, suppose you had an open-source program. You could, perhaps, pay
> somebody to support it for you. That person is then legally responsible
> for support, and you've got more leverage on him or her.
This is a reasonable approach, but there are complications. If you
sign a contract with a person (and companies are `people' in UK law at
least) to provide a service then you have to consider what your remedy
is if they fail to do that. If you're much bigger than they are, then
suing them may be of limited use -- if their failure to provide
support has cost you $1,000,000, then they may be just completely
incapable of paying that, and promptly go bankrupt, leaving you
without support or compensation. Either you or they may be able to
get insurance against this kind of thing, and that insurance might
even pay out.
--tim
Seth Gordon <·······@kenan.com> writes:
> The standard response from the FS/OS camp is "well, how much support do you
> get for the closed-source software that you pay for, anyway?"
>
Support comes in many ways. One of the advantages of having paid
support contracts is that the respective responsabilities of both the
buyer and the vendor are explicitly defined and can be enforced by
judicial action.
It's also very convenient to tell your boss it's the vendors problem
;-)
> Technically competent end-users who have wandered through the tech-support
> maze at [insert name of any big software vendor here] will tend to answer
> "virtually none".
>
In my experience, as employee of a fairly important customer, after
having proven competent, you can usually get the contact info for the
actual developers and you can avoid the telephone firewall.
> Question for those with more experience in the biz: where is the dividing
> line between companies that say "you should be grateful that we let you have
> this program for only $500, so we'll take our own sweet time about solving
> your problems with it" and companies that say "we want our customers to keep
> renewing their licenses, so we will give our support team the resources it
> needs"?
>
I don't think there is a dividing line between companies. Each company
probably has clients that get the first kind of treatment and clients
that get very good support.
--
Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be>
Lambda calculus - Call us a mad club
In article <················@kenan.com>, Seth Gordon
<·······@kenan.com> wrote:
> Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> > If you have lots of money, it may not be economically feasible to use
> > Free Software or Open Source because of the numerous strings attached
> > to such software, and it may in fact be economically _infeasible_ to
> > use software for which you assume _all_ risks. The question "who you
> > gonna call?" may be _very_ hard to answer in a pinch.
>
> The standard response from the FS/OS camp is "well, how much support do you
> get for the closed-source software that you pay for, anyway?"
>
> Technically competent end-users who have wandered through the tech-support
> maze at [insert name of any big software vendor here] will tend to answer
> "virtually none".
Interestingly this often is not the case for Lisp companies
(in this generality).
Often I see patches just hours (not days or months) later for
some problems people have. This also puzzles people not used to
that.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
Rainer Joswig <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> writes:
> Interestingly this often is not the case for Lisp companies
> (in this generality).
>
> Often I see patches just hours (not days or months) later for
> some problems people have. This also puzzles people not used to
> that.
isn't this partly because nothing is as simple to patch as lisp?
(Many patches can be delivered as fasl-files which even are suitable
for loading into running images)
--
(espen)
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
> | I guess my reply is simply that I'm curious as to why there is such
> | good software out there for free if the economic model of Open Source
> | Free Software is so wrong? Why are Linux and FreeBSD so much better
> | than windows, and cost the price of a CD?
>
> The Open Source/Free Software model is not _economic_ in the first
> place. Money does not even enter the picture. Understanding this is
> crucial to why people are whining like a presidential candidate about
> not getting all the stuff they want for free and why people make stuff
> available for others for free, as well.
>
> There _is_ no compensation model for Open Source and Free Software.
> That is the trick. That is why it _cannot_ succeed economically and
> financially. To make this fundamentally flawed model succeed requires
> that Open Source and Free Software be instruments of something else
> that generates money enough both to fund its own operation as well as
> supporting the massively loss-making software creation process.
For a somewhat different view, see
http://www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/simple.pdf.
Lerner argues that in Open Source/Free Software there are indeed
economic incentives, and then proceeds to identify a few of
these. Read the paper. If you're familiar with OS/FS you can probably
skip the first thirteen pages or so. This paper is a working paper, so
there are lots of details to be worked out, even so I think the paper
goes a long way in refuting Erik's simple claim that there is _no_
compensation :)
(Rmz)
--
Bj�rn Remseth Mail: ·············@fast.no
Systems Engineer Web: http://www.fast.no/
Fast Search & Transfer ASA Phone: +47 23 23 84 00
P.O. Box 1677 Vika Fax: +47 23 23 84 01
NO-0120 Oslo, NORWAY Mob: +47 91 34 13 32
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
> | I guess my reply is simply that I'm curious as to why there is such
> | good software out there for free if the economic model of Open Source
> | Free Software is so wrong? Why are Linux and FreeBSD so much better
> | than windows, and cost the price of a CD?
>
> The Open Source/Free Software model is not _economic_ in the first
> place. Money does not even enter the picture. [...]
Perhaps not -- but the *allocation of resources* certainly does, and
fundamentallly that's what economics is really about.
A perspective on the OSS phenomenon that focuses primarily on monetary
compensation is, IMHO, missing the point. And while peer recognition
is undoubtably a factor, so it is with almost every human endeavor. We
are social animals, after all. Even those who most of their
socializing from behind a keyboard.
I wish I had time to respond at length, but since I don't let me toss
out a few bullet points:
-- OSS is replentishing the seed corn of Computer Science. Where else
will future engineers go for the opportunity to truly grok the
inner workings of a large and complex code base? Our schools are
too busy either a) cranking out Java programmers or b) clamping
proprietary licenses on the fruits of their research and spinning
off start-ups.
-- There are projects that are useful and worthwhile that
nevertheless have no hope of recouping their development costs in
a time frame that would satisfy the bean counters of the world.
-- Some of the most functional and useful software I personally make
everyday use of is OSS. I cannot agree with your assertion below
about "laboratory code". I would say instead that OSS developers
are free to concentrate on substance rather than packaging.
[...]
> Let's put it another way: Money will _not_ get you any Open Source or
> Free Software. People create software like this because they want to,
> _not_ because they get paid. Money is a basically a _detractor_ for
> creative people who want others to use their software and through that
> become personally visible. It is pretty sad, but money does not offer
> visibility to someone who is begging for others to notice him. Open
> Source and Free Software are proofs that computers are alienating in
> the old Marxist sense and the Open Source and Free Software projects
> are reactions to this sense of alienation, in order to make the person
> stand out from the computerized nothingness.
I believe recent research has dismissed the notion that computers are
creating a non-society of isolated individuals. We seem to be
assimilating the technology -- not the other way 'round.
[...]
> People who need Free Software and Open Source _have_ no money, either.
> If you have lots of money, it may not be economically feasible to use
> Free Software or Open Source because of the numerous strings attached
> to such software, and it may in fact be economically _infeasible_ to
> use software for which you assume _all_ risks. The question "who you
> gonna call?" may be _very_ hard to answer in a pinch. Nobody is fully
> responsible for the product in ways that owned software is. To get a
> commitment from someone to support you on Open Source or Free Software
> may well be much _more_ expensive than some regular software product
> designed to be supported. Very few people are actually aware of these
> costs until they have to get their business back on track after a
> disaster of some kind. Free Software and Open Source are _very_ good
> for hobbyists and in an educational setting where the purpose is to
> improve your own ability to write better software. I support both for
> this reason alone. However, production quality code is harder to come
> by in these communities because there is no incentive to bring the
> code from functional to excellent. What we get is very high quality
> "laboratory code", not highly polished systems software that costs at
> least twice as much to produce and maintain as the former.
Your points about the real costs of free software I agree
with. TANSTAAFL. If you expect to benefit from OSS it will require
committing *resources* -- not (necessarily) dollars -- to make it
work.
[...]
-- Kaelin
>>>>> "Kaelin" == Kaelin Colclasure <······@everest.com> writes:
Kaelin> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>> * "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> | I guess my reply
>> is simply that I'm curious as to why there is such | good
>> software out there for free if the economic model of Open
>> Source | Free Software is so wrong? Why are Linux and FreeBSD
>> so much better | than windows, and cost the price of a CD?
>>
>> The Open Source/Free Software model is not _economic_ in the
>> first place. Money does not even enter the picture. [...]
Kaelin> Perhaps not -- but the *allocation of resources* certainly
Kaelin> does, and fundamentallly that's what economics is really
Kaelin> about.
Indeed.
>> Free Software and Open Source are _very_ good for hobbyists and in
>> an educational setting where the purpose is to improve your own
>> ability to write better software. I support both for this reason
>> alone. However, production quality code is harder to come by in
>> these communities because there is no incentive to bring the code
>> from functional to excellent. What we get is very high quality
>> "laboratory code", not highly polished systems software that costs
>> at least twice as much to produce and maintain as the former.
Kaelin> Your points about the real costs of free software I agree
Kaelin> with. TANSTAAFL. If you expect to benefit from OSS it will
Kaelin> require committing *resources* -- not (necessarily)
Kaelin> dollars -- to make it work.
A _weakness_ of the "Open Source" movement [moreso, perhaps, than the
"Free Software" movement] has been that it has tended to be pretty
derivative.
To a great extent, it is _not_ innovative.
-> Linux is not _greatly_ innovative in a technical sense; it is
basically derivative of Unix, where the _really_ innovative stuff
took place 20 years ago.
-> The vast quantities of "free web servers" [Apache, Roxen, Boa,
... ad infinitim] are all derivative of the initial CERN/NCSA
efforts. These days, writing a web server is a very
well-understood task; it is not a _trivial_ task, but while there
may be some novel approaches, creating another web server is not in
and of itself terribly novel.
-> There are a boatload of "free" language implementations, but they
are not, by and large, spectacularly novel.
-> Note that the GNU Project in a sense "ran aground;" its kernel was
to be based on Mach, which, I would note, was one of those big
"superprojects" being sponsored by IBM.
Here are two pithy comments dated _EIGHT YEARS AGO_ that are
relevant:
"I am aware of the benefits of a micro kernel approach. However,
the fact remains that Linux is here, and GNU isn't --- and
people have been working on Hurd for a lot longer than Linus has
been working on Linux." -- Ted T'so, 1992.
"Of course 5 years from now that will be different, but 5 years
from now everyone will be running free GNU on their 200 MIPS,
64M SPARCstation-5." -- Andrew Tanenbaum, 1992.
The "Hurd" design actually _is_ fairly novel, but it was only this
year that it has _begun_ to become faintly usable, and it seems
unlikely to me that it will represent much more than a curiosity,
what with the vast dearth of development effort on the underlying
Mach kernel. [Be it noted that I owe one of the developers of
xMach, an ongoing project working on such, an email today;
development is not dead. The crucial point is that there are
probably ten times as many people working on the _OpenBSD_ kernel
than are working on Mach...]
"Free Software" projects have certainly built some useful things, but
it is not clear that there is a useful model for creating truly _NEW_
things.
That being said, I'm not sure that there is _any_ open model out there
for that, at present. Universities used to be nexuses for this sort
of thing, from whence came such _truly innovative_ things as:
- BSD Unix, Sockets, much of TCP/IP [BSD]
- Mach [CMU] (love it or hate it, it _was_ innovative)
- X11 [MIT]
- Common Lisp [MIT, CMU]
- Emacs [MIT]
Much of the base stuff that the Free Software community depends
_heavily_ on came out of megaprojects sponsored through universities.
There is _no_ "free software" project of comparable complexity in
design or intent to, quite frankly, _any_ of these systems.
There may be maintenance work, rewrites, or modifications taking
place. Many of the early designers of X are fruitfully moving onwards
to provide substantive new enhancements to X11 today.
The point is that to design something completely new of similar scope
to X11 represents a project requiring years of _design_ effort even
before there is any working code.
There's not a model in place to support that kind of effort. Not in
the realm of "Free Software." Nor, it seems, much of anywhere else.
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@hex.net")
<http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
Why is "abbreviation" such a long word?
········@hex.net writes:
[...]
> A _weakness_ of the "Open Source" movement [moreso, perhaps, than the
> "Free Software" movement] has been that it has tended to be pretty
> derivative.
>
> To a great extent, it is _not_ innovative.
"Innovation" is a marketing buzzword. There is no such thing.
[...]
> "Free Software" projects have certainly built some useful things, but
> it is not clear that there is a useful model for creating truly _NEW_
> things.
>
> That being said, I'm not sure that there is _any_ open model out there
> for that, at present. Universities used to be nexuses for this sort
> of thing, from whence came such _truly innovative_ things as:
>
> - BSD Unix, Sockets, much of TCP/IP [BSD]
> - Mach [CMU] (love it or hate it, it _was_ innovative)
> - X11 [MIT]
> - Common Lisp [MIT, CMU]
> - Emacs [MIT]
Hmmm, this would be the BSD extensions to the Unix software released
to colleges by AT&T (essentially as open-source) -- after initially
being developed by a bunch of righteous hackers killing cycles after
their Multics project was axed -- Multics being an attempt to combine
the best features of all the OS's-de-jour into one uber-OS... (At this
point my pitiful grasp of the pre-history of Unix is exhausted, but
I'll bet anyone who was there could recite several more orders of
derivation.)
There were API's for networking before BSD sockets. I just know it in
my soul. Why did this one survive? Ahhh, the *source* was widely
available.
[Mach I don't know enough about to comment on. But I know the HURD
uses it -- which means it too is Free Software.]
Ahhh, and X11 -- such a dismal plummet from the functionality and
capability of its predecessors. Ill-conceived, written by students and
rife with bugs. Released as open source by MIT, when far superior
systems were available from several established vendors -- today
universally known as *the* Unix GUI. Who today remembers NeWS?
Common Lisp -- surely a divine bolt of innovation! Completely without
precedent? Uhhh, what was it that was "Common" about it? Preceded by
how many dialects? The collective effort of how many disparate,
competing commercial concerns collaborating under the X3J13 banner?
The Emacs we know today -- descended from TECO, sired by the Father of
Free Software, nurtured by a community of devoted users who in all
probability have sunk a man-millennium into refining and improving it.
[We may criticize it from time to time, but I dare say most of us
compose those critiques within an Emacs buffer.]
> Much of the base stuff that the Free Software community depends
> _heavily_ on came out of megaprojects sponsored through universities.
>
> There is _no_ "free software" project of comparable complexity in
> design or intent to, quite frankly, _any_ of these systems.
Arguably with the exception of Common Lisp[1], *all* of the examples
you've cited are either Open or (research) Community Source
projects. And a couple of them *are* Free Software. This leaves me
particularly baffled by your last assertion.
[1] IMO CL is very much the product of an open research community, but
my knowledge is entirely anecdotal.
> There may be maintenance work, rewrites, or modifications taking
> place. Many of the early designers of X are fruitfully moving onwards
> to provide substantive new enhancements to X11 today.
>
> The point is that to design something completely new of similar scope
> to X11 represents a project requiring years of _design_ effort even
> before there is any working code.
>
> There's not a model in place to support that kind of effort. Not in
> the realm of "Free Software." Nor, it seems, much of anywhere else.
Well, we agree on a couple of points: (Okay, I'm stretching that last
statement to cover my second assertion below.)
-- Commercial, cathederal-style development doesn't support this kind
of effort[2].
-- Much of the contemporary acedemic "research community" is busily
trying to restyle itself as a cathederal[3]. A really shoddily run
cathederal with absolutely no experienced engineers...
[2] This is not to imply there isn't cool basic reseach being funded
from some corporate coffers. But we're talking about mega-man-year
software development projects here.
[3] And we as a society have ourselves to thank for that -- but that's
a rant for another day.
This is the crux of my assertion:
The Open Source and Free Software communities are the havens for
the free exchange of knowledge/ideas/code today that the DARPA
community, academic think-tanks, etc. were in past decades.
And as to "innovation," well, what you cite as examples of innovation,
I see as classic examples of the kind of incremental, inch-by-inch,
often-backsliding and entirely *derivitive* progress that typifies all
meaningful human endeavor.
-- Kaelin
>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> I guess my reply is
> simply that I'm curious as to why there is such good software out
> there for free if the economic model of Open Source Free Software is
> so wrong? Why are Linux and FreeBSD so much better than windows,
> and cost the price of a CD?
Erik> The Open Source/Free Software model is not _economic_ in
Erik> the first place. Money does not even enter the picture.
Erik> Understanding this is crucial to why people are whining like
Erik> a presidential candidate about not getting all the stuff
Erik> they want for free and why people make stuff available for
Erik> others for free, as well.
Hmm...
> (equalp 'money 'economics)
NIL
>
The fact that with "Free Software" there may be no formal exchange of
money or other formally defined "financial instruments" does _not_
mean that economic principles do not enter into this.
Economics is not the "theory of how to exchange financial instruments
for things;" instead, it represents the "theory of how to allocate
scarce resources."
It is certainly common for money, as medium of exchange to represent a
scarce resource; electronic patterns such as computer programs, being
readily and perfectly copiable, make traditional assumptions about
"scarce resources" break down.
Pointedly, FreeBSD and Linux are _not_ "scarce resources," under the
sort of definition that would apply to automobiles and washing
machines. While you need a big factory and a whole lot of materials
to make an extra car, the marginal cost of making an extra copy of
software, whether we speak of Linux or of Allegro Common Lisp is
extremely low. The cost of burning CD-ROMs, in bulk, is probably less
than the cost of the postage required to send them through the mail,
which still represents a pretty nominal cost.
Software "piracy" is common because:
a) Digital copying allows _perfect_ copies, unlike the way taping
music off the radio or photocopying samizdat books degrades the
quality;
b) Once you've got the first copy ["sunk costs"], the next 50,000
copies are _cheap_. Which is true whether the CD contains Linux, or
XAnalys Liquid Lisp along with a custom app that cost $500,000 to
develop.
I just returned from a trip to India, where they turn some of the
"Western" notions of efficiency on their ear. The typical thing in
the "More-Developed World" is to spend money on capital investment so
as to save on labour; in India, labour is so cheap that capital
investment tends to be uneconomical.
It makes more sense to spend an _extra_ million dollars in New York
City building a McDonalds franchise, whilst, in the vast, untapped
fast food market of India :=), the focus of McDonalds on heavy capital
spending to improve efficiency is impressively _uneconomic_. There
might well be more McD's franchises in the city of Irving where I live
than there are in all of India, with its billion people.
The fact that the Big Mac contains beef is also a factor, of course,
in a country where cows are believed by many to be sacred. But the
disparity of the cost of capital compared to labour in the third world
turns a lot of economic "rules of thumb" upside down, and the fact
that digital technology allows Perfect Cheap Copies twists the "rules
of thumb" just as much.
The lawsuits in the last year over DeCSS [threatening to permit
"cheaper copying of movies"] and MP3 [permitting "cheaper copying of
music"] provided their own twists, with the licensors of music and of
movies probably spending a considerable chunk of the Gross Financial
Product of India on protecting their ability to continue to profit
from quite draconian licensing terms.
That's quite a few "economic twists," the point being that economics
is a _very_ twisty path...
Erik> There _is_ no compensation model for Open Source and Free
Erik> Software. That is the trick. That is why it _cannot_ succeed
Erik> economically and financially. To make this fundamentally flawed
Erik> model succeed requires that Open Source and Free Software be
Erik> instruments of something else that generates money enough both
Erik> to fund its own operation as well as supporting the massively
Erik> loss-making software creation process.
Free Software has often gotten produced for reasons that are
"non-monetary;" because it was more useful to put 6 months into
building the software, and to publish it and get others to help
improve it, than it would be to spend money buying licenses for "more
proprietarily-licensed" software.
IBM is paying developers to work on Apache because they find this more
economically beneficial than the alternative of building their "own
thing" from scratch.
Erik> Let's put it another way: Money will _not_ get you any Open
Erik> Source or Free Software.
Mind you, I _do_ agree with this claim. Throwing money at projects
because it seems like a "good idea" tends to be a good way of
accomplishing the goal of throwing away perfectly good money.
Erik> Yet another way: If _all_ you have to offer a programmer is
Erik> money, what he will create for you is not going to be Open
Erik> Source or Free Software. There has to be personal pride, wide
Erik> usage, some of that good feeling of having contributed to a
Erik> community with one's name on the contribution. Money can't buy
Erik> that feeling. Neither can the feeling be sold.
Erik> People who need Free Software and Open Source _have_ no money,
Erik> either. If you have lots of money, it may not be economically
Erik> feasible to use Free Software or Open Source because of the
Erik> numerous strings attached to such software, and it may in fact
Erik> be economically _infeasible_ to use software for which you
Erik> assume _all_ risks. The question "who you gonna call?" may be
Erik> _very_ hard to answer in a pinch. Nobody is fully responsible
Erik> for the product in ways that owned software is.
Unfortunately, it is all too common for those that collect the license
fees for "owned software" to be remarkably _irresponsible_. Microsoft
is the typical "punching bag" in this regard, but just about any
vendor I've ever dealt with has suffered from "lapses of
responsibility." Look at the product line at Computer Associates,
formerly billed as "Where Software Goes To Die," for stuff that was
orphaned.
There's some balancing on this; as you say, "free software" can indeed
suffer from a lack of 'anyone responsible,' but, on the flip side,
with "free software," you never have to apologize because the vendor
decided the product was "No Longer A Strategic Product, So We Won't
Sell You Any More Licenses." [Try and get 2000 licenses for OPENSTEP,
or, for that matter, just about any of the development tools Apple or
NeXT were hawking three years ago... Apple GX, Adobe DPS, Dylan,
Newton, ...]
Erik> Some of these things _are_ changing, but we are still years
Erik> away from a financial model for Open Source and Free Software
Erik> that rewards people in a way that fits the normal models for
Erik> return on investment. Wall Street was incredible harsh on the
Erik> first few attempts, if you recall, and the "business model" of
Erik> the Internet (dot-com) companies is not exactly being rewarded,
Erik> either. (Nor should it be.)
The bubble of "Linux stocks" were clearly riding on two things:
a) The "Internet Bubble," and
b) The irrationality of Vulture Capitalists that thought that they
were one step away from finding the Holy Grail of having _Some
Crucial Technology that Everyone Else Would Have To Pay Us For_.
The former was clearly a "bubble of irrationality;" the latter should
have been obvious to anyone with a modicum of observation skills at
how people in the Linux "community" would get _tremendously_ paranoid
that Red Hat [or, in earlier days, Caldera, and Patrick
Volkerding/Slackware] would "pull something proprietary." The loons
that discuss such at Slashdot.org may indeed be loons, but that
doesn't mean that there's not some underlying reality :-).
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@hex.net")
<http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
"As long as there are ill-defined goals, bizarre bugs, and unrealistic
schedules, there will be Real Programmers willing to jump in and Solve
The Problem, saving the documentation for later. Long live FORTRAN!"
* Christopher Browne
| Economics is not the "theory of how to exchange financial instruments
| for things;" instead, it represents the "theory of how to allocate
| scarce resources."
Well, I am employed by a financial news agency and although I am no
economist and have not studied finance, it is very hard to do a good
job around very competent people who are and have without knowing most
of these areas quite intimately after a while, but thanks for the
brevity of the lecture, anyway.
I have argued that Free Software and Open Source are _luxuries_. That
translates to _surplus_ resources, it's what you do _after_ you have
successfully allocated scarce resources productively and profitably.
And I'm not talking about the products, I'm talking about the _time_
that people put into it.
| The typical thing in the "More-Developed World" is to spend money on
| capital investment so as to save on labour; in India, labour is so
| cheap that capital investment tends to be uneconomical.
And so, too with Open Source and Free Software. It is all based on
very cheap labor compared to the usual cost of labor in the software
industry. And everywhere people argue for Open Source, the main
economic argument, is that empowered users will pick it up and fix
bugs without incurring costs for some owner. This is not unlike the
principle of user-based debugging employed by Microsoft, who also save
billions of dollars by letting users "adapt" to their bugs instead of
going the extra mile and fixing them or, better, designing them out.
| Unfortunately, it is all too common for those that collect the license
| fees for "owned software" to be remarkably _irresponsible_.
That is an entirely separate problem. I wish people would understand
this. Like, I own a bunch of guns, use and keep them safe and secure,
and follow a bunch of regulations in order to be allowed to keep them
(and my personal freedom), but there _are_ people out there who are
remarkably irresponsible when it comes to gun ownership and use. Some
people are equally retarded and non-thinking when it comes to gun
ownership as software ownership: They think the very concept of owning
a gun means you kill people and rob grocery stores, or _would_ do so
if you weren't policed 24 hours a day, just ad they think that owning
software means you screw people out of their license money and act
irrationally in all ways possible.
The slightly sick part of this whole thing is that those people who
express an irrational hatred for gun and software owners probably
would be very dangerous if they got their hands on a gun or piece of
essential software. It's just like the zany morons who argue against
absolutely abstention from sex, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, etc, all in
one package deal. Given access to any such "sin", you can bet your
ass they will become addicted and destroy themselves with depravity
and _therefore_ need to keep everybody else away from them too, so as
not to "fall" to "temptation". Reasonably smart people don't fall to
temptation (as if it passively "happens" to people in the first place)
and thus don't _need_ this crappy "sin" ideology, no matter how easy
the access is. Reasonably smart people don't screw their investors or
their business partners or even their customers just because they can,
either. You actually need a criminal mind to do that, something like
that of Bill Gates and his cohorts and defenders. But at this point,
it is not the "sin" that is at fault, it is the criminal mind of
people who "can't help themselves". You simply cannot control these
aspects of _bad_ personality development by regulating the people who
have had a good personality development, but that will never penetrate
the skulls of _bad_ people, i.e., politicians and others who want to
control other people (itself a bad personality trait that is probably
only controllable by letting good people own guns, but this is a very
different and off-topic discussion, barring lethal Lisp software :).
You don't have to agree with pro-gun activists to see that anti-gun
activists are _also_ mostly completely nuts, or course, but that is
what happens when people are subjected to too much irrationality and
are or feel forced into positions they do or would not actually hold
of their own accord. I am opposed to Open Source as a solution to the
kinds of problems that people believe it will solve (namely the much
touted "software crisis"), but I am very much in favor of _access_ to
source code, especially for paying clients of expensive software
systems and students of the art of programming who need to gain
experience in working with existing code before they start to write
their own code.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
In article
<··············@441715.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>,
········@hex.net wrote:
> There's some balancing on this; as you say, "free software" can indeed
> suffer from a lack of 'anyone responsible,' but, on the flip side,
> with "free software," you never have to apologize because the vendor
> decided the product was "No Longer A Strategic Product, So We Won't
> Sell You Any More Licenses." [Try and get 2000 licenses for OPENSTEP,
> or, for that matter, just about any of the development tools Apple or
> NeXT were hawking three years ago... Apple GX, Adobe DPS, Dylan,
> Newton, ...]
How do I get CMU CL on MacOS X with a native code compiler
and a basic integration into the OS+GUI?
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
>>>>> "Rainer" == Rainer Joswig <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> writes:
Rainer> In article
Rainer> <··············@441715.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>,
Rainer> ········@hex.net wrote:
>> There's some balancing on this; as you say, "free software" can
>> indeed suffer from a lack of 'anyone responsible,' but, on the
>> flip side, with "free software," you never have to apologize
>> because the vendor decided the product was "No Longer A
>> Strategic Product, So We Won't Sell You Any More Licenses."
>> [Try and get 2000 licenses for OPENSTEP, or, for that matter,
>> just about any of the development tools Apple or NeXT were
>> hawking three years ago... Apple GX, Adobe DPS, Dylan, Newton,
>> ...]
Rainer> How do I get CMU CL on MacOS X with a native code compiler
Rainer> and a basic integration into the OS+GUI?
You don't; free availability of source code is obviously not a panacea
to _all_ problems, and "free-and-quick integration into a new hardware
and OS platform" doesn't trivally occur under _any_ kind of
development model.
That being said, while CMU-CL may not be usable on OS-X, I suspect
you'll find that the GNU toolchain that can be built using GCC and the
POSIX subsystems will indeed run on OS-X.
And I'd be moderately surprised if CLISP _didn't_ compile using that
tool chain; with its demerits, it would at least still be there.
Has Digitool released MCL for OS-X yet?
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@hex.net")
<http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
There are no "civil aviation for dummies" books out there and most of
you would probably be scared and spend a lot of your time looking up
if there was one. :-) -- Jordan Hubbard in c.u.b.f.m
In article
<··············@441715.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>,
········@hex.net wrote:
> >>>>> "Rainer" == Rainer Joswig <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> writes:
>
> Rainer> In article
> Rainer> <··············@441715.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>,
> Rainer> ········@hex.net wrote:
>
> >> There's some balancing on this; as you say, "free software" can
> >> indeed suffer from a lack of 'anyone responsible,' but, on the
> >> flip side, with "free software," you never have to apologize
> >> because the vendor decided the product was "No Longer A
> >> Strategic Product, So We Won't Sell You Any More Licenses."
> >> [Try and get 2000 licenses for OPENSTEP, or, for that matter,
> >> just about any of the development tools Apple or NeXT were
> >> hawking three years ago... Apple GX, Adobe DPS, Dylan, Newton,
> >> ...]
>
> Rainer> How do I get CMU CL on MacOS X with a native code compiler
> Rainer> and a basic integration into the OS+GUI?
>
> You don't; free availability of source code is obviously not a panacea
> to _all_ problems, and "free-and-quick integration into a new hardware
> and OS platform" doesn't trivally occur under _any_ kind of
> development model.
A MCL port to MacOS X is currently under active development.
> That being said, while CMU-CL may not be usable on OS-X, I suspect
> you'll find that the GNU toolchain that can be built using GCC and the
> POSIX subsystems will indeed run on OS-X.
>
> And I'd be moderately surprised if CLISP _didn't_ compile using that
> tool chain; with its demerits, it would at least still be there.
>
> Has Digitool released MCL for OS-X yet?
When there is a released MacOS X there is a good chance that
you will see a port of MCL.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 09:06:20 -0600, "Aaron K . Johnson"
<···@21stcentury.net> wrote:
> Secondly, for what my limited experience and time are worth, I'd be very
> open to picking up a shovel and coding in the trenches. Any one else care
> to set up a project? Perhaps a web page that agressively touts Lisp as the
If you write code you are willing to share, don't forget to add an entry at
CLiki:
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/
* "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
| Wanna write me the check for the cost?
So you don't have a language issue, you have a poverty issue.
I suggest you find a street corner and cry "just which language are
you trying to insult" to passers-by who don't give you a nickel.
That'll make them about as positive to your requests as I am now.
| Don't be annoyed. Peace, man. I'm not the enemy. Just conversing.
| Don't get zealous.
You're underestimating both of us, now. Don't do that.
| I like that idea. Bush can take the whole fucking South, too.
:)
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
On 26 Nov 2000, Erik Naggum wrote:
> * "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
> | Wanna write me the check for the cost?
>
> So you don't have a language issue, you have a poverty issue.
>
> I suggest you find a street corner and cry "just which language are
> you trying to insult" to passers-by who don't give you a nickel.
> That'll make them about as positive to your requests as I am now.
>
I didn't throw the first punch, but you just did. So let me reiterate. I'm
just asking for your thoughts about why Lisp is where it is inrelation to
other language in terms of popularity, use, cost, active development
(i.e. GUI tools that are less than 8 yrs. or so old, etc.) No need to be
nasty.
> | Don't be annoyed. Peace, man. I'm not the enemy. Just conversing.
> | Don't get zealous.
>
> You're underestimating both of us, now. Don't do that.
>
> | I like that idea. Bush can take the whole fucking South, too.
>
> :)
>
> #:Erik
> --
> Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
> Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
> very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
>
A copy of a reply to Kent Pitman, but worth saying again:
>In truth, I'm sorry to have insulted. It wasn't intentional, and I do
>want to avoid yet another usenet flame thread!
>I guess my reply is simply that I'm curious as to why there is such good
>software out there for free if the economic model of Open Source Free
>Software is so wrong? Why are Linux and FreeBSD so much better than
>windows, and cost the price of a CD?
>Secondly, for what my limited experience and time are worth, I'd be very
>open to picking up a shovel and coding in the trenches. Any one else care
>to set up a project? Perhaps a web page that agressively touts Lisp as
>the strong language of the past, and most importantly the FUTURE.
>Yes, I do still think that Lispers need more PR, and the successes need
>to be hyped, and momentum needs to be built. I certainly don't mean to
>deflate any of you who have devoted so much effort. So thanks.
Regards,
Aaron.
* "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
| I didn't throw the first punch, but you just did.
So you are the kind of person who throws puches and thinks in such
terms. That is valuable to know, but not conducive to your case.
| No need to be nasty.
So drop it, then. It's your choice to be nasty in return to something
that is _not_ nasty towards you to begin with, but you just love to
blame others for your own behavior, don't you? That's why you have to
get everything for free and can't use Lisp because you don't get it.
Beware of people who say "I love Lisp, but ...". They do not actually
love Lisp, they love getting great things for free, and Lisp is great,
so if they _could_ get it for free, they _would_ love it, but there is
no real love, because real love means commitment and people who do not
want to contribute time and money do not commit themselves to whatever
it is they claim to love.
Just stop defending yourself, and you won't feel under attack, either,
but you make this what you want to make it, and I am unimpressed with
the way you choose to respond. You show us that what you really are
about is getting other people's good stuff for free. I suggest you
try a different approach.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
In article <················@naggum.net>,
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> * "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
> | I didn't throw the first punch, but you just did.
>
> So you are the kind of person who throws puches and thinks in such
> terms. That is valuable to know, but not conducive to your case.
>
> | No need to be nasty.
>
> So drop it, then. It's your choice to be nasty in return to
something
> that is _not_ nasty towards you to begin with, but you just love to
> blame others for your own behavior, don't you? That's why you have
to
> get everything for free and can't use Lisp because you don't get it.
>
Hmmm. What does my having to blame others for my own behavior have to do
with my having to get everything for free? Aside from it being a false
statement, it doesn't make any sense. And furthermore, unless you purport
to have an intimate knowledge of my purchasing habits, I think it's safe
to say that you're making a rather gross assumption in claiming I have to
have *everything* for free. Are you interested in a discussion here, or a
big ego-fest, in which yours wins at any cost?
> Beware of people who say "I love Lisp, but ...". They do not
actually
> love Lisp, they love getting great things for free,
Wow. so you've done a statistically relevant survey on the topic and
have found that for the most part, all those who begin their sentences
with 'I love Lisp, but . . . " also demonstrate a propensity for
getting everything for free? What a marvelous study. Can I see the
results? Oh, and could you also explain to me what in the world this
has to do with, well, ANYTHING?
and Lisp is great,
> so if they _could_ get it for free, they _would_ love it, but there
is
> no real love, because real love means commitment and people who do
not
> want to contribute time and money do not commit themselves to
whatever
> it is they claim to love.
Thanks for your words of wisdom about love, but I'd rather hear what you
have to say about Lisp.
> Just stop defending yourself, and you won't feel under attack,
either,
> but you make this what you want to make it, and I am unimpressed
with
> the way you choose to respond.
What about your responses? For a while now you have been making a rather
large amount of assumptions about my motives, beliefs, and behaviors,
which are both wrong and ancillary to the discussion at hand. Could you,
please, quit with the assumptions and just get on with the business of
discussing? This is getting tiresome. We all know by now that you possess
wit and intellect, and that you think you're of the few left on earth who
does. If that's the case, then perhaps your most precious time would be
better spent conversing with yourself. As for me, i'm interested in a
rousing discussion about Lisp (not love, not purchasing habits, not your
assumptions about my opinions on popularity, not politics, you get the
point, don't you?).
> You show us that what you really are
> about is getting other people's good stuff for free. I suggest you
> try a different approach.
>
ok, quit with the 'free' thing. it's over. you've made your point, and
since it doesn't pertain whatsoever to the discussion at hand, I suggest
you take your own suggestion and try a different approach. We would all be
better served.
Aaron
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> wrote in message
···········································@ajohnson.21stcentury.net...
> Wow. so you've done a statistically relevant survey on the topic and
> have found that for the most part, all those who begin their sentences
> with 'I love Lisp, but . . . " also demonstrate a propensity for
> getting everything for free? What a marvelous study. Can I see the
> results? Oh, and could you also explain to me what in the world this
> has to do with, well, ANYTHING?
Aaron -
I used to be one of those people who said, "I love Lisp,but...". I felt
that the language had some shortcomings and I thought it would be just dandy
if the people who produced the systems would just fix those few teensy
shortcomings I disliked. After a while, I understood why people were
getting pissed off at me. Ultimately, I was asking people to put out effort
to satisfy my desires with very little benefit to them. To them, it was not
obvious that my desires correlated with those of their customers, target,
markets, etc. And, in fact, I had a tone that made it sound as if I felt
that these vendors had a responsibility to change not only their
implementations, but the whole specification to suit my needs. After I
accepted that Lisp was a language - with warts like any other language that
no one was obliged to fix - I started to be able to say simply "I love
Lisp".
I have repented of my ways. I currently use a Lisp system that ships with
system source. When I find a place where the system disagrees with the
standard, I try to fix it and send my fixes to the vendor. These fixes are
often not easy to verify. I check the answers that my code gives against
other implementations. Writing test cases to insure that the function has
been exercised properly can take a great deal of time. Sometimes my
suggested changes are accepted, sometimes rejected becuase the vendor has a
different solution to the problem, but always, I have a fix for MY code, and
I feel that I am doing something positive for the community by making a
specific implementation better.
The customer is not always right. In fact, in almost every case, any single
customer is almost certainly wrong. And if you aren't even a customer who
uses the system day in and day out, well...
To give yet another example, I believe there are some issues that should be
addressed in an updated standard, but it is my job to convince the community
that this is indeed the case and, if necessary, to partcipate (perhaps even
lead such an effort, though I would be the first to state that I'm probably
not qualified to do so) and not simply whine about it. If such an update
would occur, it would be my responsibility as a participant to provide code,
baseline, implementations, etc., and not just whine about the outcome.
I used to be a whiner. I now realize that the community owes me nothing.
It's already provided me with one of the most wonderful tools ever made. If
I want something changed, I can do it myself and/or try to convince others
to help me change it; but I'm much more likely to achieve the second of
these if I am willing to do the first.
You believe that Lisp is not marketed well enough. I disagree. If you feel
strongly enough about it, I assume you will do something about it. If you
want others to help you, fine. Tell us why you think that we'll benefit by
bringing huge masses of programmers into our community. If we agree and see
you working on the issue on your own, we might help. We might not help,
too. That's the risk you run. But if you aren't convinced enough of your
own position to be self-starting, why should anyone want to support you,
anyway?
In the end, though, be humble enough to understand that what you perceive as
a need may not be perceived as a need by the rest of the community. And
understand that it's not the community's duty to give you a marketing
platform, no more than it's their duty to give you a free implementation to
hand to your friends. To paraphrase JFK, "Ask not what the Lisp community
can do for you; Ask what you can do for the Lisp community".
Again, if you want to help Lisp, write some.
faa
Frank,
All of points below are excellent. Thanks for sharing them.
I just wanted to think a while before responding to them, and to a couple of
others that you had posted to this thread.
I think that certainly the OSS issue is a hotbutton to many, and I
just want to say that, for my part, the Open Source phenomenon is good
because everyone, including proprietary companies, benefits. And, as Jochen
Schmidt points out, most of the biggie OSS projects are indeed paying their
programmers, so they are not starving artists, as many imagine. True, many
like programming in their leisure time, and make their contributions, large
and small, to the community. Many feel unsafe about this software. That's
fine-no one is forcing them to use it.
Your point of view, a respectable one, is that Lisp doesn't need to be
anywhere else than where it is. I think Lisp happens to be fine where it is,
but it could be more also. The basis for your disagreement as I understand
it, is an elitest point of view about the fear of "bad programmers, and bad
programming". There are two things I find wrong with this argument.
Consider yourself on the spectrum of programming skill. Where you
ALWAYS there? Did you NEVER write bad code, learn, go back and write a
little better, learn more, etc? Or were you born with the manual for
Common Lisp hardwired into your infant cortex? Did you always know about
Lisp, or did a book or person turn you on to it ? Of course, I'm kidding
you, but you see my point. If you can admit that your own curiosity
brought you to Lisp, why would persons like yourselves NOT benefit from
its advocacy?
Secondly, you are giving yourself (and I suppose those who you
approve of, and who approve of you) the sole authority on judging good/bad
code and/or people who would code. Imagine if someone had squashed
whatever curiosity and ambition you had about Lisp, because they looked
upon you as "rabble" or "barbarian", just because you came from a C/C++,
or Perl background, or whatever. Would you get a warm feeling about Lisp
programmers? Whether you believe that someone who would stop programming
for that reason alone is too weak-willed to do anything is beside the
point. It's just a very unnecessary bad attitude, and I believe attitude
counts for something in the world.
I'm certainly not saying that high standards are bad, mind you.
Just that an elitist attitude carries a poison. Less people writing less
code, good or bad, is certainly, we can agree, not a healthy state of
affairs.
So my initial wondering-out-loud about whether Lisp could be more
widespread is an advocacy issue. You seem to think Lisp shouldn't be
advocated, and in fact that in the wrong hands, its a bad thing. In light
of my above comments, do you have more points to add?
Regards,
Aaron
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Frank A. Adrian wrote:
> "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> wrote in message
> ···········································@ajohnson.21stcentury.net...
> > Wow. so you've done a statistically relevant survey on the topic and
> > have found that for the most part, all those who begin their sentences
> > with 'I love Lisp, but . . . " also demonstrate a propensity for
> > getting everything for free? What a marvelous study. Can I see the
> > results? Oh, and could you also explain to me what in the world this
> > has to do with, well, ANYTHING?
>
> Aaron -
>
> I used to be one of those people who said, "I love Lisp,but...". I felt
> that the language had some shortcomings and I thought it would be just dandy
> if the people who produced the systems would just fix those few teensy
> shortcomings I disliked. After a while, I understood why people were
> getting pissed off at me. Ultimately, I was asking people to put out effort
> to satisfy my desires with very little benefit to them. To them, it was not
> obvious that my desires correlated with those of their customers, target,
> markets, etc. And, in fact, I had a tone that made it sound as if I felt
> that these vendors had a responsibility to change not only their
> implementations, but the whole specification to suit my needs. After I
> accepted that Lisp was a language - with warts like any other language that
> no one was obliged to fix - I started to be able to say simply "I love
> Lisp".
>
> I have repented of my ways. I currently use a Lisp system that ships with
> system source. When I find a place where the system disagrees with the
> standard, I try to fix it and send my fixes to the vendor. These fixes are
> often not easy to verify. I check the answers that my code gives against
> other implementations. Writing test cases to insure that the function has
> been exercised properly can take a great deal of time. Sometimes my
> suggested changes are accepted, sometimes rejected becuase the vendor has a
> different solution to the problem, but always, I have a fix for MY code, and
> I feel that I am doing something positive for the community by making a
> specific implementation better.
>
> The customer is not always right. In fact, in almost every case, any single
> customer is almost certainly wrong. And if you aren't even a customer who
> uses the system day in and day out, well...
>
> To give yet another example, I believe there are some issues that should be
> addressed in an updated standard, but it is my job to convince the community
> that this is indeed the case and, if necessary, to partcipate (perhaps even
> lead such an effort, though I would be the first to state that I'm probably
> not qualified to do so) and not simply whine about it. If such an update
> would occur, it would be my responsibility as a participant to provide code,
> baseline, implementations, etc., and not just whine about the outcome.
>
> I used to be a whiner. I now realize that the community owes me nothing.
> It's already provided me with one of the most wonderful tools ever made. If
> I want something changed, I can do it myself and/or try to convince others
> to help me change it; but I'm much more likely to achieve the second of
> these if I am willing to do the first.
>
> You believe that Lisp is not marketed well enough. I disagree. If you feel
> strongly enough about it, I assume you will do something about it. If you
> want others to help you, fine. Tell us why you think that we'll benefit by
> bringing huge masses of programmers into our community. If we agree and see
> you working on the issue on your own, we might help. We might not help,
> too. That's the risk you run. But if you aren't convinced enough of your
> own position to be self-starting, why should anyone want to support you,
> anyway?
>
> In the end, though, be humble enough to understand that what you perceive as
> a need may not be perceived as a need by the rest of the community. And
> understand that it's not the community's duty to give you a marketing
> platform, no more than it's their duty to give you a free implementation to
> hand to your friends. To paraphrase JFK, "Ask not what the Lisp community
> can do for you; Ask what you can do for the Lisp community".
>
> Again, if you want to help Lisp, write some.
>
> faa
>
>
>
Aaron -
Yes, I've been a bad coder. In some languages I've been a bad coder longer
than in others. I've learned by trial and error and a lot of
experimentation (like most of us). My point is that having large popularity
of any powerful object is not necessarily a good thing. If we all drove
bulldozers because they were popular, the world's buildings might be in a
great deal more danger.
I've seen popularization been tried (and fail) in three different
languages - Lisp, Smalltalk, and C++. In all cases, the hype soon outpaced
reality, people started seeing these languages as silver bullets, and the
whole shebang got discredited when all was over and people saw that
languages did not let bad programmers build good systems. If my predictions
hold true, Java will last another 6 months to a year and then folks will be
off to the "next new thing" (C#, anyone?). We've already seen a lot of
sizable projects move away from it. It's just a matter of time.
I've also seen languages try to "win" through popularization, adding feature
after feature, layer upon layer of cruft. The various Smalltalk vendors
tried to do this with GUI builders, database interfaces, etc. and ended up
with bloated, hard to understand systems. Common Lisp could probably use
some paring back (look at all of the attempts by ISO to come up with a
simpler standard). Dylan could have been a contender, but in giving up a
simple syntax in an attempt to popularize the language and still trying to
retain the power of macros, they came up with something that was much more
complex in the end (and a quick note - it hasn't won).
Another thing about popular languages is that they try to add the latest
"fad" of the day. Java is now trying to add templates. It's a bad move
that does little to help the language and makes it more complex.
In the final analysis, popularity is not necessarily all it's cracked up to
be. Languages can survive long and well without popularity (I think Fortran
and COBOL were last "popular" in the late 60's when IBM announced their
death knell by bringing out PL\I). Lisp (like them) has been around now for
40-odd years. I assume it will still be around 40 years from now. Why?
Syntax is destiny.
faa
* "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
| Are you interested in a discussion here, or a big ego-fest, in which
| yours wins at any cost?
I'm not interested in a discussion with people who behave the way you
do. I'm trying to show you why you need to rethink your position by
making it painful to you to hold the position you do -- I have long
since given up dealing with people who hold idiotic opinions as if
they had arrived at them through thinking about them. Exposre to pain
restructures their response register in a way that arguments that they
had to think about never would because thinking is what they do _not_
engage in. You do not have the observational skills or brains to
recognize this, but instead think it's a "big ego-fest". You are a
waste of space and should be recycled.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <900nor$af$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
I thought that this was comp.lang.lisp, and not:
comp.lang.bile,
comp.lang.curmudgeon,
comp.lang.trigger-happy,
comp.lang.shoot-first;ask-questions-later,
comp.lang.only_erik_knows_anything
Funny, Erik, I thought that you espoused thinking to be an objective,
unemotional process. To bad that you reveal yourself to be, in
Nietzsche's term, "common, all-too-common" in your hypocricy. Notice
instead of addressing what I clearly revealed to be your pointless
meandering, you instead chose a path of pure bile, lashing out like a
racoon who feels her children are threatened. All of this without the
slightest interest in calm dialectic, nor a patience/tolerance for a
fellow human, who has, as most humans do (except for yourself,
apparantly) his own imperfections, faults, and yes
predispositions/prejudices.
You know, regardless of what or who you may think I am, the way you are
being is very unpleasant. One leaves with the impression that you really
do think that you are some sort of enlightened human. Would the Buddha
toss such crap my way? Perhaps you don't consider the Buddha a good
example of enlightenment, and would choose instead, someone along the
lines of Hitler. Well, then, I'd say we could never see eye to eye.
It would be a sad world indeed, were it fully populated with people who
feel justified, as you apparently do, to treat their fellow humans with
the amount of disrespect that you do. Maybe you have some friends. Maybe
they can barely tolerate your behavior. Maybe they share your beliefs,
and you engage in a non-stop one-upmanship display for each other. Maybe
you embrace each other as loving equals. All I can say is that from this
end, at present, you appear as a lonely, angry soul.
And, Erik, if you are so interested in not continuing this
conversation, why do you feel that you must? I'm actually interested in
talking Lisp. It would take a great deal more effort to respond with
generosity, a willingness to clear up any misconceptions that you
believe anyone has about the subject at hand (including me), or not at
all, than to dish out another shovel of bile. If you truly think me an
idiot, then all you display by posting a response my way is that you
either enjoy looking so much more intelligent or witty than an idiot,
which displays a severe insecurity/egoism on your part, or, being an
idiot, you enjoy dialogue with idiots. Or, I suppose, thirdly, you are a
sadist who specializes in abusing idiots. Then I will know we are truly
not equals.
-Aaron
In article <················@naggum.net>,
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> * "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
> | Are you interested in a discussion here, or a big ego-fest, in which
> | yours wins at any cost?
>
> I'm not interested in a discussion with people who behave the way
you
> do. I'm trying to show you why you need to rethink your position by
> making it painful to you to hold the position you do -- I have long
> since given up dealing with people who hold idiotic opinions as if
> they had arrived at them through thinking about them. Exposre to
pain
> restructures their response register in a way that arguments that
they
> had to think about never would because thinking is what they do
_not_
> engage in. You do not have the observational skills or brains to
> recognize this, but instead think it's a "big ego-fest". You are a
> waste of space and should be recycled.
>
> #:Erik
> --
> Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
> Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
> very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
········@my-deja.com writes:
> I thought that this was comp.lang.lisp, and not:
> comp.lang.bile,
[...snip...]
> And, Erik, if you are so interested in not continuing this
> conversation, why do you feel that you must?
You're missing his point. Re-read the passage below:
> In article <················@naggum.net>,
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
[...]
> > Exposre to pain restructures their response register in a way
> > that arguments that they had to think about never would
[...]
Erik evidently believes in behavioural psychology. If you're not
interested in a therapy session, it's better not to say anything.
--
H�kon Alstadheim, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
* H�kon Alstadheim
| Erik evidently believes in behavioural psychology.
The strong evidence that I don't must have escaped you. Try thinking;
you'll be surprised at how different your conclusions become once you
actually engage your brain long enough to consider more evidence than
that which happens to support your preconceived "conclusions".
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * H�kon Alstadheim
> | Erik evidently believes in behavioural psychology.
>
> The strong evidence that I don't must have escaped you.
[Aside: This is on-topic insofar as it deals with how the community in
this news-group is shaped]
You purposely inflict pain on people in order to make them get rid of
their knee-jerk reactions (see Message-ID:
<················@naggum.net>). This is behaviourism, is it not?
I don't think behavioural therapy has been clinically tested as a tool
to prod usenet participants into behaving in a specific way, hence my
use of "believe". But, by all means I would not go so far as to say
your technique of inflicting pain means you have abandoned reason. On
the contrary.
If we understand each other, my point would be that I don't think
prolonged therapy sessions should be conducted in a public forum. An
alternative would be to state your reaction to each person who is
retarded/a marketer/perl-programmer/whatever *once* for the benefit of
the *other* participants and then move on. Obviously the retarded
person will be nonplussed/offended but anybody who matches your
criteria for a thinking human being should be able to understand.
If we *dont* understand each other, just forget the previous paragraph
and tell me how i misunderstood your post with Message-ID:
<················@naggum.net> instead.
--
H�kon Alstadheim, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
* H�kon Alstadheim
| You purposely inflict pain on people in order to make them get rid of
| their knee-jerk reactions (see Message-ID:
| <················@naggum.net>). This is behaviourism, is it not?
If you add about a million other bogus things, you might end up with
behaviourism. If you don't, you don't end up with behaviourism.
I have not added the million other things. You seem to think you have
the right to ignore that they need to be added. That's just idiotic.
| If we *dont* understand each other, just forget the previous paragraph
| and tell me how i misunderstood your post with Message-ID:
| <················@naggum.net> instead.
I should tell you how you misunderstood something you don't give any
clue to how you understood!? What's wrong with your thinking ability?
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
* ········@my-deja.com
| I thought that this was comp.lang.lisp, and not:
|
| comp.lang.bile,
| comp.lang.curmudgeon,
| comp.lang.trigger-happy,
| comp.lang.shoot-first;ask-questions-later,
| comp.lang.only_erik_knows_anything
This line of "argumentation" is proof positive of a brain that has
ceased working a very long time ago. Only physical pain can cause you
to restructure your alarmingly non-thinking brain, now, but unlike
you, who threaten to burn down my house in personal communication, I
have this notion that the kind of pain you need is best administered
by having you expose as much of yourself as possible, making it nigh
impossible ever to recover once you understand what you have done.
Until then, it's pure entertainment to watch a dysfunctional brain so
amazingly hard at work to prove just _how_ dysfunctional it is.
| Funny, Erik, I thought that you espoused thinking to be an objective,
| unemotional process.
"Unemotional?" What the fuck gave you that completely insane idea?
Objective, yes, but if you can't deal with emotions while thinking,
you aren't human and your results will be just as bad as you have made
us all suffer through watching. When you respond emotionally, you are
no longer able to think, and that is the root cause of your problems.
You are a severely emotionally disturbed individual whose intelligence
is reduced to that of a five-year-old when under emotional pressure.
You also think everybody else have to be that dysfunctional, which is
a pretty good sign you have only ever been dealing with people who do
not challenge your views in any fundamental or meaningful way, which
would explain why you miss every point possible and do not understand
even the slightest concept beyond what you fully expect to hear.
| To bad that you reveal yourself to be, in Nietzsche's term, "common,
| all-too-common" in your hypocricy.
Do you have a cute term for people who accuse others of holding views
they actually do _not_ hold only to accuse them of hypocricy, too?
| You know, regardless of what or who you may think I am, the way you are
| being is very unpleasant.
So you are finally catching on. You are supposed to feel differently
than in the cozy, unchallenged world you normally live in that gave
you no reason to examine your conclusions, premises, or assumptions.
The fact that you are now facing someone who cares enough about your
pathetic arguments to try to force you to zoom out and perhaps for the
first time _think_ about your position and how you got there, may be a
good reason to stop defending your right to live in an unchallenged
world where people are mainly _pleasant_ to each other, including
people who espouse such incredibly idiotic ideas as you do.
| Perhaps you don't consider the Buddha a good example of enlightenment,
| and would choose instead, someone along the lines of Hitler.
Your mind has snapped. You really should seek psychiatric counseling
and stop posting. People have done dramatically stupid things after
their minds have snapped due to exposure to ideas their puny little
brains could not deal with.
| Well, then, I'd say we could never see eye to eye.
Of course you say that: It is entirely in character for your emotional
prejudice to conclude so much about what you have no way to see.
| It would be a sad world indeed, were it fully populated with people
| who feel justified, as you apparently do, to treat their fellow humans
| with the amount of disrespect that you do.
If _you_ feel disrespect, I apologize. It is your insanely idiotic
opinions, your choice not to have exercised your brain for the past
decade at least, your severely retarded and unthinking reaction to
counter-information and unpleasant news, as well as your inability to
restrict yourself to what you have an established ability to know with
a preponderance of probability, that I disrespect, but that is not
you. _You_ have a choice to act differently, to think, even though
this is going to be really, really painful to you, but much less so
than posting more insanely idiotic drivel and have me hang you out to
dry every time you do.
| Maybe you have some friends. Maybe they can barely tolerate your
| behavior. Maybe they share your beliefs, and you engage in a non-stop
| one-upmanship display for each other. Maybe you embrace each other as
| loving equals. All I can say is that from this end, at present, you
| appear as a lonely, angry soul.p
Maybe you have no reason even to speculate about this unless the point
of your insanely idiotic rant is to relieve yourself of responsibility
of your own actions, which caused what you receive.
| And, Erik, if you are so interested in not continuing this
| conversation, why do you feel that you must?
It could be that some insane idiot keeps demanding replies to put him
in his place, such as requiring corrections to his telling me what I
think when I have given you solid evidence to the contrary, to his
accusations of hypocrisy as if none of what I have said matters, only
what the insane idiot himself believes, etc. It could be that you
have taken a route of escalation that highlights the fact that you
need to be slapped so hard your head would make a couple turns before
it stopped.
| I'm actually interested in talking Lisp.
So talk Lisp. Or is this "I'd love to talk Lisp, but ..." :)
| It would take a great deal more effort to respond with generosity, a
| willingness to clear up any misconceptions that you believe anyone has
| about the subject at hand (including me), or not at all, than to dish
| out another shovel of bile.
I _am_ generous to you. I am _exceptionally_ generous to you. I have
taken a very good look at you and your insanely idiotic opinions and I
have established that I care enough about you to try to make you think
through your position, which takes much, much more effort on my part
than being "generous" in _your_ terms ever would require, which would
basically entail _not_ challenging your fundamental choice _not_ to
think, but to deal with people on _pleasant_ terms.
| If you truly think me an idiot, then all you display by posting a
| response my way is that you either enjoy looking so much more
| intelligent or witty than an idiot, which displays a severe
| insecurity/egoism on your part, or, being an idiot, you enjoy dialogue
| with idiots. Or, I suppose, thirdly, you are a sadist who specializes
| in abusing idiots. Then I will know we are truly not equals.
The fourth option is that you are hopefully an idiot by _choice_, more
or less made in an environment of non-challenge and pleasantness, and
being a choice, you could make another choice. Many an idiot before
you have made a different choice than to remain a non-thinking idiot.
Some have not, but hey, what loss could that possibly be? Any form of
punishment may cause two kinds of outcomes: Either the person refuses
forever to believe that he has done anything wrong and insists on
doing what he was punished for, or he can stop and _think_ about the
fact that he got punished "out of the blue" relative to his current
understanding which to a thinking individual means that his current
understanding is in dire need of an update. I do enjoy the fact that
most of the people punished make a turn for the better after they have
understood and recovered from the blow. Some never do, but I do not
consider them a loss at all, especially considering the insanity of
their attacks back at me, not quite limited to threats to burn down my
house, you understand. My sympathy for people who threaten with crime
to get their way is gone for good and can never be recovered.
Please learn how to delete irrelevant portions of article you quote.
Qutoing in extenso is not conducive to changing the impression that
you can't quite make reasonably intelligent choices. Thank you.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <901p7c$tka$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
> Only physical pain can cause you to restructure your alarmingly
> non-thinking brain.....
(insert more bile here....blah, blah, rant, rant)
Erik,
Tell me how exactly it was that you became such an enlightened soul?
Who "slapped you so hard your head would make a couple turns before it
stopped." You appear to have a severe preoccupation with pain and
violence. I don't want to even imagine how that happened, or who is
responsible. It is funny and ironic, nonetheless, that you insist that
_I'M_ a psychopath!
Any rational person who has observed your responses would clearly see
that it is you who have "snapped", and have very little control over
your emotional responses. Furthermore, most unlike you, I refrain from
making viscious sub-human wishes about your bodily harm. Although its
true that in an moment of boiling rage I had a most regrettable dark
wish as to your home being engulfed in flames, in truth, I'm ashamed
that I was affected by your provocations enough to stoop to your low
level of discourse. Never more. I offer my sincere apology, regardless
of how predictably you will still return a nasty future response.
One thing is dysfunctional about me....I'm beginning to feel an awesome
curiousity about the latest Naggum response...I think "how psycho can a
guy really get?". My initial distaste for you seems to be turning into a
guilty pleasure. Perhaps there is a masochism within that matches your
sadism (although I can hardly imagine how any amount could match that).
So, if it pleases you, keep it coming, I'm going to just watch, and make
some popcorn, perhaps take some notes....it is, I must say, a bit
entertaining.
Let me turn to Lisp; otherwise this is getting out of hand.
What exactly do you have _against_ say, the quality of Open Source
projects of major importance, funded or not? (after all, why should we
care whether the programmer was well paid or not...If he didn't, and
wanted to be, who's fault is that?; if he didn't and didn't care, for
the love of coding, then again, that's his/her (let's not be sexist)
perogative)
More to the point: is it your opinion that *no* quality software has
come out of this, or are you just reacting to a pre-formed prejudice,
which would be understandable, because we all carry prejudices, but if
that's the case, where did that prejudice come from?
What OS do you use? Why? Do you agree with what Frank Adrian says about
the danger of actually advocating Lisp? Why? Why do you assume I'm not
using Mac/Windows because I'm cheap, when in reality I think they're
inferior to what the OSS movement has produced? (After all, I bought a
Gateway, which means I had to buy Windows). Anyway, I think about
Lisp/Scheme in the world of programming and wonder about whether they
shouldn't be more prominant than they are, because they make sense, just
as America finally adopting the metric system would make sense, you
know? I still believe in advocating it (or scheme) when talking with
newbie programmers.
Oh, and I want to reiterate that I truly regret saying I'd burn your
house down. You see, I'm not used to being called a "whining dolt" by
total strangers. Kinda pissed me off a bit.
Aaron
In article <················@naggum.net>,
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> * ········@my-deja.com
> | I thought that this was comp.lang.lisp, and not:
> |
> | comp.lang.bile,
> | comp.lang.curmudgeon,
> | comp.lang.trigger-happy,
> | comp.lang.shoot-first;ask-questions-later,
> | comp.lang.only_erik_knows_anything
>
> This line of "argumentation" is proof positive of a brain that has
> ceased working a very long time ago. Only physical pain can cause
you
> to restructure your alarmingly non-thinking brain, now, but unlike
> you, who threaten to burn down my house in personal communication, I
> have this notion that the kind of pain you need is best administered
> by having you expose as much of yourself as possible, making it nigh
> impossible ever to recover once you understand what you have done.
> Until then, it's pure entertainment to watch a dysfunctional brain
so
> amazingly hard at work to prove just _how_ dysfunctional it is.
>
> | Funny, Erik, I thought that you espoused thinking to be an
objective,
> | unemotional process.
>
> "Unemotional?" What the fuck gave you that completely insane idea?
> Objective, yes, but if you can't deal with emotions while thinking,
> you aren't human and your results will be just as bad as you have
made
> us all suffer through watching. When you respond emotionally, you
are
> no longer able to think, and that is the root cause of your
problems.
> You are a severely emotionally disturbed individual whose
intelligence
> is reduced to that of a five-year-old when under emotional pressure.
> You also think everybody else have to be that dysfunctional, which
is
> a pretty good sign you have only ever been dealing with people who
do
> not challenge your views in any fundamental or meaningful way, which
> would explain why you miss every point possible and do not
understand
> even the slightest concept beyond what you fully expect to hear.
>
> | To bad that you reveal yourself to be, in Nietzsche's term, "common,
> | all-too-common" in your hypocricy.
>
> Do you have a cute term for people who accuse others of holding
views
> they actually do _not_ hold only to accuse them of hypocricy, too?
>
> | You know, regardless of what or who you may think I am, the way you
are
> | being is very unpleasant.
>
> So you are finally catching on. You are supposed to feel
differently
> than in the cozy, unchallenged world you normally live in that gave
> you no reason to examine your conclusions, premises, or assumptions.
> The fact that you are now facing someone who cares enough about your
> pathetic arguments to try to force you to zoom out and perhaps for
the
> first time _think_ about your position and how you got there, may be
a
> good reason to stop defending your right to live in an unchallenged
> world where people are mainly _pleasant_ to each other, including
> people who espouse such incredibly idiotic ideas as you do.
>
> | Perhaps you don't consider the Buddha a good example of
enlightenment,
> | and would choose instead, someone along the lines of Hitler.
>
> Your mind has snapped. You really should seek psychiatric
counseling
> and stop posting. People have done dramatically stupid things after
> their minds have snapped due to exposure to ideas their puny little
> brains could not deal with.
>
> | Well, then, I'd say we could never see eye to eye.
>
> Of course you say that: It is entirely in character for your
emotional
> prejudice to conclude so much about what you have no way to see.
>
> | It would be a sad world indeed, were it fully populated with people
> | who feel justified, as you apparently do, to treat their fellow
humans
> | with the amount of disrespect that you do.
>
> If _you_ feel disrespect, I apologize. It is your insanely idiotic
> opinions, your choice not to have exercised your brain for the past
> decade at least, your severely retarded and unthinking reaction to
> counter-information and unpleasant news, as well as your inability
to
> restrict yourself to what you have an established ability to know
with
> a preponderance of probability, that I disrespect, but that is not
> you. _You_ have a choice to act differently, to think, even though
> this is going to be really, really painful to you, but much less so
> than posting more insanely idiotic drivel and have me hang you out
to
> dry every time you do.
>
> | Maybe you have some friends. Maybe they can barely tolerate your
> | behavior. Maybe they share your beliefs, and you engage in a
non-stop
> | one-upmanship display for each other. Maybe you embrace each other
as
> | loving equals. All I can say is that from this end, at present, you
> | appear as a lonely, angry soul.p
>
> Maybe you have no reason even to speculate about this unless the
point
> of your insanely idiotic rant is to relieve yourself of
responsibility
> of your own actions, which caused what you receive.
>
> | And, Erik, if you are so interested in not continuing this
> | conversation, why do you feel that you must?
>
> It could be that some insane idiot keeps demanding replies to put
him
> in his place, such as requiring corrections to his telling me what I
> think when I have given you solid evidence to the contrary, to his
> accusations of hypocrisy as if none of what I have said matters,
only
> what the insane idiot himself believes, etc. It could be that you
> have taken a route of escalation that highlights the fact that you
> need to be slapped so hard your head would make a couple turns
before
> it stopped.
>
> | I'm actually interested in talking Lisp.
>
> So talk Lisp. Or is this "I'd love to talk Lisp, but ..." :)
>
> | It would take a great deal more effort to respond with generosity, a
> | willingness to clear up any misconceptions that you believe anyone
has
> | about the subject at hand (including me), or not at all, than to
dish
> | out another shovel of bile.
>
> I _am_ generous to you. I am _exceptionally_ generous to you. I
have
> taken a very good look at you and your insanely idiotic opinions and
I
> have established that I care enough about you to try to make you
think
> through your position, which takes much, much more effort on my part
> than being "generous" in _your_ terms ever would require, which
would
> basically entail _not_ challenging your fundamental choice _not_ to
> think, but to deal with people on _pleasant_ terms.
>
> | If you truly think me an idiot, then all you display by posting a
> | response my way is that you either enjoy looking so much more
> | intelligent or witty than an idiot, which displays a severe
> | insecurity/egoism on your part, or, being an idiot, you enjoy
dialogue
> | with idiots. Or, I suppose, thirdly, you are a sadist who
specializes
> | in abusing idiots. Then I will know we are truly not equals.
>
> The fourth option is that you are hopefully an idiot by _choice_,
more
> or less made in an environment of non-challenge and pleasantness,
and
> being a choice, you could make another choice. Many an idiot before
> you have made a different choice than to remain a non-thinking
idiot.
> Some have not, but hey, what loss could that possibly be? Any form
of
> punishment may cause two kinds of outcomes: Either the person
refuses
> forever to believe that he has done anything wrong and insists on
> doing what he was punished for, or he can stop and _think_ about the
> fact that he got punished "out of the blue" relative to his current
> understanding which to a thinking individual means that his current
> understanding is in dire need of an update. I do enjoy the fact
that
> most of the people punished make a turn for the better after they
have
> understood and recovered from the blow. Some never do, but I do not
> consider them a loss at all, especially considering the insanity of
> their attacks back at me, not quite limited to threats to burn down
my
> house, you understand. My sympathy for people who threaten with
crime
> to get their way is gone for good and can never be recovered.
>
> Please learn how to delete irrelevant portions of article you quote.
> Qutoing in extenso is not conducive to changing the impression that
> you can't quite make reasonably intelligent choices. Thank you.
>
> #:Erik
> --
> Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
> Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
> very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
* ········@my-deja.com
| Tell me how exactly it was that you became such an enlightened soul?
Tell me how you came to believe that I am, and maybe you will realize
that your own ideas about other people are _unfounded_ fantasies.
| It is funny and ironic, nonetheless, that you insist that _I'M_ a
| psychopath!
Since I don't do that, I really _do_ wonder what your problem is. The
fact that you _keep_ confusing your own sick brain's imagination with
reality is a pretty good indicator of something being seriously wrong,
but it is a common trait with people who have no control over their
emotions and therefore believe that what they _feel_ is also reality.
I make a point out of exposing such people, because they are dangerous.
| Any rational person who has observed your responses would clearly see
| that it is you who have "snapped", and have very little control over
| your emotional responses.
How would you be able to determine if somebody had acute control over
their emotoinal _responses_? Of course you see "very little control"
-- that's the only thing you can relate to! What you _observe_, as
quite distinct from what you _believe you see_, is someone who is
pushing _your_ buttons and you're out of control in response to that.
You're swerving all over the place in your responses, with a near
total lack of focus and accountability to your unfounded "opinions".
You're fantasizing about me and describing that fantasy as if it were
real, for crying out loud! That _is_ insanity, specifically psychosis.
| Although its true that in an moment of boiling rage I had a most
| regrettable dark wish as to your home being engulfed in flames, in
| truth, I'm ashamed that I was affected by your provocations enough to
| stoop to your low level of discourse. Never more. I offer my sincere
| apology, regardless of how predictably you will still return a nasty
| future response.
"It's your fault that I was bad, for which I apologize" doesn't quite
cut it as an honest apology in my book. By writing off your personal
respnsibility for your very own actions, you have transgressed even
further into amoralism. Good job!
It is really quite amazing that you can accuse me of threatening to
burn people's homes down in the middle of an apology for your own
actions. I find this to be very, very indicative of how your brain
simply does not work at all. It was _your_ low level of discourse
that embraced threats of crime and violence and bodily harm, not mine.
That you are such an incredibly bad person that you think you had the
right to do this in the first place is _not_ offset by your need to
blame me for it by _pretending_ against all evidence that you stooped
bo "[my] low level of discourse". Talk about being out of control!
| ... it is, I must say, a bit entertaining.
I thought I said that to you first. The clown has learned to parrot.
| Oh, and I want to reiterate that I truly regret saying I'd burn your
| house down. You see, I'm not used to being called a "whining dolt" by
| total strangers. Kinda pissed me off a bit.
Yup, that's just _super_ control over your emotions, but you can start
on your path to recovery by learning how to quote news articles less.
That won't leave such a bad impression of your general skill levels.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
On 29 Nov 2000, Erik Naggum wrote:
> * ········@my-deja.com
> | Tell me how exactly it was that you became such an enlightened soul?
>
> Tell me how you came to believe that I am, and maybe you will realize
> that your own ideas about other people are _unfounded_ fantasies.
>
I just, you know, feel you have, like, well, these, like, well, like,
really cool things, to like, say and all. You know, just like really smart
stuff, and well, *gosh*, I don't know, I just, like, wanna be like you.
> | It is funny and ironic, nonetheless, that you insist that _I'M_ a
> | psychopath!
>
> Since I don't do that, I really _do_ wonder what your problem is. The
> fact that you _keep_ confusing your own sick brain's imagination with
> reality is a pretty good indicator of something being seriously wrong,
> but it is a common trait with people who have no control over their
> emotions and therefore believe that what they _feel_ is also reality.
> I make a point out of exposing such people, because they are dangerous.
>
Oh, no, I didn't mean that, Erik; No- I didn't mean to make you think that
I thought, that, you thought, that I thought, that you called me
crazy. 'Cause you clearly didn't. hey, can I pour you a glass of OJ?
> | Any rational person who has observed your responses would clearly see
> | that it is you who have "snapped", and have very little control over
> | your emotional responses.
>
> How would you be able to determine if somebody had acute control over
> their emotoinal _responses_? Of course you see "very little control"
> -- that's the only thing you can relate to!
emotoinal responses? you're getting to heated up to type, se�or.
> You're fantasizing about me and describing that fantasy as if it were
> real, for crying out loud! That _is_ insanity, specifically psychosis.
>
Oh yes, Erik, you and I; I've been having these fantasies.....I don't know
what to do but pour my heart out in a love letter. I'm *PSYCHO* about you,
Erik, hunk, stud, man of my dreams.
> | Although its true that in an moment of boiling rage I had a most
> | regrettable dark wish as to your home being engulfed in flames, in
> | truth, I'm ashamed that I was affected by your provocations enough to
> | stoop to your low level of discourse. Never more. I offer my sincere
> | apology, regardless of how predictably you will still return a nasty
> | future response.
>
> "It's your fault that I was bad, for which I apologize" doesn't quite
> cut it as an honest apology in my book. By writing off your personal
> respnsibility for your very own actions, you have transgressed even
> further into amoralism. Good job!
>
Boy, you know, you're so right, Erik. Thanks for the tip on morality. I
couldn't believe I didn't see you for the wise soul you truly are. C'mere,
man, gimme a hug, let's just have a good cry, ok?
>
> | ... it is, I must say, a bit entertaining.
>
> I thought I said that to you first. The clown has learned to parrot.
The clown has learned to parrot. The clown has learned to parrot. Polly
want a cracker.
>
> | Oh, and I want to reiterate that I truly regret saying I'd burn your
> | house down. You see, I'm not used to being called a "whining dolt" by
> | total strangers. Kinda pissed me off a bit.
>
> Yup, that's just _super_ control over your emotions, but you can start
> on your path to recovery by learning how to quote news articles less.
> That won't leave such a bad impression of your general skill levels.
>
Oh, please Erik, hurt me some more !!!!! Oh insult me again !!!!!! Oh how
I love it, just like the little lizard in my head tells me. He's blue and
has a collar. his name is naggum. I named him after you, my favorite
lisper. He's mean and he bite sometimes, but really he just wants to make
people feel better......Oh, wait a sec, there's a call coming in from
Alpha Centauri 2 on my sub-space-mental channel.....I'm slipping into the
vacuum-cosmic-void...........
BTW,Does your head ever feel like a bag of moist cranberries at a remote
french outpost?
* "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
| you're getting to heated up to type, se�or.
You don't know anything about that, but it is clearly a part of your
psyche to have to pretend what your opponent is like quite apart from
what you can _observe_ them to _do_. Emotional fantasizing like that
is part of why you get a harsh time from me. That you don't even seem
to understand the difference between describing actions and describing
people is a strong contributor to your feeling the way you seem to do.
I have left the rest of your of your rant out because you should be
able to cancel the message when you realize whom it hurts the most.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <905sg7$5qe$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <················@naggum.net>,
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> * "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
> | you're getting to heated up to type, se�or.
>
> You don't know anything about that, but it is clearly a part of your
> psyche to have to pretend what your opponent is like quite apart
from
> what you can _observe_ them to _do_. Emotional fantasizing like
that
> is part of why you get a harsh time from me. That you don't even
seem
> to understand the difference between describing actions and
describing
> people is a strong contributor to your feeling the way you seem to
do.
>
Erik,
You don't know anything about that, but it is clearly a part of your
psyche to have to pretend what your opponent is like quite apart from
what you can _observe_ them to _do_. Emotional fantasizing like that is
part of why you get a harsh time from me. That you don't even seem to
understand the difference between describing actions and describing
people is a strong contributor to your feeling the way you seem to do.
(You're on to something, Erik. Maybe you should stop and think about
how it may apply to you and your life. Or are you opposed to practicing
what you preach? Which by the way, is the very definition of hypocrisy.
I fully expect you, however, to retaliate with another lousy and
predictible round of delightful prose, rather than to even have an iota
of self-awareness.
Has your philosophy worked for you, Erik? Did someone come along and
tell you that you had to be slapped silly, and you thought, "Wow,
marvelous, thank you!". That person appeared to you as someone who was
"generous" or "caring" enough to set you straight? Tell me what happened
in that wonderful, healthy mind of yours that made you realize that
sadistic/violent invective was really the best way to get people to
change their "idiotic" opinions and motivate them to respect what you
had to say about just how idiotic they are. And then when you realize,
by looking up the word "sanity" and "healthy" in the dictionary, just
how far it is you have allow YOUR definition to take you from that
point, you will perhaps seek professional help.)
Aaron.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
* Aaron K. Johnson
| You're on to something, Erik.
Yes, I said the clown has learned to parrot. Do _better_, will you?
| I fully expect you, however, to retaliate with another lousy and
| predictible round of delightful prose, rather than to even have an
| iota of self-awareness.
What happens when what you expect doesn't come true? Nothing? Or are
you at least baffled and confused?
| Has your philosophy worked for you, Erik?
Of course it has. But amazing as it may seem to you, some people do
not have to be convicted and jailed before they figure out that it's a
very good idea _not_ to threaten to burn down people's homes, say.
Despite that you may never have experienced it in your entire life,
some people _are_ able to predict reactions from others based on what
they observe when it does not match their expectations, not on what
they _want_ to believe about others, and they are _not_ so amazingly
retarded that they have to _make_up_ some demonization of other people
and keep some stupid fantasies about them that they try to pretend are
real by repeating them over and over to yourself.
What would you say if someone asked the same astonishingly moronic
question to a doctor if he has never smoked and urges him to quit, to
a judge (who has to be unpunished) who reprimands him for drinking and
driving or speeding, to a security guard who forcibly won't let him
into a building he _wants_ to enter, to an anti-drug activist who
has never used any drugs himself, etc? _You_ seem to be laboring
under the impression that in order to see that stupidity is bad, you
have to have _been_ so stupid somebody _had_ to punish you. This is
so stupid a way to look at things you _should_ be punished for it!
| Did someone come along and tell you that you had to be slapped silly,
| and you thought, "Wow, marvelous, thank you!".
No, I figured out that I, too, _should_ get slapped _if_ I let my mind
wither and die until it looked like yours. I don't _do_ massively
stupid things in the first place -- it is in fact _easily_ avoidable
if you keep just a little bit on your toes. Engage your brain, keep
exercising it, and most things that look hard to your average joe get
a lot easier in general. (Except dealing with morons and watching
most Hollywood movies and nearly all TV programs, and any advertising
is just about completely insufferable, which means that some people
will stop engaging their brain and not exercise it just to take part
in what they think is "normal society" but which really isn't.)
I made a mistake with you: You really _are_ an idiot, it's not just
something you have chosen for lack of incentives to choose something
better. Real idiots who discover Common Lisp are far and few between,
so I hold this assumption that if you _act_ like a fucking moron, it's
because you have never had anyone help you do better. People who hold
as amazingly stupid ideas as you do and learn so slowly when presented
with counter-information, generally _do_ learn pretty quickly that
amazingly stupid ideas are _unacceptable_, but you have made the even
more amazingly stupid move to _defend_ your stupidity through more and
more of same, and you won't stop any time soon, either. My guess is
you'll keep posting more and more stupid articles even though I don't
say a word back to you, you'll keep attacking me for a long time to
come for things I don't do, you'll keep attributing opinions to me
that I do not hold, and you'll keep building that insane fantasy about
me that you have made a pretty good stab at already, just like the
very few other _actual_ morons whose minds have been blown to bits by
exposure to more than they could handle. Considering the viciousness
of your attacks on me, I don't regret your loss for a second, but I do
hope you don't hurt anyone else before you go completely insane.
Your actions here must be presumed to be the best you can do and the
most conducive both to salvaging your pride and recovering from what
you think is unfair treatment. This incredibly pathetic situation is
precisely what made me conclude that you actually _are_ so retarded
that there's no point in trying to tell you anything that would not be
much more profitably communicated to a dog.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <907hmo$iq3$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <················@naggum.net>,
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> * Aaron K. Johnson
> | I fully expect you, however, to retaliate with another lousy and
> | predictible round of delightful prose, rather than to even have an
> | iota of self-awareness.
>
> What happens when what you expect doesn't come true? Nothing? Or
are
> you at least baffled and confused?
>
Hasn't happened yet, now has it? Pretty much, I expected more bile, got
more bile. I'll be confused and delighted and baffled, yes, when you
decide to join the ranks of civility.
> Considering the viciousness
> of your attacks on me, I don't regret your loss for a second, but I
do
> hope you don't hurt anyone else before you go completely insane.
>
Now that's surprising! To think that you would worry about another human
being in pain, considering that you espouse making it your mission to
make the lives of those who hold ideas you consider idiotic _more_
painful. How ironic.
Perhaps you wish to avoid considering the following, or are an extremely
lazy person who refuses to get up and go to the dictionary. So here it
is, from the Random house College dictionary, so we might have it be
official:
hypocrisy. A semblance of having desirable or publicly approved
attitudes, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually
possess.
Yup, its official. You are truly a hypocrite. A 3 year-old could tell.
If your code is as hopeless as your self-awareness, it is truly
hopeless.
#:Aaron
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
········@my-deja.com wrote:
> [of EN:]
>
> Now that's surprising! To think that you would worry about another human
> being in pain, considering that you espouse making it your mission to
> make the lives of those who hold ideas you consider idiotic _more_
> painful. How ironic.
Have you considered the possibility that there exist people
Erik /doesn't/ consider idiots? Perhaps these are the ones
he cares about.
* ········@my-deja.com
| Hasn't happened yet, now has it? Pretty much, I expected more bile,
| got more bile.
Obviously, you define everything I do as "bile", so who's surprised?
| Now that's surprising! To think that you would worry about another
| human being in pain, considering that you espouse making it your
| mission to make the lives of those who hold ideas you consider idiotic
| _more_ painful. How ironic.
Some day, you may learn to comprehend what you read, and then you may
be able to see that the irony here is entirely created by yourself.
Your refusal to deal with what you observe in preference to what you
want to believe is becoming so entrenched in you that it's time to
alert your parents or someone else who still cares about you.
| Yup, its official. You are truly a hypocrite. A 3 year-old could tell.
Precisely your mental age, but anyone _more_ mature would know the
difference between a fantasy of his own creation and reality. That
usually develops shortly after the age of three in normal children.
| If your code is as hopeless as your self-awareness, it is truly
| hopeless.
Amusing. You still have to drag in things you have no idea about, and
the more you do, the less credible you become. Some day you may learn
what an amazing idiot you are from someone who cares enough about you
to tell you to stop hurting yourself with these public displays. So
far, nobody has cared about you enough to make you realize what you
are doing, and I personally think that is exceptionally cruel of the
people who _should_ be in such a position.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
········@my-deja.com writes:
> Let me turn to Lisp; otherwise this is getting out of hand.
> What exactly do you have _against_ say, the quality of Open Source
> projects of major importance, funded or not?
This argument looks remarkably equivalent to the can't-be-denied argument
that suckers people into EST, The Forum, and other such so-called
personal empowerment building organizations. Organizations where you give
a lot of value (usually in money) and help to keep an organization going
that often has very little in the way of visibly paid employees. Why?
Because the organization probably couldn't afford to pay the people it
requires to keep itself going--better if a few make the money and the rest
happily work for free.
I went to a meeting of The Forum once on an open house night. The conversation
with one of their advocates went something like this:
him: Do you see how you could get value from this?
me: yes
him: So you'll sign up?
me: no
him: But why would you not join something that could bring you value?
me: Because i have to weight the choice against other uses of my time.
I get value from all the things I do.
him: You're just trying to be argumentative, aren't you?
me: no, i simply see a choice to be made and i have made my choice.
[they hate that, because they use "choice" as a catch phrase.
they want you to believe they offer you choice, and that only by
choosing the choice they offer will you be free. but it seems to
me that they intend you to have no choice but to let them deliver
you choice.]
The bottom line is the understanding of "opportunity cost". It sure
looks to me like a lot of impressionable college students are tricked
into thinking it's noble to not make money. I know I spent my first
few years after college trying hard not to make money because I
thought money was evil and would somehow corrupt me. But in my old
age I've found money to not be so corrupting as personally empowering.
I hate seeing people tricked into thinking that being without money is
personally empowering. I bet if they're honest a lot of contributors
of free software have at some later point in their life looked back
and wished they could have even just a decent day's pay, if not a
percentage, from the riches they see others getting off their
contributions. Why should they NOT be compensated?
We in the Lisp community suffer more than anything else with the lack of
personal dollars to act on our many ideas. We sometimes pester companies
to do what we wish we could. I don't see how giving away code, and hence
economic empowerment, will make it any easier for us to act on those dreams.
I just see us dying of old age after years of chasing a paycheck.
In the long run, a few Linux companies with a handful of investors will
have a lot of money, and a lot of Linux weenies will be the downtrodden
underclass of a new generation because they will have nothing more to
contribute. I see no reason to suppose the world would be worse off if
the people making the financial choices for next generation systems
were the people who actually wrote some code rather than others who merely
arrived and took advantage of a ton of free software and offered only
packaging.
I don't assert that I have unique insight into how the universe works so
I don't spend time trying to talk people out of doing the open source and
free software thing if that's what they feel is their personal calling.
I might be wrong, and I'm inclined to think that on that basis, it might
be best for some people who believe differently to go ahead and chase their
dream, but I don't want to be told that my personal opposition to the notion
is, for myself, a wrong choice any more than they want to be told their
choices are wrong. Choices should be made with one's eyes open, though, and
no one should assume I'm going to respect them more for having given away
value. I'm not. I'm going to respect them more if they build something
important for the world, by whatever means. But whether they got paid for
it or not is not going to affect that respect. So they shouldn't feel guilty
about getting paid, and they shouldn't give me grief if I want to get paid.
Kent-
I had a laugh with this one. Like you a had a "Forum
experience". In the end, I looked upon it as a big sales pitch, in which
the benefits are the same as those of listening to Alan Watts tapes, or
reading Zen, and the negatives are being in a weird quasi-cult. I would
never recommend it to anyone!
Getting to Lisp: I appreciate your desire to be paid. I love money
myself. We live in a capitalist society, after all! But just to reiterate
the ideas of others earlier in this thread. Jochun Schmidt rightly pointed
out that many of the major OSS project DO pay their programmmers. (He
brings up Apache, KDE, and Gnome as examples) I'm sure www.python.org has
employees. There are many non-for profit corporations where people work
with comfortable salaries in the USA today. My question: why have we no
www.FreeCL.org, while we have a www.python.org, a www.scriptics.com,
etc...
I also want to reiterate what "Patrick W." said earlier; a young
newbie programmer, given the choice of shelling out for Lisp, or going the
route of least pocketbook dent, would do the obvious, and can you blame
them? On a Linux box, you can mess with any language out their for
virtually no cost. Of course, the dominant languages (in terms of overall
use) are those that fit this paradigm. Hence the great popularity of the
Gnu C compiler, Perl/Python/Tcl-Tk/, etc.
Another thing; if the exponential growth curve of Linux is an
indicator at all (esp. in the Developing world), my bet would be that
regardless of your points about the nature of Capitalism, maybe software
is truly about to enter a paradigm shift. At least I think that its not
impossible. I tend to be an optimist, and think it could go either way,
with my gut leaning towards the new model. It sure has Microsoft worried
about its marketing strategy in South America, for example!
I look foward to hearing your responses.
Kindest Regards,
Aaron.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> ········@my-deja.com writes:
>
> > Let me turn to Lisp; otherwise this is getting out of hand.
> > What exactly do you have _against_ say, the quality of Open Source
> > projects of major importance, funded or not?
>
> This argument looks remarkably equivalent to the can't-be-denied argument
> that suckers people into EST, The Forum, and other such so-called
> personal empowerment building organizations. Organizations where you give
> a lot of value (usually in money) and help to keep an organization going
> that often has very little in the way of visibly paid employees. Why?
> Because the organization probably couldn't afford to pay the people it
> requires to keep itself going--better if a few make the money and the rest
> happily work for free.
>
> I went to a meeting of The Forum once on an open house night. The conversation
> with one of their advocates went something like this:
>
> him: Do you see how you could get value from this?
> me: yes
> him: So you'll sign up?
> me: no
> him: But why would you not join something that could bring you value?
> me: Because i have to weight the choice against other uses of my time.
> I get value from all the things I do.
> him: You're just trying to be argumentative, aren't you?
> me: no, i simply see a choice to be made and i have made my choice.
>
> [they hate that, because they use "choice" as a catch phrase.
> they want you to believe they offer you choice, and that only by
> choosing the choice they offer will you be free. but it seems to
> me that they intend you to have no choice but to let them deliver
> you choice.]
>
> The bottom line is the understanding of "opportunity cost". It sure
> looks to me like a lot of impressionable college students are tricked
> into thinking it's noble to not make money. I know I spent my first
> few years after college trying hard not to make money because I
> thought money was evil and would somehow corrupt me. But in my old
> age I've found money to not be so corrupting as personally empowering.
> I hate seeing people tricked into thinking that being without money is
> personally empowering. I bet if they're honest a lot of contributors
> of free software have at some later point in their life looked back
> and wished they could have even just a decent day's pay, if not a
> percentage, from the riches they see others getting off their
> contributions. Why should they NOT be compensated?
>
> We in the Lisp community suffer more than anything else with the lack of
> personal dollars to act on our many ideas. We sometimes pester companies
> to do what we wish we could. I don't see how giving away code, and hence
> economic empowerment, will make it any easier for us to act on those dreams.
> I just see us dying of old age after years of chasing a paycheck.
>
> In the long run, a few Linux companies with a handful of investors will
> have a lot of money, and a lot of Linux weenies will be the downtrodden
> underclass of a new generation because they will have nothing more to
> contribute. I see no reason to suppose the world would be worse off if
> the people making the financial choices for next generation systems
> were the people who actually wrote some code rather than others who merely
> arrived and took advantage of a ton of free software and offered only
> packaging.
>
> I don't assert that I have unique insight into how the universe works so
> I don't spend time trying to talk people out of doing the open source and
> free software thing if that's what they feel is their personal calling.
> I might be wrong, and I'm inclined to think that on that basis, it might
> be best for some people who believe differently to go ahead and chase their
> dream, but I don't want to be told that my personal opposition to the notion
> is, for myself, a wrong choice any more than they want to be told their
> choices are wrong. Choices should be made with one's eyes open, though, and
> no one should assume I'm going to respect them more for having given away
> value. I'm not. I'm going to respect them more if they build something
> important for the world, by whatever means. But whether they got paid for
> it or not is not going to affect that respect. So they shouldn't feel guilty
> about getting paid, and they shouldn't give me grief if I want to get paid.
>
>
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> writes:
> My question: why have we no www.FreeCL.org, while we have a
> www.python.org, a www.scriptics.com, etc...
Which free CL should it pick? Free Allegro, CMU CL, GCL, CLISP, ...?
There is www.lisp.org alias www.alu.org which features both free and
non-free lisps, see <http://www.lisp.org/table/systems.htm>.
If you will 'pick up the shovel' as you said to make a "better" Lisp
site, they have a wish list at <http://www.alu.org/admin/work.htm>.
It would be nite to collect all the information which has come up
in these threads there too.
If you prefer coding over documentation (don't we all?), I suggest
you start with your own pet complaints, e.g. make a common interface
for the various functions to dump a Lisp image.
--
Hallvard
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> I bet if they're honest a lot of contributors of free software have
> at some later point in their life looked back and wished they could
> have even just a decent day's pay, if not a percentage, from the
> riches they see others getting off their contributions.
And those of us who look back on the work we've done for the community
without regret are dishonest?
> I might be wrong, and I'm inclined to think that on that basis, it might
> be best for some people who believe differently to go ahead and chase their
> dream, but I don't want to be told that my personal opposition to the notion
> is, for myself, a wrong choice any more than they want to be told their
> choices are wrong. Choices should be made with one's eyes open, though, and
> no one should assume I'm going to respect them more for having given away
> value. I'm not. I'm going to respect them more if they build something
> important for the world, by whatever means. But whether they got paid for
> it or not is not going to affect that respect. So they shouldn't feel guilty
> about getting paid, and they shouldn't give me grief if I want to get paid.
So people who are doing free software are dreamers who have their eyes
closed. I don't think so. I think free software is a result of the
impulse most people feel towards helping other people. Heaven knows,
without having all that free software to fiddle around with back in my
student days, I would probably not be much of a programmer at all
today.
I'm really grateful towards those who have enabled me to become what I
am. Most of those people (in the software arena) are people within
the free software community. And nobody has *ever* given me any grief
for holding down a paying job, so I can't help thinking that you're
setting fire to a personal straw man here.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
·····@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <·····@gnus.org> writes:
> Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
>
> > I bet if they're honest a lot of contributors of free software have
> > at some later point in their life looked back and wished they could
> > have even just a decent day's pay, if not a percentage, from the
> > riches they see others getting off their contributions.
>
> And those of us who look back on the work we've done for the community
> without regret are dishonest?
I'm not going to take this bait.
I didn't say "all" nor even "a majority of". I merely said "a lot
of". That doesn't imply anything other than a non-trivial number.
It could be, and probably is, that a lot of people also are
legitimately happy. That is not relevant to my point, though.
It is a pity that I can't just make a simple statement like this without
it being twisted to say something I didn't say.
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> I didn't say "all" nor even "a majority of". I merely said "a lot
> of". That doesn't imply anything other than a non-trivial number.
"If they were honest, a lot of them would..." If you were not meaning
to imply that there were (a non-trivial number of) people out there
who were dishonestly saying they were happy...
> It is a pity that I can't just make a simple statement like this without
> it being twisted to say something I didn't say.
... then perhaps you were not saying what you thought you were saying.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
·····@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <nkjd7fdu7cz.fsf@tfeb.org>
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <·····@gnus.org> writes:
>
> "If they were honest, a lot of them would..." If you were not meaning
> to imply that there were (a non-trivial number of) people out there
> who were dishonestly saying they were happy...
>
In this context -- at least in my dialect which is not the same as
Kent's as we're on opposite sides of the Atlantic -- this use of
`honest' doesn't have an implication of lying (actually your quote of
what he said is not so good, some of the surrounding words matter
somehow). Rather it means something like `if they thought very hard
about what they actually felt in the way that people seldom do'.
That's not really it though.
Something like `If I was really honest [with myself] I actually quite
liked working at x, even though I often say I hated it' or something.
--tim
* Tim Bradshaw <···@tfeb.org>
| In this context -- at least in my dialect which is not the same as
| Kent's as we're on opposite sides of the Atlantic -- this use of
| `honest' doesn't have an implication of lying (actually your quote of
| what he said is not so good, some of the surrounding words matter
| somehow).
And not the least the order of evaluation. "If they were honest, a
lot of them would ..." does not imply that the first "they" refers to
everybody out of which a lot would, etc, but rather that the second
"them" refers to everbody, a lot of _whom_, if they were honest (with
themselves), would, etc. This is sort of like getting SELECT clauses
right in SQL queries.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <·····@gnus.org> writes:
> Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
>
> > I didn't say "all" nor even "a majority of". I merely said "a lot
> > of". That doesn't imply anything other than a non-trivial number.
>
> "If they were honest, a lot of them would..." If you were not meaning
> to imply that there were (a non-trivial number of) people out there
> who were dishonestly saying they were happy...
Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English? This expression
refers to "honesty with oneself" and has to do with "soul searching".
It is not to be read literally, as it is not an attempt to slander
anyone nor any group.
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English? This expression
> refers to "honesty with oneself" and has to do with "soul searching".
> It is not to be read literally, as it is not an attempt to slander
> anyone nor any group.
Whatever.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
·····@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>, ········@my-deja.com wrote:
> Any rational person who has observed your responses would clearly see
>that it is you who have "snapped", and have very little control over
>your emotional responses. Furthermore, most unlike you, I refrain from
>making viscious sub-human wishes about your bodily harm.
I see another unsupecting victim has stepped on the naggum-mine and had
a leg blown off. Oh well.
I've said it before, and in all seriousness:
Erik Naggum is the single largest force impeding the more widespread use
of common lisp. People come to c.l.l, see the sort of treatment that
others receive at his hands, and quickly conclude that something is not
quite right in common lisp land. They don't come back, because, after
all, there are always scheme, Dylan, Smalltalk, and other functional
languages, all of which have newsgroups where newcomers arent flayed
alive.
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
·······@mediaone.net
Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net> writes:
> I've said it before, and in all seriousness:
>
> Erik Naggum is the single largest force impeding the more widespread
> use of common lisp. People come to c.l.l, see the sort of treatment
> that others receive at his hands, and quickly conclude that
> something is not quite right in common lisp land.
That's ridiculous.
No competent engineer would choose a programming language based on the
personality of usenet posters!
I know of at least three very good engineers who find Erik's
information and entertainment value more than offsets his negative
points.
Anyone who disagrees and is smart enough to know how to use a kill
file can easily pretend he doesn't exist. Anyone who is not smart
enough to use a killfile, but feels smart enough or important enough
to post opinions anyway runs the risk of getting flayed.
Life on the usenet is harsh.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
"Joe Marshall" <···@content-integrity.com> wrote in message
·················@content-integrity.com...
> Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net> writes:
>
> > I've said it before, and in all seriousness:
> >
> > Erik Naggum is the single largest force impeding the more widespread
> > use of common lisp. People come to c.l.l, see the sort of treatment
> > that others receive at his hands, and quickly conclude that
> > something is not quite right in common lisp land.
>
I'm sure he is the single largest force impeding a diverse and friendly
newsgroup, but don't give him that much credit! (see below)
> No competent engineer would choose a programming language based on the
> personality of usenet posters!
>
However..
> Anyone who disagrees and is smart enough to know how to use a kill
> file can easily pretend he doesn't exist. Anyone who is not smart
> enough to use a killfile, but feels smart enough or important enough
> to post opinions anyway runs the risk of getting flayed.
Though it may be unintentional, the above paragraph implies an unhealthy
kind of intellectual snobbery. We all start out not knowing much and even
"unimportant" people have a right to be treated with respect!
>
> Life on the usenet is harsh.
>
But must it be so? And is that right?
Coby
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3184581342097593@naggum.net>
* "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
| I'm sure he is the single largest force impeding a diverse and friendly
| newsgroup, but don't give him that much credit! (see below)
Really? I think Raffael Cavallaro is one instance of that force. Not
the least because he does _nothing_ but post his usual shit, and like
most of the _very_ few other recurring idiots who never learn have
made up their mind that they are not to blame for anything at all,
especially not what they _continue_ to do. They neither can nor will
change their ways and insist on doing the same old idiotic stuff that
got them flamed to begin with. These are so few in number that they
are insignificant in the grat picture, but they _do_ cause other worms
to crawl out of the woodwork to join the latest "idiot support group",
but what do you know? They don't help eachother in any constructive
way -- they just do _worse_ than I do: Their flames are self-defensive
and completely pointless apart from their personal need to vent their
spleen and feel better by attacking someone they don't like. That is
pure hostility, with nothing whatsoever that could "tame" the fuckers
and cease their hostility or cause them to mature, except the physical
pain that they would have met in real life if they were equally
idiotic around _any_ actual people. Mine is different -- it doesn't
take more IQ than most dogs have to figure out precisely what I am
castigating people for and how to avoid further castigation, which
means that the refusal to get the point is intentional for anyone who
doesn't _actually_ just bark and growl in response to everything they
experience.
| We all start out not knowing much and even "unimportant" people have a
| right to be treated with respect!
People are treated with respect. It is because I respect people that
I do not respect their right to hold insanely idiotic opinions and
_not_ be criticized very harshly for it. If I did not respect people,
but only laugh and snicker like Aaron has begun doing on his way to
the insane asylym, I would not react to them at all, only put up their
idiotic rants on a wall and try to find the funniest possible picture
of them to ridicule them. People who can't figure out the difference
between themselves and what they have chosen to think or do or say,
but feel personally disrespected because their chosen stupidity is not
rewarded with the generosity they think they deserve for everything
they do, are likely to cause serious damage to both themselves and
others through their alarming carelessness and arrogance. ... which
is also what we see that they do as soon as they are criticized for it.
| But must it be so? And is that right?
The second worst thing we do to eachother is to be too lenient. The
worst we do is to accuse and prosecute eachother of what we have not
actually done. The two go hand in hand in the most despicable form of
injustice there is: That which pardons those we like for any ill and
accuse those we don't like of any ill we feel like. People-oriented
justice like that is the root cause of all evil. (That is not to say
that the first task of anyone who finds something disagreeable is to
make sure he understands _why_ it is disagreeable to him and why he
who commits the disagreeable does not seem to agree.)
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> "Joe Marshall" <···@content-integrity.com> wrote in message
> ·················@content-integrity.com...
> > Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net> writes:
> >
> > > I've said it before, and in all seriousness:
> > >
> > > Erik Naggum is the single largest force impeding the more widespread
> > > use of common lisp. People come to c.l.l, see the sort of treatment
> > > that others receive at his hands, and quickly conclude that
> > > something is not quite right in common lisp land.
> >
>
> I'm sure he is the single largest force impeding a diverse and friendly
> newsgroup, but don't give him that much credit! (see below)
I don't subscribe to diverse and friendly newsgroups. I subscribe to
ones with a high signal/noise ratio. There may be many diverse
opinions about technical facts and reality, but few of them are
correct, and I'm uninterested in the others.
> > No competent engineer would choose a programming language based on the
> > personality of usenet posters!
> >
>
> However..
>
> > Anyone who disagrees and is smart enough to know how to use a kill
> > file can easily pretend he doesn't exist. Anyone who is not smart
> > enough to use a killfile, but feels smart enough or important enough
> > to post opinions anyway runs the risk of getting flayed.
>
> Though it may be unintentional, the above paragraph implies an unhealthy
> kind of intellectual snobbery.
I am an intellectual snob and proud of it. I think smart people are
`better' in a number of ways. My circle of friends is composed
largely of smart people. I avoid going places where dumb people
congregate. I don't think it is unhealthy.
> We all start out not knowing much and even "unimportant" people have
> a right to be treated with respect!
You miscronstrue me. I don't believe in classifying people as
important or unimportant (in an objective sense). However, it is easy
to ascribe ``self-importance''. I have little respect or patience for
such people.
> > Life on the usenet is harsh.
> >
>
> But must it be so?
While one could envision a usenet populated solely with rational
people discussing topics in a reasoned manner, it is unclear to me
that such a thing could be actualized.
> And is that right?
As in `just'? I can't even see how a question like this makes sense.
I could observe that life in Antarctica is even harsher. Must it be
so? Is it right?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Joe Marshall <···@content-integrity.com> writes:
> > > Life on the usenet is harsh.
> > >
> >
> > But must it be so?
>
> While one could envision a usenet populated solely with rational
> people discussing topics in a reasoned manner, it is unclear to me
> that such a thing could be actualized.
>
> > And is that right?
>
> As in `just'? I can't even see how a question like this makes sense.
>
> I could observe that life in Antarctica is even harsher. Must it be
> so? Is it right?
I concur on both of Joe's points.
Since this periodically comes up and I don't want to have to keep repeating
myself, I wrote my standing position on this issue into
http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/usenet-freedom.html
"Kent M Pitman" <······@world.std.com> wrote in message
····················@world.std.com...
> Joe Marshall <···@content-integrity.com> writes:
> > > > Life on the usenet is harsh.
> > > But must it be so?
> > While one could envision a usenet populated solely with rational
> > people discussing topics in a reasoned manner, it is unclear to me
> > that such a thing could be actualized.
> >
> > > And is that right?
> > As in `just'? I can't even see how a question like this makes sense.
> I concur on both of Joe's points.
>
> Since this periodically comes up and I don't want to have to keep
repeating
> myself, I wrote my standing position on this issue into
> http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/usenet-freedom.html
>
I read your article and can respect your opinion, nor would I try to change
it. I would just like to opine that the freedom you very rightly cherish
comes (like all freedoms) with responsibility. Each of us can judge for
themselves what the responsibilities are and how to live up to them. And I
would never advocate enforcing any rules that would censor even Mr. Naggum's
lowest moments.
I don't think that I or the other few who object (very occasionally in
proportion) to Erik's vicious attacks are trying to say that all hostility
or agression is Wrong, with a capital W. The real problem, is that Erik, by
his own profession, is attacking this same freedom you are defending. His
expressed motive is to drive people out and/or make it so painful for them
to express their opinions that they stop. How does this promote freedom of
expression?
I respectfully suggest that your efforts to stop others from objecting are
misplaced.
Coby
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3184839641292968@naggum.net>
* "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
| The real problem, is that Erik, by his own profession, is attacking
| this same freedom you are defending. His expressed motive is to drive
| people out and/or make it so painful for them to express their
| opinions that they stop. How does this promote freedom of expression?
This is an interesting case of your amazingly moronic "opinion" being
an instance of what should not be allowed to pass without severe and
harsh criticism for being manipulative, instigatory, and much worse
than false: it's malicious slander. Great fucking example, Cody Beck!
Your first mistake is to misrepresent my expressed motive, you stupid
liar. Lies are not protected by freedom of expression. I cannot say
that you are child molestor and hope to get away with it, nor should I.
_You_ are a people-person, and I'm not. If you have to _restate_ my
expressed motive, at least engage the puny little excuse for a brain
that people-oriented people possess enough to recognize that some
people are _not_ people-oriented, indeed are extremely hostile to any
such accusation. Putting people first is the primary idiocy that we
must to overcome to achieve a technical forum, indeed any technical
progress at all.
My _actually_ expressed motive, not the Coby Beck rewrite, is to drive
_stupidity_ out and make it so painful to act stupidly that people
stop being stupid. That someone can be so amazingly retarded as to
confuse people with stupidity is not my problem, and Coby Beck can go
to hell as far as I'm concerned for being that retarded. He's made
the same moronic mistake and false accusation previously, and it does
not help to tell him anything, so he's probably _unable_ to adapt to
facts and situations he does not already agree with. He also believes
whatever he wants to believe about me and feels much freer than he
should to post his incredibly stupid "opinions" about something he
only _feels_ is true. It is precisely that kind of moronic behavior
that should be stopped. Unfortunately, Coby Beck is the kind of
person who is unwilling to change his behavior but rather continues to
defend it because he has felt hurt by the fact that he never was right
in his false accusations and moronic rewrites of other people's ideas.
Such people should be punished every time they repeat their mistakes.
It is downright _pathetic_ how Coby Beck implicitly argues for the
value of stupidity, of moronic misrepresentations of facts, of false
answers to technical questions, of idiotic and inflammatory "opinions"
like trolls, etc. That is what he welcomes to comp.lang.lisp, and if
he could drive me out in favor of people of his intellectual level, he
would feel a lot better here, free to fail to exercise his brain as he
would then be, like the people he implicitly invites.
I want a technically stimulating forum. When push comes to shove,
that is what most other people want here, too. However, USENET is a
virtual _magnet_ for idiots and opinionated air-heads, the kinds of
people that Coby Beck welcomes. These are people who _don't_ pull
themselves together and _don't_ drop their stupidity when they see
that it is not welcome, because they, like Coby Beck, think they have
a God-given right to be stupid and still be respected and treated
well. But we don't treat guests well who take a piss in the living
room, not even if they are someone's pets. People who are interesting
to talk with get up and _leave_ if the group rewards stupidity, but we
live in a culture that defends, promotes, idolizes, and rewards the
stupid and unintelligent. How could it possibly work to sell any
products at all by insulting people's intelligence with the kind of
stupefyingly moronic advertising that fill bill-boards, broadcast
media, etc, if people were not willing to accept that stupidity must
be tolerated and indeed rewarded? Microsoft is multi-billion-dollar
empire _built_ on the stupidity of people who bought their hype and
their lies. Every grain of disgust for liars and stupidity in the
market costs that company a billion dollars in lost sales, just as
every grain of admiration for frauds and crooks who manage to outsmart
people with the operating intelligence of dogs earns them a billion.
Most people accept stupidity and incompetence in every form they come
across because they would rather be seen as easy-going and friendly
than to get what they pay for and want. But the really easy-going and
friendly people are found where _competence_ is rewarded, stupidity is
an accident to be ignored, and incompetence has a cause worth fixing.
If you _actually_ care for the people around you, you don't allow them
to be stupid, and if you _respect_ people, you are not afraid to have
zero respect or tolerance for (some of) their actions.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
EN> _You_ are a people-person, and I'm not. If you have to
EN> _restate_ my expressed motive, at least engage the puny little
EN> excuse for a brain that people-oriented people possess enough to
EN> recognize that some people are _not_ people-oriented, indeed are
EN> extremely hostile to any such accusation.
One might argue that thinking intraverts might well seek social
stability and civil environments, lacking the inclination to
repeatedly hash-out the detailed foundations of their private (and
potentially alienated) world view. You know, hang out in bookstores,
develop their art, build their robots, that sort of thing...
In this model, a deeply intraverted person wouldn't care about being
understood by any large number of people. Yes, one might say that's
because they are insecure in their conclusions. One might also say it
is because they are private people. But to insist the former is mere
speculation.
A loud, abrasive, and volatile environment tends to amplify the chance
that non-technical topics appear and that this hypothetical intravert
will get entangled in technical debate intertwined with other
unwelcome stuff. Meanwhile, the extravert gets an audience to work.
EN> Putting people first is the primary idiocy that we must to
EN> overcome to achieve a technical forum, indeed any technical
EN> progress at all.
"Putting people first" are your words for your interpretation of what
has been said. My interpretation of what has been said is that your
emotional outbursts sometimes get in the way of a technical forum, and
that your tactics don't in fact drive off this kind of "idiocy" in any
robust way. In fact, there's evidence to suggest these tactics keep it going.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3184874014958360@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| In fact, there's evidence to suggest these tactics keep it going.
Are you trying to help in any way, or did I understand you?
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
EN> Are you trying to help in any way, or did I understand you?
This presupposes a pre-existing and universally agreed on meaning to
the word "help", a "court of competent jurisdiction" in which to
have concluded that I am in fact being not being helpful, and, further, a
requirement of participation in this group to be that one be helpful.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3184890617945702@naggum.net>
* Erik Naggum
| Are you trying to help in any way, or did I understand you?
* Marcus G. Daniels
| This presupposes a pre-existing and universally agreed on meaning to
| the word "help", a "court of competent jurisdiction" in which to
| have concluded that I am in fact being not being helpful, and, further, a
| requirement of participation in this group to be that one be helpful.
Not at all, Marcus G. Doofus, it "presupposes" that you wouldn't be of
any help even if you knew how, unless you were seriously misunderstood.
Get a grip, dude. You're the one who's laughing all the time. Laugh!
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
EN> You're the one who's laughing all the time. Laugh!
Well, I'll have to check back now and again to see if you're making
any progress. In small doses, I must admit the whole spectacle is
kind of funny.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185125304004508@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| Well, I'll have to check back now and again to see if you're making
| any progress. In small doses, I must admit the whole spectacle is
| kind of funny.
Good! That's even progress on your pathological part, because you're
beginning to understand _your_ role in "the whole spectacle". Or so I
presume, but I've been known to be easily disappointed because I tend
to think that people are a lot more _conscious_ than some ridiculously
pompous nincompoops have been known to be. Let me know whether to
adjust my expectations so I can't be disappointed with you. I'll try
and stay above "good dog!" if you fail to drool while laughing, though.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
EN> I've been known to be easily disappointed because I tend to think
EN> that people are a lot more _conscious_ than some ridiculously
EN> pompous nincompoops have been known to be.
It's iffy using models of inaccessible state based on infrequent observables...
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185181412459703@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| It's iffy using models of inaccessible state based on infrequent observables...
Are you saying that the more infrequent your pathetic "contributions"
to this forum, the better? If so, that's the first non-stupid thing
you've come up with so far. Good boy! (Don't drool, now!)
Now, let's see if you just _have_ to answer with another stupid grin
and no discernible contents whatsoever. Slap your head, again, but
do me a favor and try to hit it this time, will you.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
MD> It's iffy using models of inaccessible state based on infrequent
MD> observables...
EN> Now, let's see if you just _have_ to answer with another stupid grin
EN> and no discernible contents whatsoever.
EN> Are you saying that the more infrequent your pathetic "contributions"
EN> to this forum, the better?
I'm saying that modeling is a fine thing, but that one needs to be
able to validate modeling with data. You have a long pattern of
interpreting beyond the provided data. In response to criticism, you
construct silly stories about the motivations of others that aren't
grounded in anything but a few observables, but nonetheless throw them
up in such a way that readers might get the impression you have more
data than you do.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185230385285854@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| I'm saying that modeling is a fine thing, but that one needs to be
| able to validate modeling with data. You have a long pattern of
| interpreting beyond the provided data. In response to criticism, you
| construct silly stories about the motivations of others that aren't
| grounded in anything but a few observables, but nonetheless throw them
| up in such a way that readers might get the impression you have more
| data than you do.
Thanks for supplying me with more data on your need to keep posting
more and more of your usual drivel, and thank you especially for not
going to any length at all to falsify my conclucions about your needs.
I find it downright amazing that you, of all possible people, think
you have the ability, much less the data, to conclude what you do.
You have never, _ever_ managed to remember anything I do except that
which, for some psychological reason I hope never to understand, you
have to ridicule and destroy. You seem to think that collecting data
is enough, but if you can't even _remember_ counter-information that
obliterates the conclusions supposedly supported by your "data", what
good does it do you to collect anything at all? It only shows what
kind of personality _you_ have, living in a fantasy world where you
have the "option" to remove data that doesn't fit your prejudices.
Instead of saying that you have not posted something intelligent and
on-topic to comp.lang.lisp in the past several years, which you will
dispute without evidence, I'll just challenge you to provide the data
that shows that you have done something other than post followups to
my articles with your typical snide remarks and snotty "humor". I'll
be happy to accept that you have posted one or two articles with some
real contents, out of hundreds consisting only of condescending shit.
Having to deal with leaking latrines like you is what makes this forum
uncomfortable at times. Most of the idiots leave or improve -- you
stink like a bum who thinks it's somebody else's fault he won't change
his clothes. You have to prove to everybody what a shit you are and
that you have no intention whatsoever of posting anything that doesn't
reek of ridicule and condescension and disrespect for people. I'm
quite content that you keep proving this, but it doesn't have a place
in a newsgroup. It has a place in a confidential conversation between
you and somebody who cares about you, probably because you pay them to.
You seem to know what you are doing and doing it on purpose, however,
and that's why it is important to expose you. I appreciate your
efforts to "help" me in this endeavor, of course. Just keep the data
flowing in with more of your idiotic, contentless, vapid comments!
Incientally, modeling _your_ behavior is the easiest thing there is.
You are _much_ more predictable than the world around you, and that is
not a good sign. And there's no doubt about that sufficiency of the
data on your behavior, either. It would be impossible not to conclude
that you are condescending, disrespectful asshole from the data you
have provided so lavishly over the years. Maybe that's what you want
to be and think is the best you can do, and therefore will be happy
that I have identified you as just that, but somehow, I don't think
so. I still think you might want to consider yourself intelligent and
at least somewhat constructive, but as I said, I have a bad habit of
being disappointed with people because I keep thinking they ought to
have some potential to think and be conscious of what they do and how
they affect other people. But some people don't have any potential
left, and they usually turn to condescension and ridicule of others so
it shall be hard to detect where they really stand themselves. I keep
saying "do better1" to people, but I hope you don't do better, because
you will only become a worse human being if you do.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
EN> You seem to think that collecting data is enough, but if you can't
EN> even _remember_ counter-information that obliterates the
EN> conclusions supposedly supported by your "data", what good does it
EN> do you to collect anything at all?
Sure, I'd quote you, and I have in the past. Unfortunately, when
people do that you just attack them for being so small-minded that
they need to be literal. Of course, quoting misses the the `big
picture' of your insights and is inadequate for capturing your subtle
sensitivity to context that can never be captured in some mere literal way.
EN> I'll just challenge you to provide the data that shows that you
EN> have done something other than post followups to my articles
It was never my claim that I was participating on comp.lang.lisp and
you were not. My claim is that you take it upon yourself to satisfy
the predicate below (by being abusive), and that doing so biases
comp.lang.lisp toward your values and beliefs, and doesn't actually
accomplish the goal (arrogant as it is).
EN> Most of the idiots leave or improve
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185293349258607@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| Unfortunately, when people do that you just attack them for being so
| small-minded that they need to be literal.
Good, we're beginning to enter "attack through generalization" space,
and this just after you stupidly attacked me for just what you think
is a very good idea when you do it. I'm frankly amazed. I thought
you were smarter than to walk into the traps you keep setting for me.
| Of course, quoting misses the the `big picture' of your insights and
| is inadequate for capturing your subtle sensitivity to context that
| can never be captured in some mere literal way.
Well, in line with your stated and preferred approach, what can I say
but "always the snide remark from Marcus". Try _breathing_ between
your snide remarks, Marcus -- you're running on recycled exhaust.
| It was never my claim that I was participating on comp.lang.lisp and
| you were not.
Very true, you think and behave like the outsider who thinks he does
not influence and participate in that to which he is in fact _not_ an
outsider. The fact that you _keep_ posting your peculiar kind of
never-ending snide remarks and condescending, disrespectful idiocy,
apparently _unable_ to do anything else in a public forum, is among
the causes of hostility and negativity here. You can improve (read:
quit the moron act) and the forum will improve, too. The time may
come when you realize this (and I do _not_ want to be there when it
happens). On the other hand, it has been said that most people would
rather die than think, and many do, so I'm beginning to believe that
there is nothing in you whatsoever except a generator of snide remarks
and hostility, negativity, and destruction. You have never, ever
managed to do anything else towards me and that puts you in a class of
perhaps a dozen people, worldwide. Very few people are so emotionally
prejudiced and, frankly, _sick_, that they block their ability to
think for so long as you have done. I have suggested in various
subtle and not so subtle wayts that you just snap out of it for years
and years, but nothing ever happens. You'll just shut up for a while
and then you come back with some rehashed snide remark, which any lab
rat in maze would have known doesn't _work_. So that must be how you
prefer to deal with the world so much that whether you succeed or not
is completely immaterial to you. The fact is: you go away for a while
and I stay. 95% of the people I have been harsh to over the years
have cleaned up their act and some have even become close friends,
especially those who figure out that if you want to influence me, you
do it through competence and intelligence, not Marcus G. Danielsisms.
Sorry for being soft on you tonight. My cat has been hospitalized.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
EN> The fact is: you go away for a while and I stay.
Those are indeed the facts.
From: ······@honolulu.ilog.fr
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <91636h$1lj$1@honolulu.ilog.fr>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Sorry for being soft on you tonight. My cat has been hospitalized.
Now that's funny! Your cat has been brought to the neurology ward,
whereas you are still posting to comp.lang.lisp!
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185653187304871@naggum.net>
* ······@honolulu.ilog.fr
| Now that's funny! Your cat has been brought to the neurology ward,
| whereas you are still posting to comp.lang.lisp!
And we welcome Bruno Haible to the show! Please feel free to chip in
with your special contributions any time you like, old friend.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
On 12 Dec 2000 23:39:47 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> And we welcome Bruno Haible to the show! Please feel free to chip in
> with your special contributions any time you like, old friend.
Sure....
Still mentally challenged , Eric ?
Let us pass the hat around to pay for Eric's psychotherapy .
On 12 Dec 2000 21:52:33 +0100, ······@honolulu.ilog.fr wrote:
>Erik Naggum wrote:
>
>> Sorry for being soft on you tonight. My cat has been hospitalized.
>Now that's funny! Your cat has been brought to the neurology ward,
>whereas you are still posting to comp.lang.lisp!
Nah !
Eric is in the neurology ward.
His cat is posting for him.
"israel raj thomas" <·······@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
·······································@4ax.com...
> On 12 Dec 2000 21:52:33 +0100, ······@honolulu.ilog.fr wrote:
>
> >Erik Naggum wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry for being soft on you tonight. My cat has been hospitalized.
>
> >Now that's funny! Your cat has been brought to the neurology ward,
> >whereas you are still posting to comp.lang.lisp!
>
> Nah !
> Eric is in the neurology ward.
> His cat is posting for him.
As much as I detest Erik's behavior, I think all these childish and
malicious potshots are uncalled for, inappropriate and complete devoid of
any constructive contribution whatsoever.
Don't you think this has gone far enough? It just as polluting as what you
are attacking (and it is no longer "what" it is "who").
Please stop.
Coby
From: ·········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <90r2nv$nkd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <················@naggum.net>,
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>
> My _actually_ expressed motive, not the Coby Beck rewrite, is to
drive
> _stupidity_ out and make it so painful to act stupidly that people
> stop being stupid.
This is without question the stupidest thing ever posted to this
newsgroup.
If you were honest about your goals you would stop posting immediately.
[anyone care to guess the predictable stupid response that Erik will
write in response? We should have "match Erik's stupidity" contest
and everyone can join in (except Erik, who is of course disqualified).
Maybe if we had such a contest Erik would realize just how stupid
his own messages are.]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>, ·········@my-deja.com wrote:
>This is without question the stupidest thing ever posted to this
>newsgroup.
You provide no rationale as to why you believe this.
>If you were honest about your goals you would stop posting immediately.
Again, you provide no rationale whatsoever to back your claim up.
I don't think you're really listening to Erik; if you were paying
attention to what he is saying and thinking about it rather than writing
knee-jerk responses, you'd be much better off.
--
</nathan> ·······@rose-hulman.edu | http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~froydnj/
Yes, God had a deadline. So He wrote it all in Lisp.
From: ·········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <912qhj$blf$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Erik's reasoning is the same as that of wife beaters and child abusers.
Put simply it is "I'm going to pound some sense into him/her."
Lacking the ability to giving a convincing argument, Erik just pounds
away at someone using verbal violence until they get tired of trying to
respond rationally and give up. Erik considers this a victory just like
a wife abuser considers it a victory when his spouse retreats in fear.
The newgroup is unmoderated so there is nothing we can do can stop Erik
from ranting on this newsgroup but we should not condone it. The next
time Erik goes off on someone asking a simple question people should
post messages asking Erik to grow up and act like an adult. Of course
the first person to post such a message will get blasted, but if enough
people post Erik _might_ get the idea that he's at fault and he _might_
learn something.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
·········@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Erik's reasoning is the same as that of wife beaters and child abusers.
>
> Put simply it is "I'm going to pound some sense into him/her."
Would it be safe for me to conclude that you've never
had dealings with either battered wives or abused children?
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185548514170766@naggum.net>
* ·········@my-deja.com
| Erik's reasoning is the same as that of wife beaters and child abusers.
Why do you think it is smart to say so much about your personality,
and your inability to separate scary fantasies from fact? Don't you
have _any_ understanding of what people who read this shit will think
about _you_? Or is that why you post from an essentially anonymous
account?
I wonder, though: Have you, too, been deeply personally impressed, as
in: deeply emotionally disturbed and agitated, by Marcus G. Daniels'
rhetoric and now think I'm fair game for any sort of completely insane
accusation and that you are free of all responsibility for your own
unspeakably bad actions?
And to what depths _do_ you guys sink when you lose control and feel
justified in attacking people? I have done _nothing_ bad, _ever_,
compared to what you people do towards me! The sheer insanity of the
fucking _lynch_mobs_ that you guys form to gang up on me shows that
criminally insane stalkers like Marcus G. Daniels and his ilk are the
ones who _really_ create a hostile environment here where disrespect
for people is the core undertone. This is the kind of newsgroup that
Marcus G. Daniels wants.
| The newgroup is unmoderated so there is nothing we can do can stop
| Erik from ranting on this newsgroup but we should not condone it.
Should we condone _your_ rants? Please be _honest_ when you answer.
I think this newsgroup has a choice. Either the Marcus G. Daniels
asylum/fan club takes over and we have people like this lunatic post
accusations from his perverse fantasy world against any and everybody
without any possible clue what he's talking about, or I'm right: The
Marcus G. Daniels asylum/fan club needs to be driven out for good.
What do I "learn" from this? I learn that some people are insane and
go completely nuts when _they_ find something they don't like. They
attack without warning, which is what the Marcus G. Daniels fan club
wants to _portray_ me as doing so these nutcrackers feel justified in
doing the same. There is nothing I can possibly _do_ that would make
these lunatics stop what they are doing and go away. People like
Marcus G. Daniels needs to go away, because he and his ilk are driving
the nutballs up the wall and encouraging them to do what they do. By
posting so much disrespectful bile that other vermin who have the same
inclination as him to stop thinking of other people as _people_ can
attack me in ways that no person who has any conscience at all ever
could.
This is _your_ world, Marcus G. Daniels. A world where people who
disrespect _people_ roam the streets and beat people up. Are you
happy, now? Does your disrespect for me go so far that you condone
your disciples? Are you happy with your own anti-Naggum "cult" of
supporting lunatics? What exactly does it take for you to realize
what _you_ do to this forum?
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
> The sheer insanity of the
> fucking _lynch_mobs_ that you guys form to gang up on me shows that
> criminally insane stalkers like Marcus G. Daniels and his ilk are the
> ones who _really_ create a hostile environment here where disrespect
> for people is the core undertone.
Take your medicine, Eric.
·········@my-deja.com writes:
> Erik's reasoning is the same as that of wife beaters and child abusers.
Appealing to this kind metaphor in this context trivializes the notion
of what such abuse is. Don't do it.
> Put simply it is "I'm going to pound some sense into him/her."
As I see it, you've done nothing very differently through your post.
> Lacking the ability to giving a convincing argument,
This is a subjective analysis. Although I don't read every message he
writes, I generally find Erik's arguments quite credible in most
cases. I don't enjoy some of his language, nor some of his atttitudes
toward some posters, but the mere fact of his use of certain words
don't cause me to think him any different than people who get angry
and use more reserved language to express it.
> Erik just pounds away at someone using verbal violence
> until they get tired of trying to respond rationally and give up.
I don't see any material difference between what Erik is accused of
and how the accusers on this thread are proceeding. They are just
pounding away also, hoping he'll get tired, because they are unable to
advance an argument that convinces him to behave otherwise, if indeed
the "problem" is correctly characterized by the simple need for him to
be convinced, which I doubt. Behavior like that which bothers you is
often not the result of conscious choice, and hence is often more
invisible to the person doing it than you probably imagine.
> Erik considers this a victory just like
> a wife abuser considers it a victory when his spouse retreats in fear.
Will you consider it a victory if he retreats here? How is that
different? You have chosen to fight fire with fire. How does this
prove a moral point?
Since he will almost certainly not caused him to retreat, and since
you probably knew (or should have known) that he would not, why are
you wasting space on this newsgroup with this kind of talk?
> The newgroup is unmoderated so there is nothing we can do can stop Erik
> from ranting on this newsgroup but we should not condone it.
Failing to use newsgroup bandwith about this is not "condoning" it.
Numerous avenues are available to you which do not involve the newsgroup:
- Send him private e-mail registering your opinion.
- Watch for affected people, and advise them to ignore Erik's ire
in cases that you find it unwarranted.
- Ignore Erik.
- Boycott the newsgroup, hoping someone will care.
(I do this periodically on issues that matter to me, though
people seem to do little more than send me mail saying they wish
I would return. It never seems to result, as I might naively expect,
in people complaining to the party that drove me away. Your mileage
might vary, though.)
> The next
> time Erik goes off on someone asking a simple question people should
> post messages asking Erik to grow up and act like an adult.
No. Someone might should post or e-mail to the party in question identifying
the option to ignore Erik. But everyone sending hate mail here will just
make this a newsgroup filled with hate mail.
> Of course
> the first person to post such a message will get blasted, but if enough
> people post Erik _might_ get the idea that he's at fault and he _might_
> learn something.
And if he doesn't? What might he learn? That he is driving people away?
He has said he thinks he's doing it righteously. Who is to be the judge
of that.
Will you, upon learning that I'm taking a vacation from this newsgroup
to protest your protest, have learned that you have also caused
damage through your actions, or will you, like him, just decide it's ok
for you to have had the ill effect you had because you think you are acting
righteously? And who will be the judge?
This is a free speech forum.
See http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/usenet-freedom.html
Silence here does not give consent. Consent, such as it is, is given
by virtue of your acceptance of the (non)rules of the forum
itself, since no poster can be denied. This is exactly in order to
assure that the conversational style doesn't sink to the least common
denominator. If everyone who disagreed with any given poster's morals
spoke out, there would be nothing but the sound of the offended drowning
out all else. This forum, by its nature, calls for the offended to
learn tools (such as killfiles) to protect themselves. This forum is,
by its nature, not for the weak hearted.
I don't think it's the case with Erik, by the way, but in most cases I've
seen, getting beaten up by a mass of people is what the offending person
wants anyway. It gives them sense of attention and a consequent sense
of power and only feeds the cycle. Being ignored is much more effective.
But I don't think that dynamic is in play here.
It is too bad that Erik offends people. I wish he wouldn't.
It is too bad that you offend people by wasting public time on what
you have no power to change. I wish you wouldn't, too.
AND it is also too bad that I have probably offended others by behaving
hypocritically and compounding what I believe to be your mistake.
Rather than engage in further discussion of this, I'm going to just
do what I promised before I would do if this thread continued, and
opt out of this newsgroup for the rest of the calendar year, or until
the anti-Erik threads all subside, in the unlikely event that happens
first. (Then again, if it doesn't happen first, I don't promise to
return next year. I'd just get dragged back into it and I woldn't
like myself for it.)
I sometimes enjoy posting here, so this is part penalty to me. I
sometimes do not enjoy it, and you are causing such a situation, so in
that regard this is part vacation. It's a definite gray area.
I'm mostly just dismayed that you sucked me into responding yet again,
since I know better than to realistically think my words will have
been effectual, I apologize to the community for having wasted further
bandwidth on this topic. I hope that no one will waste further words
about me in similar kind, whether to applaud me or to chastise me.
This newsgroup should be about Lisp, not about the public berating of
individual posters. Such communication, if it needs to be done at
all, can take place over e-mail where it doesn't pollute the archives
and everyone's newsreading experience.
Oh, and since I don't imagine at this point that I'll be posting again
before then--Merry Christmas to all! See you next year.
--Kent
JF> Erik's reasoning is the same as that of wife beaters and child abusers.
KP> Appealing to this kind metaphor in this context trivializes the notion
KP> of what such abuse is. Don't do it.
Let's encourage Erik to stop it as well, then:
EN> It has always been inordinately simple and straight-forward to stop my
EN> criticism, but it amazes me that the moron terrorists do not grasp it.
KP> Failing to use newsgroup bandwith about this is not "condoning" it.
KP> Numerous avenues are available to you which do not involve the newsgroup:
KP> - Send him private e-mail registering your opinion.
We've seen how he responds to that. With a single e-mail, you'll get
"stop harassing me, I'll call the police" or he'll use it as something
indefinite and inaccessible to exaggerate about, as in the most recent case.
KP> Behavior like that which bothers you is often not the result of
KP> conscious choice, and hence is often more invisible to the person
KP> doing it than you probably imagine.
Then it is all the more important to point-out the objectionable behavior --
to make it visible.
JF> Of course the first person to post such a message will get
JF> blasted, but if enough people post Erik _might_ get the idea that
JF> he's at fault and he _might_ learn something.
KP> And if he doesn't? What might he learn? That he is driving people away?
KP> He has said he thinks he's doing it righteously.
It is easy to keep thinking that, so long as a cost is not exposed to him.
KP> Who is to be the judge of that.
Anyone that wants to step up to bat.
KP> This is a free speech forum.
Yes.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185585602492581@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| We've seen how he responds to that.
Have you, now? And I always respond identically to all kinds of
e-mail, presumably? That's just too fucking nuts to believe, but it
probably serves your personal need to work up the hostility here.
| With a single e-mail, you'll get "stop harassing me, I'll call the
| police" or he'll use it as something indefinite and inaccessible to
| exaggerate about, as in the most recent case.
Excuse me? What the fuck are you lying about, now?
| Then it is all the more important to point-out the objectionable
| behavior -- to make it visible.
It doesn't work on you, who keep posting ever increasing amounts of
destructiveness. Just show us that it works on you first, and you
might gain what is called "credibility". (Look it up.)
| It is easy to keep thinking that, so long as a cost is not exposed to him.
Yeah, you would know, as you keep thinking you are perfectly in your
right to keep doing what _you_ do, never grasping that you aren't.
Now, show us that you realize what you are doing, and that unknown
concept "credibility" might gain some meaning for you.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
From: ·········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <913ltg$47b$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Thank you for your response and I'll leave some words here for you to
read in case you return to this newsgroup.
Most of us here are professional programmers. We do our job well
because
we've learned the rules that govern programming. This forum is not
a program however, it's a discusion group. What rules should we use
in this forum? To answer that the smart person will seek out the
people who do discussion and debate for a living and ask what rules
they use. These people are the politicians. If you've watched
good political debate you note one thing: all participants are
exceedingly polite. They will use phrases like "the distinguished
representative from Vermont" rather than "the flaming asshole".
By being polite to eachother they remove the emotion and leave
only the logic to their arguments. This allows information to
transferred, compromises to be made and no one's pride is damaged.
If we were to use this technique here then we too would get more
information transferred and could have long debates with no one
feeling offended or fearful of putting in their two cents.
Erik has stated that this is not how he plans on operating. Anyone
who says something stupid (i.e. who disagrees with Erik) will get
flamed so as to fry the stupidity out of them (i.e. until they
agree with Erik or leave the newsgroup). This is not conducive
to having any kind of discussion.
My point is that we should let Erik know that we don't appreciate
his behavior when he follows through on his scorched newgroup plan.
Email privately to Erik isn't going to help, nor will flaming
Erik back. Instead just politely tell him that you would appreciate
him acting in a more civilized manner. Many people have privately
told me that they appreciate my making this point, but private email
to me isn't going to convince Erik. Everyone has to stand
and be counted.
I would consider a 'victory' being Erik staying with the newsgroup
and his posts arguing using logic rather that personal attacks.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: thi
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <y16r93emrqy.fsf@glug.org>
·········@my-deja.com writes:
> Most of us here are professional programmers. We do our job well
> because we've learned the rules that govern programming. This forum
> is not a program however, it's a discusion group. What rules should
> we use in this forum? To answer that the smart person will seek out
> the people who do discussion and debate for a living and ask what
> rules they use. These people are the politicians.
a smart person might be revolted at this line of reasoning!
thi
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185585231203869@naggum.net>
* ·········@my-deja.com
| Erik has stated that this is not how he plans on operating.
If you want to claim that I have _stated_ something, you're obliged to
make sure that you do not put your own words and intentions in my
mouth, if politeness and rules of order mean anything to you at all,
and isn't just lip service. If you stick to what you understand, it
can be corrected if wrong, because you are still responsible for what
you have understood and said. If you make it look like I'm saying
something, you write off your own responsibility for any mistakes and
implicity if not explicitly blame me for what you feel, which is wrong
of you, and you ought to know this before you post, so I _will_ infer
malicious intent on your part as if you were fully concious of your
choice of actions. That is why I arrest people who do stupid things,
too: Only by treating people as if they were conscious of their
actions and choices can you expect them to respond responsibly.
Sadly, some people are virtually unconscious and have no introspective
ability at all, and do not respond if other people take them seriously.
Your debate specialists know this. It is a severe transgression to
misrepresent your opponent. In circles where paying attention to what
people say is the norm (i.e., _not_ a forum where nutballs respond in
knee-jerk manners to their own fears and prejudices), it is strongly
self-discrediting to get caught lying about your opponent's position.
Politeness is not just nice words, like many fools believe. Rudeness
starts with disrespect for people, not with harsh words.
| Anyone who says something stupid (i.e. who disagrees with Erik) will
| get flamed so as to fry the stupidity out of them (i.e. until they
| agree with Erik or leave the newsgroup).
This "summary" is a figment of your imagination that does not even
attempt to capture what I have actually said. _You_ want to see a
flame-fest, and you ask for a flame-fest with your behavior and your
sorry inability to distinguish stupidity from such a fantastically
stupid thing as "disgreement". Agreement has nothing to do with it.
In any forum worth joining, people do not _agree_ on much anything if
you push them. That is why there are so many complex rules of
(parliamentary) order and why procedure is important in legal matters.
The stupid idea that agreement is a goal is shared by the critics who
can't be bothered to read what I write before they attack me, like you.
I don't know what causes people of obviously severely limited skills
at argumentation to think that the issue is agreement, but something
in the school system is probably at fault for never educating the
public about logic sufficiently that they can distinguish validity of
reasoning from the contents of arguments. Stupidity is about the
failure to reason. Agreement is about matching contents. Any fucking
moron can _agree_ with anything, and they do, too. Not everybody can
reason and argue coherently and constructively and in a way that is
not stupid. That's why we have a _representative_ democracy.
| This is not conducive to having any kind of discussion.
Listening to what people actually write and avoiding misrepresentation
of their points of view would be quite conducive, though, but you do
not seem to bother much about such things, so you will of necessity
offend those who care about whether they are misrepresented by you.
Maybe you simply have something very important to learn before you can
begin to teach qanyone?
| My point is that we should let Erik know that we don't appreciate
| his behavior when he follows through on his scorched newgroup plan.
Let me know when you have managed to properly identify what you do not
like. As long as you are materially wrong in what you attack me for,
you are the one that should back up and rethink your position, not me.
If you hit the nail on the head and actually manage to be honest about
how _you_ understand something and do not claim somebody else _states_
what they do not in fact state, you might be able to _communicate_.
| Email privately to Erik isn't going to help ...
And how the fuck do you know that? You have made up your mind about
something you have no possible evidence to support. That kind of
_idiocy_ is what I primarily attack. _That_ is the stupidity that I
want to drive out of this and every other forum, and I do _not_
tolerate it in real life, either, but most people figure it out when
they get negative feedback from something other than their computer.
| Instead just politely tell him that you would appreciate him acting in
| a more civilized manner.
Yeah, but why didn't you _try_ that first? Some introspection into
why _you_ chose to attack me and post vile shit about me might be a
lot more interesting, because any goddamn moron can mouth rehashed
advice that nobody follows, anyway. The interesting part is why you
didn't. I'll treat you nice when you follow your own goddamn advice.
As long as you only want others to follow your advice, it means you
think your advice sucks, and everybody recognizes that immediately.
| Many people have privately told me that they appreciate my making this
| point, but private email to me isn't going to convince Erik. Everyone
| has to stand and be counted.
Everybody can claim to have received supportive mail. It is therefore
utterly inadmissible as evidence, even diminishing your argument. If
you were honest, you would know this and not make stupid mistakes like
making unverifiable claims.
I don't know about you, but I'm not convinced by the number of people
who agree to something. Agreement is completely irrelevant to truth.
People's minds are changed by TV commercials, for crying out loud, and
people agree in large numbers to all kinds of obviously false stupidity.
| I would consider a 'victory' being Erik staying with the newsgroup and
| his posts arguing using logic rather that personal attacks.
Then motivate me to do so, you piece of shit: Don't post lies about
me, don't attack me, and don't fucking spend the newsgroup talking
about me. As long as you nutballs lie about me and post your stupidly
unwarranted assumptions about me as if they were soundly supported
facts, I will continue to think and say that you are pests and should
shut up. You have _nothing_ to tell me if you can't pull _yourself_
together first. Take the whole Marcus G. Daniels fucking fan club
with you and realize that _you_ have some cleaning up to do before you
can utter the slightest little peep about what other people should do.
You want me to be polite a bunch of leaking douchebags and unwiped
assholes who go out of their way to hurt, terrorize, lie, disrespect,
and misrepresent me. Show me that you can be polite and even kind to
me first, or your stupid advice is nothing more than an insult. Shrug
off the abuse which you rightly recognize that you _deserve_, and turn
the other fucking cheek. If _you_ can't do it, don't expect me to sit
and take your insanely unfair attacks on me, either.
Here's a fucking clue for you and the other retards who gang up on me:
Think of something that is likely to _reduce_ my hostility to what you
disgusting morons keep doing. The more you keep attacking me, the
more I have a _right_ to see attacking people on newsgroups as a
perfectly valid means of communicating dislike of something. You can
do something _else_ if you want me to "learn" something. How obvious
can this be, huh? The only but _big_ difference is that I don't like
your behavior and you don't like me, and while it matters to me that
people change their behavior, you keep attacking me no matter what I
do or don't, because you attack me for something you _imagine_ I do
but _don't_, and you're too fucking _stupid_ to figure out that if you
attack people for something they don't do, they will _never_ listen to
you, because you are actually just a ranting lunatic who has lost
touch with reality. (Now, some people close their mind to any and all
criticism that doesn't come with a spoonful of sugar for every drop of
vinegar and don't listen anyway, but they are also the problem here.
Everybody else, the remaining 19 out of 20 people I have suggested do
something else, in small or big terms, recognize that listening to
other people is a good idea.) Let's see you punks do it, let's see
you calm down while you feel "provoked" and justified to return with
violence, and _you_ start being polite and nice, OK? If you can't do
it, don't ever expect anyone else to do what you can't for the rest of
your miserably hypocritical lives. Let me see an apology from you.
What the fuck had I done to _you_ before you attacked me? Explain
that to yourself and _think_ about what it means to have somebody you
have never seen in your entire life come up to you and start to beat
you senseless. Wife beater and child abuser, huh? Do you _realize_
what kind of person you are and what you have done, you piece of shit?
It's time for you to wake up and smell the fucking coffee! _You_ are
the destructive force, here. Go away, die, whatever, just get lost.
Man, I really thought I wouldn't ever feel hatred toward anyone, but I
tell you, if I could get hold of Marcus G. Daniels and you tonight and
wring your sorry necks and shove you through a meat-grinder to destroy
every remaining human appearance of the biological waste you are right
now, I probably would. Consider yourself "lucky" to have succeeded in
something I haven't felt for over 30 years. So, now, turn the other
fucking cheek, you disgusting shit! Apologize for the wife beater and
child abuser accusations and do it respectfully, politely, and mean
it, with an absolute absence of Marcus G. Danielisms, OK? NOW!
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3A39B8EF.AF287B93@fisec.com>
·········@my-deja.com wrote:
> My point is that we should let Erik know that we don't appreciate
> his behavior when he follows through on his scorched newgroup plan.
There's no "we" on a newsgroup, no vote, no majority and no
decision-making. Set up a web site, publish its URL once and collect
votes, to give this movement a chance of credibility.
> Email privately to Erik isn't going to help, nor will flaming
> Erik back. Instead just politely tell him that you would appreciate
> him acting in a more civilized manner.
You don't need c.l.l. for this. Set up a site or a mailing list, and
mail Erik if that's what the popular vote mandates.
> Many people have privately
> told me that they appreciate my making this point, but private email
> to me isn't going to convince Erik.
Brilliant conclusion. Do _something_ about what you value. Not on
c.l.l., because you want to convince _Erik_, not your Special Interest
Group (members are convinced already) or the rest of c.l.l. who are not
members of the group because they don't want to discuss what your SIG
does. Set up a web page for outsiders and people divided on the issue
with sections like Free Tour, Membership Advantages and Why You Should
Be Concerned About Erik. There could also be a MyManners portal
allowing members to assemble their profile on their stand on certain
values.
> Everyone has to stand and be counted.
Good plan. You can stand up and be counted outside c.l.l., on a
dedicated forum where it is on-topic.
You and the people you refer to should be
- creative about internet use
-> set up your _web_site_ where people can vote on issues you are
obviously interested in, like whether Erik should change
-> alternatively, create a private mailing list, announce how to
subscribe, discuss issues there, and publish findings somewhere
=> both these require more time and investment than throwing a
mudball or a "manners request", but how do you want to convince
others if you don't think it is worth a web site or list?
- a lot more considerate of _others'_ time, values and interests
-> this is a technical NG, not one on manners
-> don't bring about a denial of service attack on c.l.l., which
your proposal amounts to by encouraging bulk off-topic mail
-> don't chase off top contributors like Kent in the name of
righteousness
The problem with the flood of anti-Erik postings is that they are
ineffective (on Erik) and harmful (to the c.l.l. and Lisp communities).
This is so obvious that I have to think that loud critics of Erik's
manners are either honest in their intentions or intelligent and
foresightful about the results they achieve, but not both.
(Here I have to apologize for being repetitive - it is because I don't
doubt the good intentions of most of Erik's so-far-ineffective critics.)
People who cause lossages to c.l.l. aren't excused simply because of
their focus on Erik. Be effective and unite in a SIG - somewhere else!
Give us the option, don't just _talk_!
Robert
From: thi
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <y16elz9nxdu.fsf@glug.org>
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> Or how about: ``Don't try to teach a pig to sing; it only succeeds in
> annoying the pig''?
you forgot the part about "and making you look stupid".
just another pig-pedant, ;->
thi
From: Friedrich Dominicus
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <874s05u58p.fsf@frown.here>
Why make it so difficult. Ask for a comp.lang.lisp.moderated. Be the
moderator and do not posts which do you feel are offensive. Quite easy
isn't it
Friedrich
From: ·········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <91dedt$1kq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
If your child comes to you and says that there is a bully on
the playground who screams and wishes death upon anyone
who disagress with him would you tell child to start a web
page or email list to discuss the problem with the other
affected people? No, you wouldn't. You would tell your child
to have everyone speak out simultaneously against the bully
the next time the bully lashed out. High-tech isn't always
the solution. Sometimes the simplest solution is the best.
>> -> don't chase off top contributors like Kent in the name of
>> righteousnes
Everyone has access to threaded newsreaders these days. The
subject line of the message describes the thread. Everyone
reading this thread knows that the messages in it deal with
the destructive behavior of one particular poster. No one
should read a message in this thread and then turn around
and complain about the content of the messages since in all
messages I've seen in this thread the content matches perfectly
with the subject line.
No one is forced to read every thread in this newsgroup. If the
subject line isn't of interest then skip it. It's that simple.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <nkjlmthfx8i.fsf@tfeb.org>
·········@my-deja.com writes:
> If your child comes to you and says that there is a bully on
> the playground who screams and wishes death upon anyone
> who disagress with him would you tell child to start a web
> page or email list to discuss the problem with the other
> affected people? No, you wouldn't. You would tell your child
> to have everyone speak out simultaneously against the bully
> the next time the bully lashed out. High-tech isn't always
> the solution. Sometimes the simplest solution is the best.
A Seriously stupid analogy. If I had a child who repeatedly insisted
on going somewhere where someone he didn't like lived -- despite
having a huge variety of other places to chose, including the
possibility of magically creating his own place to where he could
invite other people of his choosing -- and as a result was getting
into fights, I'd either explain to him that he shouldn't do this or
perhaps consider that he might be a masochist and need professional
help.
You do not *have to* post to or read c.l.l. If you don't like it then
GO AWAY.
--tim
On 15 Dec 2000 16:46:53 +0000, Tim Bradshaw <···@tfeb.org> wrote:
>·········@my-deja.com writes:
>
>> If your child comes to you and says that there is a bully on
>> the playground [...] You would tell your child
>> to have everyone speak out simultaneously against the bully
>> the next time the bully lashed out. High-tech isn't always
>> the solution. Sometimes the simplest solution is the best.
>
>A Seriously stupid analogy. If I had a child who repeatedly insisted
>on going somewhere where someone he didn't like lived [...]
>I'd either explain to him that he shouldn't do this or
>perhaps consider that he might be a masochist and need professional
>help.
>
>You do not *have to* post to or read c.l.l. If you don't like it then
>GO AWAY.
this is a very effective way to select the audience of comp.lang.lisp.
is this what the majority wants?
my solution was to avoid posting my questions here in order not to be
flamed for my ignorance or for my background.
you bet, I'm not satisfied with this solution.
have a nice new year,
Mario
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3lmsurlmr.fsf@cley.com>
* Mario Frasca wrote:
> my solution was to avoid posting my questions here in order not to be
> flamed for my ignorance or for my background.
If you look at c.l.l over the last couple of months, there's been a
person from Strathclyde University whose posted a whole series of
questions, many of which betray ignorance of Lisp and a non-Lisp
background. Yet the responses have been polite. So it must be
something other than ignorance or background.
--tim
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185889581994038@naggum.net>
* ·········@my-deja.com
| If your child comes to you and says that there is a bully on the
| playground who screams and wishes death upon anyone who disagress with
| him would you tell child to start a web page or email list to discuss
| the problem with the other affected people? No, you wouldn't. You
| would tell your child to have everyone speak out simultaneously
| against the bully the next time the bully lashed out. High-tech isn't
| always the solution. Sometimes the simplest solution is the best.
And sometimes people mature beyond such playground logic.
However, since you think this about disagreement, you're a lost case,
anyway. Once you figure out the irrelevance of agreement to what goes
on in a public forum, you will have matured out of the playground.
| No one should read a message in this thread and then turn around and
| complain about the content of the messages since in all messages I've
| seen in this thread the content matches perfectly with the subject
| line.
Really? How come you did not tell the child above that they should
have known the playground was _owned_ by the bullies? That is, the
comp.lang.lisp lynch mob who uses particular threads to beat people
senseless for _their_ "disagreement" with others over their style.
It seems to me that you actually _condone_ bullyism as long as you
mark the playground with a suitable warning sign. Can I do that, too,
and acquiesce you lynch mobsters, or have you reserved this option to
yourself so the only acceptable bullies are those who beat me up?
| No one is forced to read every thread in this newsgroup. If the
| subject line isn't of interest then skip it. It's that simple.
Yeah, some excellent bully logic there. Nice playground you got for
yourself, guys.
#:Erik
--
The United States of America, soon a Bush league world power. Yeee-haw!
From: Andy Freeman
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <91dnvr$ait$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>,
·········@my-deja.com wrote:
> If your child comes to you and says that there is a bully on
> the playground who screams and wishes death upon anyone
> who disagress with him would you tell child to start a web
> page or email list to discuss the problem with the other
> affected people? No, you wouldn't. You would tell your child
> to have everyone speak out simultaneously against the bully
> the next time the bully lashed out. High-tech isn't always
> the solution. Sometimes the simplest solution is the best.
Even if we swallow the "simple" camel (it isn't all that simple),
the above is not a "solution" to a "bully problem". It is wishful
thinking bordering on either delusion or incredible ignorance in
that situation.
Note also that Naggum isn't a bully, even if, like most bullies
(not to mention the Queen of England) he wears clothes, breathes,
has two legs, uses eating utensils, speaks harshly occasionally,
etc.... This confusion might be forgivable if the solution
were applicable to some Naggum problem, but it doesn't do that
either.
I suppose that it is less fattening than eating a cookie and thus
might be preferable to said eating, but I have yet to come up with
a situation where both it and eating a cookie are competing solutions.
-andy
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: Valeriy E. Ushakov
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <913orv$242g$1@news.spbu.ru>
·········@my-deja.com wrote:
> The next time Erik goes off on someone asking a simple question
This is simply not true. Erik routinely answers simple technical
questions and do it without any RTFM snobbery. And I can't recall a
single case when he flamed anyone for a simple technical question.
A note to newbies. Don't sumbit to this hysteria. Don't be afraid to
post "simple" questions. Just do your home work, show your
willingness to learn and you will get real help from this group (in
fact, from any other forum inhabited with responsible grown up
people).
> people should post messages asking Erik to grow up and act like an
> adult.
*sigh*. This regurgitating anti-Erik hysteria is disgusting. I don't
think that people that continue to attack Erik are no smarter than
Pavlov's dogs and cannot see the obvious cause-effect link between
their behavior and Erik's responses. This leads me to the conclusion
that you feel a need to consciously *provoke* him and then enjoy your
perceived moral superiority. People that post "take your medicine"
shit at least don't hide the childishly provocative nature of their
posts, but your "grow up" rethoric is so lame an attempt to disguise
the provocation.
So who does more damage to this group?
Erik obviously cares about Common Lisp a lot, contribute a lot of
technical expertise and is actually helpful to people that are willing
to learn and do their homework. And in good conscience he protects
this forum so that it could continue to function as a place were
techical discussion and education can be done in a sane and productive
way.
Now you and your ilk crawl out of nowhere and start your old clownery
knowing fully well that Erik will be after you to sanitize this forum.
And when he does - you start your predictable "grow up" and "civilized
people" demagogy. You have already managed to force away Kent Pitman.
Congratulations! Surely you must have fulfilled your stated goal to
make c.l.l. a "better" place, <expletive deleted>.
Some of your ilk make derogatory remarks about "Erik in real life". I
don't know Erik in real life, but let me tell you a story. I was
lucky to be a classmate and a friend of Al Viro, who now works on
Linux filesystem fulltime at Red Hat. There was a stunningly similar
mud-slinging "grow up" campaign against Al on linux-fs (and it was
even featured on Slashdot) with predictable derogatory "Al in real
life" remarks. I do know Al in real life. He's not a "plesant"
person and is not "easy" to get along. But he's absolutely integral
person. He has contributed to Linux a lot, he has a lot to learn from
and he is absolutely intolerant to your ilk and the psychologizing
demagogy you drag into technical discussions. Since I know Al, when I
read Erik's post I can see a real and integral person as well.
So if you need a company of "plesant" people and if you think that
"civility" is when nobody gives a damn about you screwing up and
continue to greet you with stupid hollow smiles - just go find or
found a club where you can vegetate in you "plesant" company of
anencephalic "friends".
Stop destroying c.l.l. with your childish provocations.
SY, Uwe
--
···@ptc.spbu.ru | Zu Grunde kommen
http://www.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/ | Ist zu Grunde gehen
·········@my-deja.com writes:
> Erik's reasoning is the same as that of wife beaters and child
> abusers.
I guess the `wife beaters and child abusers' are easier to find among
people who hide behind deja-accounts.
[snipped insulting and totally idiotic comparison]
> The newgroup is unmoderated so there is nothing we can do can stop
> Erik from ranting on this newsgroup but we should not condone it.
``We''? Who is `we'? Rather, I am wondering all the time how these
stupid and unfair attacks on Erik could be stopped.
> The next time Erik goes off on someone asking a simple question
I don't remember him ever doing that, and I read his postings for
years.
> people should post messages asking Erik to grow up and act like an
> adult. Of course the first person to post such a message will get
> blasted, but if enough people post Erik _might_ get the idea that
> he's at fault and he _might_ learn something.
But of course, the thought that he might be right and you are not did
never occur to you, right?
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
> The newgroup is unmoderated so there is nothing we can do can stop Erik
> from ranting on this newsgroup but we should not condone it. The next
> time Erik goes off on someone asking a simple question people should
> post messages ...
I've removed the poster's name because this is not about him in
particular. Now to my tragic business ...
Are you all really such idiots? If you want to decrease the amount
of "Erik ranting" in this newsgroup, stop replying to his "rants".
Stop prolonging these fights. Stop giving him so much material
to work with. In fact -- can it really be that none of you have
thought of this? -- talk about Lisp instead and watch in amazement
as the fraction of comp.lang.lisp traffic devoted to technical
issues increases.
Jeff Dalton <····@todday.aiai.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> > The newgroup is unmoderated so there is nothing we can do can stop Erik
> > from ranting on this newsgroup but we should not condone it. The next
> > time Erik goes off on someone asking a simple question people should
> > post messages ...
>
> I've removed the poster's name because this is not about him in
> particular. Now to my tragic business ...
>
> Are you all really such idiots? If you want to decrease the amount
> of "Erik ranting" in this newsgroup, stop replying to his "rants".
> Stop prolonging these fights. Stop giving him so much material
> to work with. In fact -- can it really be that none of you have
> thought of this? -- talk about Lisp instead and watch in amazement
> as the fraction of comp.lang.lisp traffic devoted to technical
> issues increases.
Ah, but you are misunderstanding them completely: Increasing the
fraction of c.l.l devoted to technical issues is not at all their
goal, if we judge from both their words and actions. What they
purportedly want to achieve is to stop Erik saying certain things.
Since they have as yet failed to convince Erik of his evil ways[1],
and they dare not physically or technically restrict Erik from posting,
the only way they see they can further their goals is to make it as
painful as possible for Erik (and all other participants on c.l.l) to
continue doing whatever they dislike, by posting "counter rants" and
personal attacks in huge quantities. Of course if you point out to
them that they thereby are to be considered guilty of the "crimes"
they accuse Erik of[2], you will be tagged a member of the Erik Naggum
fan club, whose opinions and views can therefore be safely ignored.
Regs, Pierre.
Footnotes:
[1] Which is unsurprising given the methods they have chosen to
"convince" him.
[2] And worse: Erik can actually claim (without dispute, since his
detractors agree with him on this point) that his actions further
his goals, whereas it seems highly unlikely that their actions
will in any way further their goals. But what the heck, being
"good" isn't about results anyway, it's about "goodthink".
--
Pierre R. Mai <····@acm.org> http://www.pmsf.de/pmai/
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents. -- Nathaniel Borenstein
>>>>> "PM" == Pierre R Mai <····@acm.org> writes:
PM> the only way they see they can further their goals is to make it
PM> as painful as possible for Erik (and all other participants on
PM> c.l.l) to continue doing whatever they dislike
Why do you say "all other participants on c.l.l"? What I see in Gnus
(which I see you also use) is a segregated sorting of two long
threads. One thread is labeled "Re: the naggum-mine claims another
victim" and another long thread labeled "Re: Could CDR-coding be on
the way back?".
···@forager.swarm.org (Marcus G. Daniels) writes:
> >>>>> "PM" == Pierre R Mai <····@acm.org> writes:
>
> PM> the only way they see they can further their goals is to make it
> PM> as painful as possible for Erik (and all other participants on
> PM> c.l.l) to continue doing whatever they dislike
>
> Why do you say "all other participants on c.l.l"? What I see in Gnus
> (which I see you also use) is a segregated sorting of two long
> threads. One thread is labeled "Re: the naggum-mine claims another
> victim" and another long thread labeled "Re: Could CDR-coding be on
> the way back?".
A couple of points:
- If separation into threads is enough to appease me, it should be
enough to appease others: It is perfectly doable to have Erik's
replies be elided, sorted down, or separated in most useful News
clients. Apparently this isn't enough, or Erik's detractors
wouldn't be up in arms about his postings. So why should just
separating stuff be enough to appease anyone else?
- In prior times there was more than just 1 large thread of unrelated
rubish and 2-3 on-topic threads on c.l.l. Though I have
insufficient data to prove it, and many other factors are at work
here, I'm assuming that this is at least in some way related to the
amount of off-topic rubish on c.l.l. I know that I'm far less
inclined to read or post to a group with threads labeled "Re: the
naggum-mine claims another victim": How long 'till it gets to "Re:
Pierre R. Mai: just another member of the naggum-gang", or other
even more abusive stuff? And how are newbies going to feel upon
seeing threads labeled like that? Will this in any way increase the
likelihood they'll stay, and post? I don't think so. Fighting fire
with fire only works when you don't torch the whole forest in the
process.
- We already lost one important contributor to c.l.l for the rest of
the month (and maybe for much longer), at least in part due to the
mud-slinging going on.
In short: I don't think that Erik's detractors are in any way usefully
furthering their stated goals in the way they behave, but I see lots
of damage being done in the process. Since I believe that it's not
intentions that count, but results, I feel compelled to point out the
damage being felt by at least me, lest the detractors are not aware of
it. I think I've now done that to the point that if they don't see or
acknowledge the damage, they won't no matter what I say, and so I'll
remain silent on this topic from here on.
Regs, Pierre.
--
Pierre R. Mai <····@acm.org> http://www.pmsf.de/pmai/
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents. -- Nathaniel Borenstein
"Pierre R. Mai" <····@acm.org> writes:
> In short: I don't think that Erik's detractors are in any way usefully
> furthering their stated goals in the way they behave, but I see lots
> of damage being done in the process.
Exactly; and, as someone else pointed out, their way of putting out a
fire seems to be to pour gasoline on it.
-- jeff
"Jeff Dalton" <····@todday.aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
····················@todday.aiai.ed.ac.uk...
> "Pierre R. Mai" <····@acm.org> writes:
>
> > In short: I don't think that Erik's detractors are in any way usefully
> > furthering their stated goals in the way they behave, but I see lots
> > of damage being done in the process.
>
> Exactly; and, as someone else pointed out, their way of putting out a
> fire seems to be to pour gasoline on it.
After they get burned enough, they'll realize the answer is to simply piss
on it instead. :-)
Seriously, though, while I wish Erik had a rather longer fuse, I have the
utmost respect for his opinions and advice on Lisp in particular and
programming in general, even when I don't completely agree with him. The
flame wars detract from that, and hurt everybody.
Larry
"Pierre R. Mai" <····@acm.org> writes:
> Jeff Dalton <····@todday.aiai.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> > Are you all really such idiots? If you want to decrease the amount
> > of "Erik ranting" in this newsgroup, stop replying to his "rants".
> > Stop prolonging these fights. Stop giving him so much material
> > to work with. In fact -- can it really be that none of you have
> > thought of this? -- talk about Lisp instead and watch in amazement
> > as the fraction of comp.lang.lisp traffic devoted to technical
> > issues increases.
>
> Ah, but you are misunderstanding them completely: Increasing the
> fraction of c.l.l devoted to technical issues is not at all their
> goal, if we judge from both their words and actions. What they
> purportedly want to achieve is to stop Erik saying certain things.
> ...
What I was trying to say was (among other things) that the way to
decrease the amount of ranting from Eric is to stop replying.
("Stop giving him so much material ..." etc) Sorry that wasn't
clearer.
-- jeff
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3186131811739674@naggum.net>
* Jeff Dalton <····@todday.aiai.ed.ac.uk>
| What I was trying to say was (among other things) that the way to
| decrease the amount of ranting from Eric is to stop replying.
| ("Stop giving him so much material ..." etc) Sorry that wasn't
| clearer.
How about not attacking me out of the blue in the first place?
I _resent_ the implication that I'm responsible for the Marcus G. Daniels
fan club and in particular the likes of Israel Thomas. As long as you
guys keep blaming me for other people's vile and reprehensible actions,
_they_ feel free to go on with _their_ behavior, and as long as you give
them reason to think they are _not_ responsible for their own actions,
they will never stop, "ranting" from me or not.
Try _fairness_ for a change, Jeff Dalton. It will seem strange and very
unfamiliar at first, but in the end, it may produce better results.
#:Erik
--
The United States of America, soon a Bush league world power. Yeee-haw!
> I _resent_ the implication that I'm responsible for the Marcus G. Daniels
> fan club and in particular the likes of Israel Thomas. As long as you
> guys keep blaming me for other people's vile and reprehensible actions,
Erik, you are being blamed for YOUR vile and reprehensible actions.
Just a little while ago, you suggested that someone should kill
Marcus.
In most countries you could end up facing court over that.
I suspect that if Marcus took it up with the authorities in Norway,
you would be getting a friendly visit from your ISP.
You are lucky that Marcus appears to have decided to ignore your
decidedly reprehensible statements.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> I _resent_ the implication that I'm responsible for the Marcus G. Daniels
> fan club and in particular the likes of Israel Thomas. ...
Sorry, Erik, that wasn't my intention at all. My point was that if
they really want to accomplish something close to what they say they
want to accomplish, their behaviour should be very different from what
it is.
I also suggested that they should talk about Lisp instead. As an
example of how different a discussion with you can be in such cases,
I offer the following:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
Subject: Re: Allocating on the stack and *only* on the stack
Date: 12 Dec 2000 20:43:16 +0000
Message-ID: <················@naggum.net>
* Knut Arild Erstad
| Actually, this _shouldn't_ be a problem for Java programmers; there
| are no destructors in Java. Unfortunately, a lot of Java programmers
| (even book authors) seem to be using finalizers as destructors.
You're right! I had actually missed that, and have been thinking in
destructor terms myself. Thanks! Goes to show how little I use them.
| Java also has a try/finally clause that works like unwind-protect, but
| of course, you can't use macros to hide the details.
I think the ugliness of such verbose forms deters people from doing
the right thing. Proper handling of exceptional situtations in Java
is also too verbose for my comfort. Maybe I'm just spoiled.
#:Erik
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- jeff
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185292018969919@naggum.net>
* ·········@my-deja.com
| If you were honest about your goals you would stop posting immediately.
Using yourself to understand others seldom produces correct results.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
"Joe Marshall" <···@content-integrity.com> wrote in message
·················@content-integrity.com...
> As in `just'? I can't even see how a question like this makes sense.
>
> I could observe that life in Antarctica is even harsher. Must it be
> so? Is it right?
What a ridiculous sleight of hand.
"Patrick W" <······@my-deja.com> writes:
> "Joe Marshall" <···@content-integrity.com> wrote in message
> ·················@content-integrity.com...
>
> > As in `just'? I can't even see how a question like this makes sense.
> >
> > I could observe that life in Antarctica is even harsher. Must it be
> > so? Is it right?
>
> What a ridiculous sleight of hand.
I wasn't intending to be ridiculous.
So enlighten me: why is my observation ridiculous?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
"Joe Marshall" <···@content-integrity.com> wrote in message
·················@content-integrity.com...
> "Patrick W" <······@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> > "Joe Marshall" <···@content-integrity.com> wrote in message
> > ·················@content-integrity.com...
> >
> > > As in `just'? I can't even see how a question like this makes sense.
> > >
> > > I could observe that life in Antarctica is even harsher. Must it be
> > > so? Is it right?
> >
> > What a ridiculous sleight of hand.
>
> I wasn't intending to be ridiculous.
>
> So enlighten me: why is my observation ridiculous?
Flagellating people who post opinions to usenet is an intentional act. If
you believe it is 'just' / 'right' / 'fair' or even 'necessary' in some
cases, so be it. To argue that it doesn't even make sense to assess a
deliberate act in terms of rightness, fairness or justice is questionable,
but to assert that it's no more liable to such judgements than conditions in
Antartica is ludicrous. Is there really any need for a "because" here ...?
I'd bet my bottom dollar that Naggum himself (to borrow a phrase from a
concurrent thread: "if he's honest") would agree. In fact I'm surprised he
hasn't "enlightened" you already.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3184678506960752@naggum.net>
* "Patrick W" <······@my-deja.com>
| Flagellating people who post opinions to usenet is an intentional act.
I'm glad you see it this way. This must mean that posting idiotic
drivel is also an intentional act, not an accident of nature, nor
something people do out of helplessness or inability to act otherwise.
This is my defense for flagellating people for doing those things when
they clearly _ought_ to have engaged their brain and _thought_ before
they posted.
| I'd bet my bottom dollar that Naggum himself (to borrow a phrase from
| a concurrent thread: "if he's honest") would agree. In fact I'm
| surprised he hasn't "enlightened" you already.
I have argued several times that life is hard and that the mistake we
make in the Western culture is to believe that we are somehow "owed" a
pleasant and simple and safe life. Not so. All of these qualities of
life have to be earned through work and effort. In contrast, many
people go through life with the one goal of avoiding confrontation and
simply avoid holding any opinions that they fear will cause rejection
from their peers in the first place. Such people become _truly_ upset
when they still find themselves engaged in a confrontation because
they are _completely_ helpless in their new position of having pissed
people off _because_ they thought they held non-confrontational views.
(You see this in passive-aggressive responses to criticism.) It gets
especially bad if they think they are entirely in their right to hold
the opinions they do without question from their surroundings, but
this happens mostly to overly religious people who go _postal_ if they
aren't allowed to denounce abortion or homosexuals or recounting votes
or some other "declared evil", such as uppercase letters.
Just recently, I said that the second biggest mistake we make towards
each other is to be too lenient. Just because life can be really easy
when you deal with rational people who make it a point to think about
their positions and their relation to the positions of others, does
not mean that we must assume that others are rational and think about
their positions simply _because_ they want to be nice and kind and all
that. Quite the contrary, in fact, since people seem to confuse
civility with rational positions, you have to be extra careful with
someone who comes across as pleasantly nice and harmless. Swindlers
and con artists are the most agreeable people you find. The more
slick and smooth someone is, the _more_ you should be on the alert.
The same goes for arguments presented without passion. Chances are
they are _intended_ to slither into your memory without being examined.
(The paranoid will now have a field day with the above paragraphs,
which they will think defends the symptoms of their mental illness,
but it doesn't. Being critical and mentally alert is the very
antithesis of being paranoid, which is seeing threats that _aren't_
there. Being able to distinguish between scary fantasies and a scary
reality is hard work, not something you can fake your way through by
being scared of _everything_.)
Nature is harsh and just. People should be more natural. Civility
and peace are great when they are _achieved_, but a threat to all
mankind when they are enforced by someone who wants to stop people
from engaging in healthy confrontation about real differences that
won't go away simple because people don't talk about them.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
From: Marcus G. Daniels
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <908phh$srr$1@reader.nmix.net>
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
EN> Civility and peace are great when they are _achieved_, but a
EN> threat to all mankind when they are enforced by someone who wants
EN> to stop people from engaging in healthy confrontation about real
EN> differences that won't go away simple because people don't talk
EN> about them.
But you haven't made the case that healthy confrontation requires being abusive.
···@forager.swarm.org (Marcus G. Daniels) writes:
> >>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>
> EN> Civility and peace are great when they are _achieved_, but a
> EN> threat to all mankind when they are enforced by someone who wants
> EN> to stop people from engaging in healthy confrontation about real
> EN> differences that won't go away simple because people don't talk
> EN> about them.
I'm afraid I have to concur with Erik on this.
See my http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/usenet-freedom.html
Manners and freedom are, like it or not, enemies of one another.
That's not to say manners aren't sometimes (even often) a good idea,
nor is it to say there aren't messages of Erik's I wish he'd write in
a different tone. But only just to say I see it as more of a slippery
slope than perhaps some others do, and, to mix metaphors, far from a
black and white kind of issue... plenty of grey in there where I think
others are not perceiving it.
> But you haven't made the case that healthy confrontation requires
> being abusive.
This presupposes a pre-existing and universally agreed on meaning to
the word "abusive", a "court of competent jurisdiction" in which to
have concluded that he is in fact being abusive, and, further, a
requirement of participation in this group to be that one not be
abusive.
The burden would seem to me to be on you, not on Erik, to demonstrate
something: that this is an appropriate forum in which to be creating
and imposing all sorts of artificial rules. Usenet certainly does not
seem to me to be designed for that. By explicit design of the usenet
paradigm, your options as a newsgroup reader when you don't like
something are limited to choices you can personally make, not choices
you can force on another. If it's forced manners you want, I would
much rather see an alternate forum created, either a moderated lisp
forum here, or something in some other venue entirely, than I would
like to see usenet become a place of forced manners.
Erik has been asked to be nicer to people. Maybe he should and maybe
he shouldn't. Maybe he even tries, or maybe he doesn't. But whatever
the case, what can be done in this regard has been done. None of this
discussion seems likely to affect further change. It only seems
likely to pollute the newsgroup still further, and to no good end.
I, and probably others, tire of seeing Erik beaten up on just as much
as you may tire of what you perceive as him beating up on others.
Let's just get back to talk of Lisp, shall we? If the answer is no,
Erik's not my first choice to killfile here, nor if this keeps up
will it be he who drove me from this forum.
From: Marcus G. Daniels
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <9091lu$100i$1@reader.nmix.net>
>>>>> "KP" == Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
MD> But you haven't made the case that healthy confrontation requires
MD> being abusive.
KP> This presupposes a pre-existing and universally agreed on meaning
KP> to the word "abusive", a "court of competent jurisdiction" in
KP> which to have concluded that he is in fact being abusive, and,
KP> further, a requirement of participation in this group to be that
KP> one not be abusive.
I'm not suggesting that introducing such a requriement would be
desirable. I'm not suggesting that everyone agrees what "abusive"
means. However, since quite a number of people have reported that his
behavior is in line with their idea of what "abusive" means to them,
and since this discussion comes up over and over again, and since the
discussion usually results in a lot of characteristic name calling, I
think it is reasonable to ask Erik whether this is really such a "healthy"
kind of confrontation.
KP> The burden would seem to me to be on you, not on Erik, to
KP> demonstrate something: that this is an appropriate forum in which
KP> to be creating and imposing all sorts of artificial rules.
Sigh. Where did this notion about creating and imposing rules come from?
How is it any worse to object to Erik repeatedly calling people
idiots and morons than it is for him to do it?
In my view, there is no higher moral ground here. And perhaps if Erik
wants this list to be a certain way and is prepared to pour energy
into it, then, in some sense, it _should_ be that way. It's a
well-known rule of Usenet that there's _always_ someone with more time.
KP> It only seems likely to pollute the newsgroup still further, and
KP> to no good end.
Well, that's probably true. Yet, I do think Erik is behaving like a bully,
and that putting up a bully will come at a cost. Of course,
bullies can get things done, and that can amortize their cost. If that's
the situation with comp.lang.lisp, then so be it.
I think Raffael overstates the case somewhat. comp.lang.lisp is just
one forum for Common Lisp. There are other places to discuss Lisp and
Lisp technology. The CMU CL implementors list has lots of
good content, for example.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3184698436519123@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| Where did this notion about creating and imposing rules come from?
Since forever, in every single article you post whenever you feel it
safe to crawl out of the woodwork to repeat your completely pointless
moralism about others, when you clearly do not understand what you are
saying and how it affects the forum.
I must admit to have a problem with deeply religious and moralistic
Americans. I do not approve of bombing abortion clinics in the name
of "pro-life" views, for instance, but in the minds of a lot of deeply
religious moralistic Americans, it is perfectly acceptable to suspend
_all_ notions of ethics and commit any level of atrocity in order to
"safeguard" some miniscule "good". An ethical framework that does not
even _apply_ when under pressure is worthless, and the kinds of people
who have moralistic qualms about something but who show the world that
they are willing to suspend their ethics in _reacting_ to what they do
not like, are more _destructive_ than any other evil.
There is always a lot of hostility building up whenever some moron
goes postal, but I have yet to find anyone who exudes more _evil_ than
you, Marcus G. Daniels. You do not want to be constructive in any way
at all. You post out of an unmistakable lack of good intentions. It
is all about destroying something bad you don't like, never building
something good you would want to see. _That_ is why comparing you to
abortion-clinic-bombing _lunatics_ is entirely appropriate. From what
you have written in the past several years, you have consistently been
pretending to hold the moral high ground, despite saying the opposite
this time, always ready to _denounce_, never able to _contribute_.
I think the presence of evil like you destroys the forum much more
than the presence of violence if you want to view my actions as that.
There are _very_ few _bad_ people here, but you and Raffael Cavellero
are certainly competing for first place among them. I keep holding
out for the view that bad actions are the results of non-thinking that
is the result of lack of incentives to snap out of the morose coziness
that comes from never being sufficiently challenged to have to think.
Some people commit bad actions with _intent_ to destroy only, and the
more moralistic, the more destructive. That's you, Marcus G. Daniels.
You have of course considered in all relevant depth how healthy your
own contributions are and what it takes to amortize the cost of your
behavior (which has not included positive contributions for very long)
on this newsgroup. I'd prefer if you were honest about your pure and
unadulterated destructiveness and come out and say what you really
think and what you really want. Here's my take on it: You do not
_want_ anything at all, except to destroy something you do _not_ want.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
From: Marcus G. Daniels
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <909chb$14nb$1@reader.nmix.net>
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
EN> you clearly do not understand what you are saying and how it
EN> affects the forum.
Wow, you really do have a very active imagination.
EN> I'd prefer if you were honest about your pure and unadulterated
EN> destructiveness and come out and say what you really think and
EN> what you really want. Here's my take on it: You do not _want_
EN> anything at all, except to destroy something you do _not_ want.
Sure, sounds good...
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3184709905975752@naggum.net>
* Erik Naggum
| you clearly do not understand what you are saying and how it affects
| the forum.
* Marcus G. Daniels
| Wow, you really do have a very active imagination.
Really? So you _do_ understand how what you are doing affects this
forum; is that what you're saying? And you're _still_ doing it? What
sort of "imagination" do you think is necessary to judge your "special
contributions" from these simple premises?
I'm frankly _astonished_ by the sheer arrogance that you command. It
is clear that you have a severe problem respecting _people_ for all
your disgusting moralism and have made up your mind that just about
anything is OK as long as you do it towards me. This is not exactly
imagination on my part.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> I must admit to have a problem with deeply religious and moralistic
> Americans.
C'mon, Erik, this is a cheap shot. Deeply moralistic, undereducated
folks of many faiths and many nationalities justify violence with
self-righteousness. The problem is not unique to the United States.
> I do not approve of bombing abortion clinics in the name
> of "pro-life" views, for instance, but in the minds of a lot of deeply
^ ^^^
> religious moralistic Americans, it is perfectly acceptable to suspend
> _all_ notions of ethics and commit any level of atrocity in order to
> "safeguard" some miniscule "good".
Not true. While I am pro-choice and NOT Christian, I know and go
to church with (for my wife's sake) a lot of pro-life fundamentalist
types. In Nashville, Tennessee, which prides itself on being "the
buckle of the Bible belt." I have not met a single one who condones
bombing abortion clinics (and killing doctors). Be careful about
generalizing based on the few yahoos you see through your local media
source.
Having just returned from three months in Europe, I can acknowledge
the truth of many of the stereotypes of Americans. It's pretty
depressing to be back here in many ways. But this example goes too
far.
Sashank
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3184709147020943@naggum.net>
* ·······@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Sashank)
| C'mon, Erik, this is a cheap shot. Deeply moralistic, undereducated
| folks of many faiths and many nationalities justify violence with
| self-righteousness. The problem is not unique to the United States.
It isn't the violence by the few, it is the acceptance by the many.
What I find truly astonishing is that people who seem to harbor the
kinds of religious fervor towards incivility that some of those nuts
harbor against abortion are equally willing to dispense with ethics
and do just about anything when morally outraged and justified enough.
| Be careful about generalizing based on the few yahoos you see through
| your local media source.
Thanks, but I suggest you also be careful about generalizing from the
unwarranted assumption that people elsewhere in the world do not track
U.S. politics very, very closely. Not only do I work for a news
agency with numerous other news feeds that my system processes, I have
worked with newspapers and the news media basically forever and it's
the only industry I own stock in. E.g., I probably know more about
the most recent U.S. election than 98% of Americans do, which is not a
feat in itself, mind you.
| Having just returned from three months in Europe, I can acknowledge
| the truth of many of the stereotypes of Americans. It's pretty
| depressing to be back here in many ways.
Just be glad you aren't returning from the U.S. to Norway. You don't
even _know_ depressing until you've tried that a few times.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
[snip]
> What I find truly astonishing is that people who seem to harbor the
> kinds of religious fervor towards incivility that some of those nuts
> harbor against abortion are equally willing to dispense with ethics
> and do just about anything when morally outraged and justified enough.
[snip]
the following is, in my opinion, a better example for your purpose:
many conservative christians believe firmly that governmental
restrictions on behavior and speech should be minimal, yet seemingly
abandon this position to promote their religious agendas, e.g., in
seeking to force all children to sit through prayer periods and in
working to replace the teaching of evolution with the teaching of
pseudoscientific creationism in science classes.
[snip]
> Thanks, but I suggest you also be careful about generalizing from the
> unwarranted assumption that people elsewhere in the world do not track
> U.S. politics very, very closely. Not only do I work for a news
> agency with numerous other news feeds that my system processes, I have
> worked with newspapers and the news media basically forever and it's
> the only industry I own stock in.
[snip]
my point was that the media tend to magnify the fringe elements of
the groups they cover in search of compelling sound bites and video
footage. from just what the (US) media portrays the middle east, i
would be forced to conclude most moslems are terrorists or support
terrorism as a means for change. i doubt that's the case. similarly,
while media coverge of conservative american christians paints them
as violence-loving folk, that doesn't square with the reality that
i've experienced. (which is not to say that they're not hypocrites-
when-outraged on other points, such as the non-violent examples i
offered above.)
sashank
From: Marcus G. Daniels
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <909nit$199v$1@reader.nmix.net>
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
EN> You have of course considered in all relevant depth how healthy
EN> your own contributions are and what it takes to amortize the cost
EN> of your behavior (which has not included positive contributions
EN> for very long) on this newsgroup.
Indeed I have. My behavior was to follow-up an thread with content
relevant to the subject line. Readers that are interested in pure
technical content would be ignoring this thread from the beginning.
Thus, I'm effectively invisible to anyone that would find me pointless.
You are different because almost any message could a Naggum Mine
waiting to go off. Hygienic technical questions quickly turn to
controversies and explode with seconds of notice.
That's the objection that comes up about you over and over again.
To conflate the objection with your net positive value, my small
negative or positive net value or any readers' simply isn't relevant to
the claim that your behavior makes reasonable and smart (if
uninitiated) people not want to ask questions and discuss things here.
[Naggum fan club aside.]
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3184839793501859@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| You are different because almost any message could a Naggum Mine
| waiting to go off. Hygienic technical questions quickly turn to
| controversies and explode with seconds of notice.
You are wrong.
| That's the objection that comes up about you over and over again.
No, it's is your mind blowing up over and over again.
| [Naggum fan club aside.]
Oh, Christ! Are you so _disrespectful_ of people that you have to
think in terms of "fan clubs"? I thought you at least _had_ a brain!
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
"Kent M Pitman" <······@world.std.com> wrote in message
····················@world.std.com...
> ···@forager.swarm.org (Marcus G. Daniels) writes:
> > EN> Civility and peace are great when they are _achieved_, but a
> > EN> threat to all mankind when they are enforced by someone who wants
> > EN> to stop people from engaging in healthy confrontation about real
> > EN> differences that won't go away simple because people don't talk
> > EN> about them.
>
> I'm afraid I have to concur with Erik on this.
>
Nice words, indeed.
>
> Manners and freedom are, like it or not, enemies of one another.
No. Manners are about self control, freedom is about control by outside
forces. They are 100% disjoint.
> > But you haven't made the case that healthy confrontation requires
> > being abusive.
>
> This presupposes a pre-existing and universally agreed on meaning to
> the word "abusive", a "court of competent jurisdiction" in which to
> have concluded that he is in fact being abusive,
Given the exchanges that sparked this sub-thread, I can't help but see the
above paragraph as a classic example of intellect trumping common sense.
I'm sorry, but I see absolutely no grey area with lines like "you're a
disgusting little fuck, Aaron Johnson." Discussing whether this is or is
not abusive is as interesting as trying to prove I'm not a duck-billed
platypus.
> The burden would seem to me to be on you, not on Erik, to demonstrate
> something: that this is an appropriate forum in which to be creating
> and imposing all sorts of artificial rules. Usenet certainly does not
> seem to me to be designed for that. By explicit design of the usenet
> paradigm, your options as a newsgroup reader when you don't like
> something are limited to choices you can personally make, not choices
> you can force on another. If it's forced manners you want, I would
> much rather see an alternate forum created, either a moderated lisp
> forum here, or something in some other venue entirely, than I would
> like to see usenet become a place of forced manners.
This is certainly not *my* goal. I would only try to improve the atmosphere
through my own actions and be sure I am not sanctioning atrocious behavior
by my silence.
Coby
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3184844512630634@naggum.net>
* "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
| No. Manners are about self control, freedom is about control by
| outside forces. They are 100% disjoint.
As long as manners are supposedly about _self_ control, you must hold
the position that you should control somebody else's "self" if their
manners are not to your taste, otherwise it would not even be valid
for you to be concerned about the manners of others. In other words,
you are _actually_ favoring dictatorship and tyranny of "manners", in
which everything that you disagree is "good manners" is subject to a
fantastically stupid ad hominem attack: "Because you don't speak nice,
your arguments and everything else you might say, is worthless." This
is a kind of snobbery that has been used to suppress people for ages.
Your fa�ade of good manners cannot hide what is inside: You truly
believe that people who have what you consider bad manners are bad
people, and probably (even though this is so idiotic it hurts) that
people of good manners are good people. The opposite is true: Bad
people _need_ good manners _much_ more than good people need them.
| I'm sorry, but I see absolutely no grey area with lines like "you're a
| disgusting little fuck, Aaron Johnson." Discussing whether this is or
| is not abusive is as interesting as trying to prove I'm not a
| duck-billed platypus.
So discuss, with your excellent manners, how it came to be that that
single line apparently embodies everything this forum has to offer to
your anal-retentive need for good manners. Cause and effect are of no
use to you as long as you find a lack of good manners, right?
| This is certainly not *my* goal. I would only try to improve the
| atmosphere through my own actions and be sure I am not sanctioning
| atrocious behavior by my silence.
Your "improvement" is that of good-mannered passive agressiveness,
which you should have been smart enough to realize pisses people off
like nothing else if you have tried it in real life, instead of only
in your good-mannered fantasies. People who walk into fights, wearing
halos and notions of moral superiority through their refined manners,
have a bad habit of getting killed in real life. The reason is quite
simple: Their _condescending_ manners are not at all good manners.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
In article <···············@world.std.com>, Kent M Pitman
<······@world.std.com> wrote:
>This presupposes a pre-existing and universally agreed on meaning to
>the word "abusive"
Unless the abuse is so over the top, like, say, asking someone to do the
world a favor and commit suicide. Then we don't need any such
"universally agreed on meaning." It's plain for anyone to see.
Ralph
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
·······@mediaone.net
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.net> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.net...
> * "Patrick W" <······@my-deja.com>
> | Flagellating people who post opinions to usenet is an intentional act.
>
> I'm glad you see it this way. This must mean that posting idiotic
> drivel is also an intentional act, not an accident of nature, nor
> something people do out of helplessness or inability to act otherwise.
Yes. There'd be little to be gained from flaming (or justification for it)
if that weren't the case.
> This is my defense for flagellating people for doing those things when
> they clearly _ought_ to have engaged their brain and _thought_ before
> they posted.
I understand that. If we're here with eyes open, engaging in discussion in
public forum about controversial issues, it's reasonable to "go hard"
against perceived idiocy, and a reasonable expectation on the "idiot's" part
that it will happen. We might (do , will) disagree about what constitutes
idiocy (eg. recent discussion with Aaron), but disagreement on what is
idiotic doesn't affect the ethical validity of responding aggressively to
it.
I have no problem with the use of harsh words (but I wasn't setting out to
express a personal opinion anyway).
What I responded to was (I felt) as much an insult to you as it was a
defence of your aggression: ie. that when these storms blow up on c.l.l.,
it's just Erik being Erik, we just suffer it like we'd suffer an Antarctic
blizzard. (Thanks for clearing that one up Joe. The rest I agree with).
If that were the case, that attitude would suck for the same reason you feel
intractable idiocy or toothless civility sucks: It absolves both flamer and
flamee of responsibility (deserving of condemnation or credit as the case
may be) for their opinions/actions. IMO, it's worse than saying: "this guy's
an arsehole who deserves to be (verbally) shot down for what he's done" -
because at least the latter would imply judgement for what you've said, not
for who you are.
If that isn't clear, I'll clarify in a few days. Must go now.
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <907fla$nkk$1@joe.rice.edu>
In article <······················@ozemail.com.au> on
<······················@ozemail.com.au>, "Patrick W" <······@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> Flagellating people who post opinions to usenet is an intentional act.
> If you believe it is 'just' / 'right' / 'fair' or even 'necessary' in
> some cases, so be it. To argue that it doesn't even make sense to assess
> a deliberate act in terms of rightness, fairness or justice is
> questionable, but to assert that it's no more liable to such judgements
> than conditions in Antartica is ludicrous. Is there really any need for
> a "because" here ...?
Trying to argue that reality should change is not too effective. If you
want to change reality, change it yourself, don't discuss whether it
should be what it is or not.
> I'd bet my bottom dollar that Naggum himself (to borrow a phrase from a
> concurrent thread: "if he's honest") would agree. In fact I'm surprised
> he hasn't "enlightened" you already.
No, Erik accepts reality for what it is, and if something in it disagrees
with what he wants it to be, he'll either make an effort to fix it or
leave it be. I don't see any other reasonable way of dealing with reality.
I guess Erik likes to try to fix things more than leave them be. But I'll
leave him be, since I think the way he is doesn't create a problem for me.
--
-> -\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=<*><*>=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/- <-
-> -/-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/ { Rahul -<>- Jain } \=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\- <-
-> -\- "I never could get the hang of Thursdays." - HHGTTG by DNA -/- <-
-> -/- http://photino.sid.rice.edu/ -=- ·················@usa.net -\- <-
|--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-|
Version 11.423.999.210020101.23.50110101.042
(c)1996-2000, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
"Rahul Jain" <·····@rice.edu> wrote in message
·················@joe.rice.edu...
> In article <······················@ozemail.com.au> on
> <······················@ozemail.com.au>, "Patrick W" <······@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Flagellating people who post opinions to usenet is an intentional act.
> > If you believe it is 'just' / 'right' / 'fair' or even 'necessary' in
> > some cases, so be it. To argue that it doesn't even make sense to assess
> > a deliberate act in terms of rightness, fairness or justice is
> > questionable, but to assert that it's no more liable to such judgements
> > than conditions in Antartica is ludicrous. Is there really any need for
> > a "because" here ...?
>
> Trying to argue that reality should change is not too effective. If you
> want to change reality, change it yourself, don't discuss whether it
> should be what it is or not.
>
> > I'd bet my bottom dollar that Naggum himself (to borrow a phrase from a
> > concurrent thread: "if he's honest") would agree. In fact I'm surprised
> > he hasn't "enlightened" you already.
>
> No, Erik accepts reality for what it is, and if something in it disagrees
> with what he wants it to be, he'll either make an effort to fix it or
> leave it be. I don't see any other reasonable way of dealing with reality.
>
> I guess Erik likes to try to fix things more than leave them be. But I'll
> leave him be, since I think the way he is doesn't create a problem for me.
If I'd been "trying to argue that reality should change", I'd understand
your response - even though I'd disagree with it. However, I was not in this
instance trying to argue that reality should change, nor passing judgement
on whether usenet flames are acceptable, nor passing judgement on Erik
Naggum's approach. If you read my posting again in context, a bit more
carefully, you'll see precisely what I was objecting to: the notion that an
act of volition is no more to be adjuged 'right' / 'fair' / 'just' than,
say, harsh living conditions in Antartica.
But since we're already off to a misunderstanding, why not follow it
through? How do you justify a remark like "Trying to argue that reality
should change is not too effective"? Is this a bald fact or general
principle? How wide is its application? To my mind it's quite as absurd as
the posting I intially responded to, since I can think of so many reasonable
exceptions. (Nothing personal, mind you).
"Patrick W" <······@my-deja.com> writes:
> If you read my posting again in context, a bit more carefully,
> you'll see precisely what I was objecting to: the notion that an act
> of volition is no more to be adjuged 'right' / 'fair' / 'just' than,
> say, harsh living conditions in Antartica.
Of course many willful acts can be judged `right', `fair', or `just'.
And I cannot excuse wrongful acts on the basis of `everyone is doing
it'. However, I think that getting flamed on the usenet is
a) often justified
b) results in no permanent damage (bruised egos don't count)
c) to be expected of this type of venue
and that asking questions like `is it right' and `must it be so' is
more than a little absurd. In particular, I'd say that this sort of
social interaction between people inevitably involves flaming. So,
yes, it must be so: we are human.
I'll retract my analogy about antarctica, though.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
"Joe Marshall" <···@content-integrity.com> wrote in message
·················@content-integrity.com...
> "Patrick W" <······@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> > If you read my posting again in context, a bit more carefully,
> > you'll see precisely what I was objecting to: the notion that an act
> > of volition is no more to be adjuged 'right' / 'fair' / 'just' than,
> > say, harsh living conditions in Antartica.
>
> Of course many willful acts can be judged `right', `fair', or `just'.
> And I cannot excuse wrongful acts on the basis of `everyone is doing
> it'. However, I think that getting flamed on the usenet is
>
> a) often justified
> b) results in no permanent damage (bruised egos don't count)
> c) to be expected of this type of venue
>
> and that asking questions like `is it right' and `must it be so' is
> more than a little absurd. In particular, I'd say that this sort of
> social interaction between people inevitably involves flaming. So,
> yes, it must be so: we are human.
>
> I'll retract my analogy about antarctica, though.
Understood.
Thanks.
"Patrick W" <······@my-deja.com> wrote in message
···························@ozemail.com.au...
>
> But since we're already off to a misunderstanding, why not follow it
> through?
On second thoughts, Rahul, let's not, eh?
There's already enough off-topic crap raging in the newsgroup ...
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3184509943107935@naggum.net>
* Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net>
| They don't come back, because, after all, there are always scheme,
| Dylan, Smalltalk, and other functional languages, all of which have
| newsgroups where newcomers arent flayed alive.
So why do you come back so often to repeat the same old shit?
_I_ think idiots like you who never learn are the problem.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net> writes:
> I've said it before, and in all seriousness:
>
> Erik Naggum is the single largest force impeding the more widespread use
> of common lisp. People come to c.l.l, see the sort of treatment that
> others receive at his hands, and quickly conclude that something is not
> quite right in common lisp land. They don't come back, because, after
> all, there are always scheme, Dylan, Smalltalk, and other functional
> languages, all of which have newsgroups where newcomers arent flayed
> alive.
If you mean this in any serious way at all, investigate the use of
killfiles. You give Erik way too much importance.
--
Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be>
Lambda calculus - Call us a mad club
In article <··············@localhost.localdomain>,
Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be> wrote:
>Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net> writes:
>
>> I've said it before, and in all seriousness:
>>
>> Erik Naggum is the single largest force impeding the more widespread use
>> of common lisp. People come to c.l.l, see the sort of treatment that
>> others receive at his hands, and quickly conclude that something is not
>> quite right in common lisp land. They don't come back, because, after
>> all, there are always scheme, Dylan, Smalltalk, and other functional
>> languages, all of which have newsgroups where newcomers arent flayed
>> alive.
>
>If you mean this in any serious way at all, investigate the use of
>killfiles. You give Erik way too much importance.
How does that help? The newbie that Raffael is talking about has no way of
knowing that they should have killfiled Erik. And if all the rest of us
killfile him, then how will we inform the newbie if we don't see his
message?
--
Barry Margolin, ······@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:32:12 GMT, Barry Margolin <······@genuity.net> wrote:
>>If you mean this in any serious way at all, investigate the use of
>>killfiles. You give Erik way too much importance.
>
>How does that help? The newbie that Raffael is talking about has no way of
>knowing that they should have killfiled Erik. And if all the rest of us
We could add an entry to the faq... :-)
//-----------------------------------------------
// Fernando Rodriguez Romero
//
// frr at mindless dot com
//------------------------------------------------
Barry Margolin <······@genuity.net> writes:
> How does that help? The newbie that Raffael is talking about has no way of
> knowing that they should have killfiled Erik. And if all the rest of us
> killfile him, then how will we inform the newbie if we don't see his
> message?
I wasn't thinking of the newbie. I was thinking of Raffael who seems
to really get worked up about Eriks postings. I'm not advocating that
everyone killfiles Erik. This newsgroup doesn't get more flames than
most other comp.lang.* groups and the newbies get used to it.
--
Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be>
Lambda calculus - Call us a mad club
"Barry Margolin" <······@genuity.net> wrote in message
·····················@burlma1-snr2...
> In article <··············@localhost.localdomain>,
> Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be> wrote:
> >Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net> writes:
> >
> >> I've said it before, and in all seriousness:
> >>
> >> Erik Naggum is the single largest force impeding the more widespread
use
> >> of common lisp. People come to c.l.l, see the sort of treatment that
> >> others receive at his hands, and quickly conclude that something is not
> >> quite right in common lisp land. They don't come back, because, after
> >> all, there are always scheme, Dylan, Smalltalk, and other functional
> >> languages, all of which have newsgroups where newcomers arent flayed
> >> alive.
> >
> >If you mean this in any serious way at all, investigate the use of
> >killfiles. You give Erik way too much importance.
>
> How does that help? The newbie that Raffael is talking about has no way
of
> knowing that they should have killfiled Erik. And if all the rest of us
> killfile him, then how will we inform the newbie if we don't see his
> message?
>
I agree. It is important to "chime in" and let the latest victim know that
although no one can control any one else's posting habits, there are many of
us who *really* disagree with such behavior!
Coby
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3184530739655603@naggum.net>
* Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be>
| You give Erik way too much importance.
Not quite true. People like Raffael give _people_ in general way too
much importance, failing to understand the role of people. That's how
it is possible for him to make the _kind_ of idiotic argument he makes
in the first place. It is people like that him who scare _technical_
people off, like stalkers and unwanted sexual advances from people who
don't know when to keep their _personal_ "interests" to themselves.
To Raffael, this _is_ deeply personal. He does not understand that
there is _nothing_ personal in what I do. He never will, either.
This Aaron jerk is bordering on a becoming a lost case because he,
too, believes that this is personal, and fails to understand that his
_person_ has nothing whatsoever to do with this, only his choices and
his actions, which he has shown us that he is unlikely to change, just
like Raffael is unlikely ever to change his, and therefore will never
see a different reaction to his choices and actions, either.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
>
> Not quite true. People like Raffael give _people_ in general way too
> much importance, failing to understand the role of people. That's how
> it is possible for him to make the _kind_ of idiotic argument he makes
> in the first place. It is people like that him who scare _technical_
> people off, like stalkers and unwanted sexual advances from people who
> don't know when to keep their _personal_ "interests" to themselves.
> To Raffael, this _is_ deeply personal. He does not understand that
> there is _nothing_ personal in what I do. He never will, either.
> This Aaron jerk is bordering on a becoming a lost case because he,
> too, believes that this is personal, and fails to understand that his
> _person_ has nothing whatsoever to do with this, only his choices and
> his actions, which he has shown us that he is unlikely to change, just
> like Raffael is unlikely ever to change his, and therefore will never
> see a different reaction to his choices and actions, either.
This is sort of like watching a force of nature at work. Immutable,
inexorable and unforgiving. If I tried to abuse people so thoroughly
and simultaneously on so many fronts, I think I would burst an artery.
I too find following these threads is sometimes a quilty pleasure, but
killfiles aren't the best solution because Erik often has very
pertinent and useful things to say. I guess the best approach is to
just post <carefully> and be prepared to shut up regardless of the
flogging.
Gregm
Greg Menke <··············@zxy.mindspring.com> writes:
>
> I guess the best approach is to just post <carefully> and be
> prepared to shut up regardless of the flogging.
I guess the best approach is to post normally and read and think about
responses you get (and most importantly -- not get pissed off when
someone else's opinion somehow contradicts with yours).
Janis Dzerins
--
Ever feel like life was a game and you had the wrong instruction book?
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
wrote:
> People like Raffael give _people_ in general way too
> much importance, failing to understand the role of people. That's how
> it is possible for him to make the _kind_ of idiotic argument he makes
> in the first place. It is people like that him who scare _technical_
> people off, like stalkers and unwanted sexual advances from people who
> don't know when to keep their _personal_ "interests" to themselves.
> To Raffael, this _is_ deeply personal. He does not understand that
> there is _nothing_ personal in what I do.
This "there's nothing personal" line is what profoundly uncaring people
say whenever they hurt others. What it really means is "_I_ don't care
about other people's feelings at all." When you hurt another person, it
is, by definition "personal." When you ask someone to "please commit
suicide," it is "personal." The fact that you think it is not shows how
profoundly out of touch you are with the social reality around you.
"People like Raffael give _people_ in general way too much importance,"
implies that technical matters of common lisp are more important than
the people discussing them, and this is clearly false, because without
these people, there simply is no discussion. Erik's style of discourse
is so hurtful that many people are driven from the discussion altogether.
People are always more important than technical discussions, because
what really is the point of technical discussions - some absract
exercise in mental masturbation? No, the point of technical discussions
is to learn to use technology to serve people better. One does not learn
to serve people better by gratuitously abusing their feelings in a
relatively insignificant technical discussion.
Erik's narrow minded focus on what is technically correct at the expense
of other people's feelings displays a foolish lack of perspective on
technical matters and their place in the world. Technolgy, and
discussions of it exist _only_ because they are useful to people, not
the other way around.
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
·······@mediaone.net
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185430955084374@naggum.net>
* Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net>
| This "there's nothing personal" line is what profoundly uncaring people
| say whenever they hurt others.
Yes, they do it, too. No dispute there. However, it is quite typical
of your lacking mental ability to mistake this for a valid implication.
Do you really have a PhD? From where? McDonald's Burger University?
| When you hurt another person, it is, by definition "personal."
Yes, this is also true, but it is because some people choose to take
things personally that they get hurt. You swap cause and effect, just
like one expects from a "people person" who can't think worth a high
school diploma, much less a PhD.
| The fact that you think it is not shows how profoundly out of touch
| you are with the social reality around you.
No, it doesn't. You would need a lot more than that "fact" to show
anything like that, but we have already established that you feel that
single data points are better than many because you can extrapolate in
your favarite direction from the single data point, and not from many.
| "People like Raffael give _people_ in general way too much importance,"
| implies that technical matters of common lisp are more important than
| the people discussing them, and this is clearly false, because without
| these people, there simply is no discussion.
Without breathable air, there wouldn't be any people, so clearly we
should be concerned about the environment and work very hard to reduce
solar activity and CO2 emissions from photosynthesis instead of
talking about programming computers that only contribute to the
displacement of heat into the athmosphere.
| Erik's style of discourse is so hurtful that many people are driven
| from the discussion altogether.
This doesn't even apply to yourself since you return so often with the
same old rants, so do you even have a single data point to extrapolate
from this time? Have you gotten signed papers that allow you to be
the advocate of the "many people" you claim to speak on behalf of? Or
do we have yet another moron who feels entitled to speak for others?
| People are always more important than technical discussions, because
| what really is the point of technical discussions - some absract
| exercise in mental masturbation?
No, that would have been _your_ point if you didn't discuss people.
Well, it seems it is your point even when you do, since there's no
discernible contents anywhere in what you keep ranting about.
| No, the point of technical discussions is to learn to use technology
| to serve people better.
And you serve them better with your personal attacks, I presume. I'm
so impressed with your ability to stuff all of your four furry feet
into your mouth at the same time. Serve people better -- SHUT UP!
| One does not learn to serve people better by gratuitously abusing
| their feelings in a relatively insignificant technical discussion.
So stop doing it, or is it better not to have any technical discussion
at all while doing it, like you do? But why do you exempt me from
your rules? Why can't I make up my own rules about whom I think
deserves to be hurt when you can do it and feel so strongly about it
that you are fucking blinded by your hatred? As long as you post your
insane hostilities, you validate and legitimize everything I have ever
done and ever might do, because you prove that it is _correct_ to hurt
people who do something you don't like. If you don't like this and
have the retarded emotional response that I'm hypocritical, you are
reacting and behaving like an outsider to what you do here. I'm not,
so as the outsider, you should refrain from any shred of hostility,
and that includes Marcus G. Danielisms, passive aggressiveness, etc.
See if you can calm down completely and consider if you have anything
worth posting when you have done so. Posting an insane attack on me
for the fourty billionth time is not a sign of your good mental health
but is in fact detrimental to your ability to do something that might
actually be conducive to your goals, if you _have_ any goals except
shooting your wad off into cyberspace, of course.
| Erik's narrow minded focus on what is technically correct at the
| expense of other people's feelings displays a foolish lack of
| perspective on technical matters and their place in the world.
I don't have any focus on what is technically correct. I do have a
focus on avoiding technical mistakes. If you do not understand the
difference, return your PhD for kindergarten vouchers and try to learn
this time around that you are encouraged and rewarded for any kind of
constructive activity and punished for any kind of destructive
activity, you are _not_ punished unless you do some _specific_ things.
I must wonder if you have ever managed to learn anything from anybody
else at all the way you manage to miss the point. Oh, of course, the
people stuff -- You sucked up to your teachers and advisers and got
some other impressionable people-person to do the real work for you?
I do have a focus on precision. You are out of focus, the antithesis
of precision. Blurred nonsense is better for people than precision,
because precision requires thought and care and not everybody can
"share" in that elitist requirement, so you have naturally optimized
yourself towards blurred nonsense and you _succeed_, too, but that
does _not_ mean anybody has to applaud your success or agree with your
goal. In fact, most people consider senile dementia or Alzheimer a
disaster to a working brain, but maybe you can donate your brain to
such research and argue that they should find ways to _give_ you those
illnesses so you can become a _better_ blurry people-person.
| Technolgy, and discussions of it exist _only_ because they are useful
| to people, not the other way around.
That is your opinion. I'm just aching to see Marcus G. Daniels come
rushing to my rescue with "enforce one guy's particular definition of
technology", but he's probably been taken care of by now.
You need to figure out that not all people are Raffael Cavallaros and
you should probably ask for medication to help calm you down while you
listen very carefully to people who explain in monosyllabic words that
you are not ruling the world and not deciding what's true or false.
If you cannot even manage to keep your calm when you disagree over
which is more important of people and technology and breathable air,
there's a word for you: Lunatic. Since you keep ranting and raving
about the exact same thing no matter what happens, you already fit one
major criterion for an obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Now, let me see how a mature PhD can calm down and post something that
does not hurt or irritate me, because you most certainly understand
that such reactions are all _your_ fault when you try to blame me for
how everybody under the sun feels hurt by what I do.
What really irritates me about such retards as Raffael Cavallaro is
that they would have been perfectly OK as pets if they only packaged
that useless brain in a lap dog. Reincarnation is so cruel sometimes.
You have a _choice_ to take this personally or not, punk. If you do
not have that choice, recycle yourself immediately. A lonely old lady
in Florida who regrets indenting for Buchanan needs a lap dog, _now_!
Since I maybe think it's a mistake to think that people ought to have
engaged their brain if they actually manage to _write_ anything in a
complex language like English, here's a simple clue for PhDs who have
not quite grasped that scientific method: There are questions that you
could ask that go approximately like this: "What did I (i.e., Raffael
Cavallaro) do to cause this reaction? What else can I do? Will it
cause a different reaction if I do ...?" Fill in the ... with one of
the incredibly obvious options that someone who can manage to cow-tow
with an adviser and fullfill academic requirements _must_ see by now.
Now, I don't really think you have the brains of a lap dog, I just
wish the yapping from my neighbor's retarded mutt was less irritating
than you are, so it seemed fitting to swap you two and lo and behold,
it shut up. I think you would make a _smart_ lap dog.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
On 29 Nov 2000 17:42:50 +0100, Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be> wrote:
>Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net> writes:
>
>> I've said it before, and in all seriousness:
>>
>> Erik Naggum is the single largest force impeding the more widespread use
>> of common lisp. People come to c.l.l, see the sort of treatment that
>> others receive at his hands, and quickly conclude that something is not
>> quite right in common lisp land. They don't come back, because, after
>> all, there are always scheme, Dylan, Smalltalk, and other functional
>> languages, all of which have newsgroups where newcomers arent flayed
>> alive.
>
>If you mean this in any serious way at all, investigate the use of
>killfiles. You give Erik way too much importance.
No, it's not him, it's the newbie he's talking about who will give
Erik too much importance and eventually leave cll.
I have this very serious theory, that Erik Naggum actually doesn't
exist, it's just a nick used by Stroustrup to post in cll and keep a C++
competitor under control. Who knows? };-)
//-----------------------------------------------
// Fernando Rodriguez Romero
//
// frr at mindless dot com
//------------------------------------------------
Raffeal-
The "naggum-mine" is a yet fascinating phenomenon to me. At first,
I thought it was that "something wasn't right in common lisp land", but
now I realize that there are citizens like your self who do care about
the community, and hope that someday, its mental patients will be cleared
off of the streets and put into sanitariums where they belong.
Cheers,
Aaron.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>, ········@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Any rational person who has observed your responses would clearly see
> >that it is you who have "snapped", and have very little control over
> >your emotional responses. Furthermore, most unlike you, I refrain from
> >making viscious sub-human wishes about your bodily harm.
>
> I see another unsupecting victim has stepped on the naggum-mine and had
> a leg blown off. Oh well.
>
> I've said it before, and in all seriousness:
>
> Erik Naggum is the single largest force impeding the more widespread use
> of common lisp. People come to c.l.l, see the sort of treatment that
> others receive at his hands, and quickly conclude that something is not
> quite right in common lisp land. They don't come back, because, after
> all, there are always scheme, Dylan, Smalltalk, and other functional
> languages, all of which have newsgroups where newcomers arent flayed
> alive.
>
> --
>
> Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
> ·······@mediaone.net
>
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3184530304957025@naggum.net>
* "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
| The "naggum-mine" is a yet fascinating phenomenon to me. At first, I
| thought it was that "something wasn't right in common lisp land", but
| now I realize that there are citizens like your self who do care about
| the community, and hope that someday, its mental patients will be
| cleared off of the streets and put into sanitariums where they belong.
That's the idea. You just do not understand your own position, yet.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
Aaron,
Reasonable heads should prevail on the list, and if things get out of hand, the
community will step in and moderate. If not, you can ask people to step in with
their opinions. Personally, I'd appreciate you refraining from making such
horrific statements about people you disagree with. FWIW, a very dear family
member of mine suffers from a severe mental illness and they function just fine
in the world. If you're suggesting that people you don't understand or don't
want to deal with in an intelligent fashion be "cleared off the streets..." for
your benefit, you're asking for trouble. I only pray that you never get your
wish.
I've been reading c.l.l. for about six months now, and find it to be the most
informative and lively newsgroup I read. Erik's posts are many times helpful,
sometimes funny, sometimes over the line, but I disagree that he's impeding
growth of the newsgroup. He's one of the half-dozen people on this group that I
really look forward to reading notes from to help me gain more knowledge of
lisp. Passionate people sometimes need to hear things that let them know
they've stepped over the line and hurt a persons feelings. Other times they
need some time to cool down and remember where they started (eg. "let's pick
this up later, when we've had a chance to cool down...").
People will come around to using CL. I've been programming for 18+ years and
only stumbled across Lisp 2 years ago. I find it to be the most amazing
language I've used. Most of what I use it for now is prototyping systems.
Soon, I'll be using it in production for clients. When people look at real
costs of software development and maintenance, they'll find CL to be both
cost-effective and competitively advantageous to use for their products.
Regards,
Mike
"Aaron K . Johnson" wrote:
> Raffeal-
> The "naggum-mine" is a yet fascinating phenomenon to me. At first,
> I thought it was that "something wasn't right in common lisp land", but
> now I realize that there are citizens like your self who do care about
> the community, and hope that someday, its mental patients will be cleared
> off of the streets and put into sanitariums where they belong.
>
> Cheers,
> Aaron.
>
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
> > In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>, ········@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Any rational person who has observed your responses would clearly see
> > >that it is you who have "snapped", and have very little control over
> > >your emotional responses. Furthermore, most unlike you, I refrain from
> > >making viscious sub-human wishes about your bodily harm.
> >
> > I see another unsupecting victim has stepped on the naggum-mine and had
> > a leg blown off. Oh well.
> >
> > I've said it before, and in all seriousness:
> >
> > Erik Naggum is the single largest force impeding the more widespread use
> > of common lisp. People come to c.l.l, see the sort of treatment that
> > others receive at his hands, and quickly conclude that something is not
> > quite right in common lisp land. They don't come back, because, after
> > all, there are always scheme, Dylan, Smalltalk, and other functional
> > languages, all of which have newsgroups where newcomers arent flayed
> > alive.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
> > ·······@mediaone.net
> >
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <905u2o$7e8$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <·················@brainlink.com>,
Mike Ajemian <·······@brainlink.com> wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> Reasonable heads should prevail on the list, and if things get out of
hand, the
> community will step in and moderate. If not, you can ask people to
step in with
> their opinions. Personally, I'd appreciate you refraining from making
such
> horrific statements about people you disagree with. FWIW, a very dear
family
> member of mine suffers from a severe mental illness and they function
just fine
> in the world. If you're suggesting that people you don't understand
or don't
> want to deal with in an intelligent fashion be "cleared off the
streets..." for
> your benefit, you're asking for trouble. I only pray that you never
get your
> wish.
>
Mike,
You appear to me to be a respectable, respectful, polite individual.
And thus I want to say that I apologize for having caused any offense to
you whatsoever with my passing comment about mental illness. Please
forgive my mistake, and my too-loose thoughtless use of language to make
a point.
This Erik, character, whoever he is, has an apparent M.O. that is
disagreeable to more than one person. I think, like you do, that he
seems a VERY knowledgable source of Lisp information. Unfortunately, we
have to put up with a very selfish individual who refuse to see the
positive benefits of dialectic, and chooses instead to use a hostile
tone to rebuke his audience. I find such behavior, and humans who
advocate it, intolerable. Furthermore, he chooses the point of view that
by some metaphysical miracle, a person is somehow separable from their
actions, perhaps (I speculate) because he wants to relenquish his own
responsibility for being a severe sociopath.
Perhaps if Erik were witness to this conversation, he would see that
how you say something is equal to (or perhaps even more potent than)
what you say. Civility is repaid with civility. Apparently Erik doesn't
believe in civility at the expense of cleansing "fools" of their
opinions, at any cost.
Again, my apologies.
Regards,
Aaron.
> I've been reading c.l.l. for about six months now, and find it to be
the most
> informative and lively newsgroup I read. Erik's posts are many times
helpful,
> sometimes funny, sometimes over the line, but I disagree that he's
impeding
> growth of the newsgroup. He's one of the half-dozen people on this
group that I
> really look forward to reading notes from to help me gain more
knowledge of
> lisp. Passionate people sometimes need to hear things that let them
know
> they've stepped over the line and hurt a persons feelings. Other
times they
> need some time to cool down and remember where they started (eg.
"let's pick
> this up later, when we've had a chance to cool down...").
>
> People will come around to using CL. I've been programming for 18+
years and
> only stumbled across Lisp 2 years ago. I find it to be the most
amazing
> language I've used. Most of what I use it for now is prototyping
systems.
> Soon, I'll be using it in production for clients. When people look at
real
> costs of software development and maintenance, they'll find CL to be
both
> cost-effective and competitively advantageous to use for their
products.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> "Aaron K . Johnson" wrote:
>
> > Raffeal-
> > The "naggum-mine" is a yet fascinating phenomenon to me. At
first,
> > I thought it was that "something wasn't right in common lisp land",
but
> > now I realize that there are citizens like your self who do care
about
> > the community, and hope that someday, its mental patients will be
cleared
> > off of the streets and put into sanitariums where they belong.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Aaron.
> >
> > On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> >
> > > In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>, ········@my-deja.com
wrote:
> > >
> > > > Any rational person who has observed your responses would
clearly see
> > > >that it is you who have "snapped", and have very little control
over
> > > >your emotional responses. Furthermore, most unlike you, I refrain
from
> > > >making viscious sub-human wishes about your bodily harm.
> > >
> > > I see another unsupecting victim has stepped on the naggum-mine
and had
> > > a leg blown off. Oh well.
> > >
> > > I've said it before, and in all seriousness:
> > >
> > > Erik Naggum is the single largest force impeding the more
widespread use
> > > of common lisp. People come to c.l.l, see the sort of treatment
that
> > > others receive at his hands, and quickly conclude that something
is not
> > > quite right in common lisp land. They don't come back, because,
after
> > > all, there are always scheme, Dylan, Smalltalk, and other
functional
> > > languages, all of which have newsgroups where newcomers arent
flayed
> > > alive.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
> > > ·······@mediaone.net
> > >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
········@my-deja.com wrote:
> Mike,
> You appear to me to be a respectable, respectful, polite individual.
> And thus I want to say that I apologize for having caused any offense to
> you whatsoever with my passing comment about mental illness.
Thanks for your apology, Aaron. If that's what you call a comment made in
passing, I'd hate to find out what a harsh judgement is to you ;-)
Best of luck to you,
Mike
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <907ihf$j95$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <················@brainlink.com>,
Mike Ajemian <·······@brainlink.com> wrote:
> ········@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Mike,
> > You appear to me to be a respectable, respectful, polite
individual.
> > And thus I want to say that I apologize for having caused any
offense to
> > you whatsoever with my passing comment about mental illness.
>
> Thanks for your apology, Aaron. If that's what you call a comment
made in
> passing, I'd hate to find out what a harsh judgement is to you ;-)
>
> Best of luck to you,
> Mike
>
>
Mike-
"Passing" in the sense I meant it was as schrapnel in an ongoing
battle. Not as in "casual". An unfortunate choice of words on my part.
Anyway, the scrapnel, as you may have surmised, was not intended to
wound innocent bystanders.
Cheers,
Aaron.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3184622664999404@naggum.net>
* Aaron K. Johnson
| I find such behavior, and humans who advocate it, intolerable.
And what do you do with intolerable behavior? You do _much_ more
intolerable things than that which you do not tolerate!
I find this a very fascinating "M.O." from your kind of "human".
You call me selfish, but you are the most inconsiderate scumbag to
have visited this newsgroup in months. Only what you consider to be
intolerable counts! Nobody else can fail to tolerate you, can they?
What makes you even think that _you_ are not intolerable the way you
behave and act here? You're a disgusting little fuck, Aaron Johnson,
and the more you pretend to be wearing that halo, the worse you look.
You're probably right, though. _You_ are inseparable from _your_
actions. That should make you feel so ashamed at yourself that you
need to go kill yourself. If you figure out in time that _you_ can
make other choices and can act differently and still be _you_, you
might have a flash of enlightenment, even though you hate to learn and
_you_ can come back with a different act, perhaps a tolerable one.
| Again, my apologies.
How about apologizing for your _own_ actions sometime soon?
How about learning how how to quote news articles? Why do you insist
on showing everybody that you are unable to learn even simple things?
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <907ech$gga$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <················@naggum.net>,
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> How about learning how how to quote news articles? Why do you
insist
> on showing everybody that you are unable to learn even simple
things?
>
yeah, sure.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
On 01 Dec 2000 01:24:24 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> You call me selfish, but you are the most inconsiderate scumbag to
> You're a disgusting little fuck, Aaron Johnson,
> and the more you pretend to be wearing that halo, the worse you look.
> you
> need to go kill yourself.
> showing everybody that you are unable to learn even simple things?
Aaargh !
Someone send this man a voucher for a course in interpersonal skills
quick ! :-)
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Israel Thomas and Marcus G. Daniels and respect for people
Date:
Message-ID: <3185345405857668_-_@naggum.net>
* israel thomas <·······@optushome.com.au>
| Aaargh !
| Someone send this man a voucher for a course in interpersonal skills
| quick ! :-)
Please list the ones you have taken, with year, school, and name of
teacher, since they produce graduates who are severely dysfunctional
and the world in general needs to know which bad teachers to avoid.
Israel Thomas would not have posted without the "moral support" of
Marcus G. Daniels that it is acceptable to engage in his kind of
personalized negativism and deep and utter disrespect for people. It
is more important to shut Marcus G. Daniels up for good if civility
shall return to this newsgroup than anythign else, or more stellar
morons like him and Israel Thomas will be crawling all over the place.
Go home to your parents, Israel Thomas, and ask them to mail me an
apology for having raised such a rotten little bastard as yourself who
have no respect for other people. Or send them an apology for not
having taken any of their good advice. Presuming you know who they
are, of course -- I'd have dumped you if you had shown signs of what
you believe is good behavior and interpersonal skills any earlier.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
From: Marcus G. Daniels
Subject: Re: Israel Thomas and Marcus G. Daniels and respect for people
Date:
Message-ID: <87ofyliizy.fsf@forager.swarm.org>
EN> Israel Thomas would not have posted without the "moral support"
EN> Marcus G. Daniels that it is acceptable to engage in his kind of
EN> personalized negativism and deep and utter disrespect for people.
Talk about disrespecting people! You have no way of knowing that.
EN> It is more important to shut Marcus G. Daniels up for good if civility
EN> shall return to this newsgroup than anythign else, or more stellar
EN> morons like him and Israel Thomas will be crawling all over the place.
the opposite, actually..
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Israel Thomas and Marcus G. Daniels and respect for people
Date:
Message-ID: <3185386733734482@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| Talk about disrespecting people! You have no way of knowing that.
I don't disrespect _people_. I don't even disrespect morons. I don't
disrespect you. I don't disrespect drug addicts who shit themselves
in public. (I had to find something beneath you and that is not easy,
so my apologies to drug addicts who shit themselves in private.) I
have absolutely no respect for what you do, nor any respect at all for
your personal need to keep posting and exposing yourself, which is
growing more and more ridiculous by the message, but you provide me
with evidence that really do think in terms of disrespecting _people_.
I made an _educated_ guess based on your past behavior and exposed
personality that that would indeed be so. I was correct. Thank you.
I do in fact have a means of knowing it. I post something I believe
to be true. Marcus G. Daniels comes around as predicted and confirms
it. Israel Thomas sends me solid evidence of a deeply disrespectul
personality disorder in _personal_ mail and isn't even smart enough to
realize that he has a chance to show himself as something other than a
retarded asshole in _personal_ communication, where nobody is watching
him and he cannot lose credibility or whatever passes for honor in his
family brush. Such proves that some people really are inbred idiots,
it is not just something they play on the Net for fun. However, such
people do also in fact need role models. Real idiots like that are
ashamed of themselves and do _not_ wish to exposed and _never_ crawl
out of the woodwork unless they see someone who can also spell a few
multisyllabic words correctly do what they desperately _want_ to do,
just like shitting themselves in public is usually reserved for people
who have completely ceased to care unless they pick up from their
surroundings that it is culturally acceptable in some places.
Marcus G. Daniels, the seemingly semi-literate and not staggeringly
unintelligent yet massively condescending unwiped asshole, has _all_
it takes to be a role model for the real idiots, and he is the only
one who does so in comp.lang.lisp: Nobody else keeps posting so many
so disrespectful snide remarks for so long as he does, and _nothing_
else! This makes him personally respsonsible for the acts of people
who consider _him_ their role model and legitimizer. Hence the moral
culpability of Marcus G. Daniels and his learned disrespectfulness.
If this doesn't rhyme well with you, Marcus, _please_ tell me again
how come you blame me for anything that happens to this newsgroup if
your home-made tin halo keeps _you_ immune.
Let me know if you are _actually_ so retarded that you need help to
understand how taking you seriously enough to consider your morally
culpable for other people's actions by imitation is evidence of the
fact that I respect you as a _person_. Hint: If I didn't, I would
just laugh at you and post some idiotic snide remarks that I'd hope
nobody would understand really told more about myself if I did, but
that's _you_, Marcus, which is _very_ different from me. Get it?
| the opposite, actually..
Your ardent beliefs in the correctness of your actions has so far
hindered any mental maturation of significance, just as expected.
I'm actually beginning to think that you are _invisible_ unless you
can show disrespect for people, because that is how you manage to get
responses to your reprehensible need to keep posting. Yes, I respond
to disresect, so you have found someone who helps you gain visibility,
a fairly basic human need, but I really do pity your need to make this
a public fact through your insistence on never doing anything else.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
From: Marcus G. Daniels
Subject: Re: Israel Thomas and Marcus G. Daniels and respect for people
Date:
Message-ID: <87k899i392.fsf@forager.swarm.org>
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
EN> I made an _educated_ guess based on your past behavior and
EN> exposed personality that that would indeed be so. I was correct.
I suppose from your perspective it seems that way.
The only thing I've said that could, not must, be interpreted as
disrespectful was parenthetically referring to an indefinite group of
people known as the Naggum fan club -- a notion you certainly
entertained in the past. In retrospect, it was careless of me to
mention this group, although I think you know perfectly well the
nature of its membership, since it has come up in discussion here before.
As for hate-the-sin-not-the-sinner, that's semantics -- a nice, but
unconvincing rhetorical device, especially in this context.
As you've observed, I've been following your posts. Extrapolating
from disrespecting you to disrespecting people is not justified by
what you've seen via this bait-and-observe procedure of yours.
I'm making a point of keeping my messages within these threads.
I have no interest in disrupting technical discussion. Since there are
other technical threads moving forward in an relatively orderly fashion, it
appears that the great damage Erik claims I am causing is not occurring.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Israel Thomas and Marcus G. Daniels and respect for people
Date:
Message-ID: <3185426046243327@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| As you've observed, I've been following your posts. Extrapolating
| from disrespecting you to disrespecting people is not justified by
| what you've seen via this bait-and-observe procedure of yours.
I was not going to respond any more to your increasingly obvious
mental problems, but when I'm not even _people_, you have clearly made
it all the way to full-blown insanity, and anything can happen. It is
only the criminally insane who no longer believe their targets are
_people_, who are _able_ to commit violent crimes against them. What
keeps us all back from killing others is that we are of the same kind,
the idea that hurting somebody else physically is a violation of very
important principles that apply equally to ourselves, but you keep
showing me that what applies to me does not apply to you, and now I'm
not even people. Losing respect for people is the first step towards
the criminally insane mind. Losing the ability to think of other
human beings as of one's own kind is the last, the idea that one is
different from others, an outsider to humanity. You have crossed that
crucial line, probably a long time ago. I wonder what kind of people
you have already killed or hurt and how they offended you, if it was
enough to say something you disagreed with, or if they said something
that you thought was bad, so you could hurt them without remorse,
because you have none of that, either, and never have, as the record
shows with frighteningly extreme clarity.
I'm glad you finally admit to disrespecting me, however, and that you
do so as if it is something you are entitled to and proud of. You
really are mentally sick. That _is_ good to know, however. I'm sorry
I have wasted so much time on you, but the end result, that I have a
criminally insane stalker named Marcus G. Daniels out there who has
actually lost the ability to consider others as human beings, is a
_little_ easier to deal with than if you were sane and smart and just
plain evil, which I thought at first. Now I can ignore you, like you
actually deserved from the beginning, and you can go back to your sick
oblivion where you won't be visible until you can disrespect and annoy
somebody else who responds to you, probably until you kill them or do
physical, violent harm to them. Insane stalkers like you can safely
be left to the police. The kind of evil intelligence that continues
to post disrespectful snide remarks for years on end cannot, as it is
and must be within our concept of freedom of speech, but it is very
seldom _just_ that, as we have discovered about you today. Both the
sick obsession with me, which actually scared me a long time, and the
insistence of your stabs, were good indicators several years ago that
you had a problem that went far beyond the reality of the situation.
Your insane rant about bizarre cults was the first solid clue, but now
that you have excluded me from the category "people", too, it is no
longer about me, and it probably never was about me at all, I was just
so unlucky as to push one of your buttons. That has happend only once
before, but he got a three-year jail sentence for the stuff he did,
not just towards me, but to a few other people who pushed his buttons
and caused him to create demonic and monstrous images of people that
he thought he was in his right to hunt down. This horrible experience
is part of the reason why I make such a big deal about not attacking
people, only their actions, not their person, only their choices, and
why it is important to let people get an unlimited number of chances
to change their ways for the better, which must be rewarded and their
past ignored when they do. But some people can't change -- they have
lost the ability to be fully human, and they end up hurting people or
their property because they no longer consider them principally the
same as themselves. You are that kind of person, Marcus G. Daniels.
Other people ought to beware of you. Your inability to discern fact
from fantasy, such as in your sick exaggerations about me and what I
do, means that nobody is safe around you. I don't know what caused
you to attach to me, but I know it scared me when it happened about
seven years ago if memory serves me right. Other people must know
that you attach to people and obsess about them and fantasize about
them and create demonic images that you cease to compare with reality
before you act on them. You attack people for something they do not
in fact do just because your own mental images of them tells you what
they _should_ have done if your mental image is to remain correct, and
it is much more important to keep the mental image intact than to quit
the obsession with people. I pegged you as a religious fanatic first
because they share the same mental disorder: That of raising their
beliefs so far above reality that any observation that does not fit
the belief is simply discarded -- hence your exaggerations about me,
your demonic image that is not me at all, and your obsession about me
over so many years, complete with hundreds of pointless snide remarks
only directed towards me. That kind of patience is _frightening_ from
a person who has lost the ability to think of others as human beings
and provably does _anything_ he can to hurt somebody else.
There's no hope for you, Marcus G. Daniels, but others need to know
that if they see someone place themselves _outside_ what they do to
other people, _outside_ any group of people for whatever reason and
whichever kind of group, even the so-called social outcasts, and they
defend their actions by virtue of being outsiders, you look straight
at a person capable of evil and violent crimes. It's not just about
absence of empathy and remorse, but about their ability to be part of
humanity. Once somebody loses their bond to humanity and think that
some people are not the same kind of people as themselves, somehow
exempt from the rules that bind them, you have people whose ethics
_first_ has to determine whether the other person is "their kind"
before it applies at all. Racists are the easiest example: People who
respond emotionally to somebody who bears the genetic manifestations
of a different group and therefore to them sufficiently different that
they are no longer bound by the ethics that apply to "their kind" of
human. Racists actually do kill people because of this conviction
alone, but racism is not a cause. Disrespect for people, be it one or
everybody else, is the root cause: They have set up the distinction
between two groups: Whom to treat within their ethical boundaries and
whom not to. People who first consider _who_ somebody is don't have
time to respond emotionally to anything else -- our emotions are very
simple things. Either we fear people or we fear actions. I don't
know what goes wrong or how early, but some people get their wiring
wrong seemingly at a young age and make that mistake for the rest of
their lives. I don't think they can be rewired except through so much
pain that they regress to the point before that wiring was laid down.
This is _not_ an issue of what people think or believe, it is _how_
they think and believe. They can be described in words and language,
but they cannot seemingly be reached with words and language, as no
amount of counter-evidence affects _how_ you accept the evidence, or
filter it out, as the case may be. Take Marcus G. Daniels, who says
he has been following my posts, but he summarizes them with a total
absence of nuances and reflection. He has not _seen_ deviations from
his expectations for many years. To him, a deviation from expectation
is an _error_ in the observation and the facts, which he must have
ignored systematically through all these years. To people who are
wired right, an expectation that does not come true is a signal that
the _expectation_ was wrong. What causes some people to prioritize
their own _prejudiced_ expectations and disregard reality? What
causes someone to hold onto expectations that only come true once in a
while, without even considering new relations and causes but holding
on harder to what he already believes? Can such people be trusted at
all? Can they do any work with their mind at all?
Marcus F. Daniels is not an _unintelligent_ person, but the severe
mental disorder that subjugates a complex reality to his neat, orderly
mental images also afflicts those whose intelligence is so high that
their ability to make correct expectations at an early age causes them
to believe in some mystical powers of their own mind, and reality no
longer matters. I enjoyed working with highly intelligent children
many years ago, and it is one of those incredibly painful and sad
experiences of my life to see one of them turn into a murderer who had
absolutely no ability to conceive that it had been wrong to kill the
girl he killed, by an incredible act of reckless violence that had me
wondering for years what caused him to kill her, but it was quite
simple: She had violated his expectations, and he had always worked so
hard to get his expectations right, often rearranging reality to fit
them with an extreme amount of effort and dedication that we all
thought would end in some incredible creative force, but instead he
had to remove that mistake in reality rather than in his expectations:
_She_ was an error and she had to be fixed, with violence. She just
failed to get fixed and died instead. That's disrespect for people
and elevating one's own prejudices and ideas above reality. He also
failed to expect the reaction from society to such an extent that he
collapsed as a person within days and committed suicide at age 15,
before anyone could have managed to straighten him out. I have never
seen unintelligent or children of average intelligence muster the
intellectual power that causes them to believe their own mind to be
better and more trustworthy than reality, although the enjoyment of
every kind of magic and fairytales and mystic and wizardry is a sign
that many _wish_ their minds were better than reality at a certain
age. I have concluded that it is a phenomenal curse when it is and
children experience that they can guess faster than they can learn.
This latter thing is what I mostly associate with stupidity, however,
and why I do _not_ equate intelligence with absence of stupidity.
Quite the contrary, the more intelligent, the more potential to be
stupid in just this crucial way, to believe that what you can pick out
of your own mind at zero cost is better than what must be dug up from
reality at great effort. I have seen that mistake cost two lives that
both should have been great by all measures and indicators. It made
me focus very hard on the methodologies of correct assessments of
reality and on what kind of requirements we must have to avoid bugs in
observation that can lead people to prefer their ideas over the facts
and become something horribly disfigured like a Marcus G. Deniels.
Maybe I'm overreacting when I see people who show every sign of a
runaway intelligence that recklessly ignores counter-information that
would have blown their prejudices and expectations to smithereens,
maybe I'm overly hostile to the kind of stupidity that mostly really
smart people suffer from and maybe not enough people react healthily
to a sudden change in reactions relative to their expectations: namely
to go "what the fuck?" and reexamine their expectations rather than
just curse reality for failing to live up to them. Maybe, but I don't
think so. I think people of much higher than average intelligence
have a goddamn _duty_ to avoid these methodologically easily avoidable
mistakes, even though they do cost a lot in terms of the effort it
takes to put reality and observation first when you haven't had to do
that since you were a pre-schooler. (I also think the school system
is throughly evil in the way it is optimized for children so slow that
kids only one standard deviation above the median begin to see that
learning from experience is significantly more costly than guessing
and lying and making quick fixes where it failed.) I have much more
sympathy for unintelligent people who signal a failure to get the
point and request a better explanation than the intelligent people who
signal impatience because they think they got it and didn't.
There is much less intellectual dishonesty among people who aren't
smart enough to make up a sufficiently large part of the world that
they can live in it, and the bigger part of the world you can create
inside your own head, the more important it is that you don't move
into your own mind, but keep living in the real world, with its
incredibly annoying habit of wrecking _every_ constructed expectation
sooner or later.
And I consider anyone smart enough to discover Lisp ipso facto subject
to that goddamn duty. This is probably a mistake of expectations on
my part -- I'm not exactly immune to such mistakes. After this Marcus
G. Daniels stalker experience and the last insane rant from an equally
obsessing and soon-to-be-recycled Israel Thomas, plus that Aaron K.
Johnson fuckup, maybe it's time to jack down the expectation that most
people _understand_ their goddamn duty when exposed to it a couple
notches, but I'll still think they are just the lazy good-for-nothings
that avoid the effort because it hurts to think. With the retarded
popular culture and mass marketing that makes everything completely
effortless for anyone with an IQ 80 or above, idle minds of greater
prowess get so lazy that most of them probably get stuck in neutral
and never have to _do_ anything, except perhaps in some relatively
small niche they call their specialty or carreer, which they got into
by working really hard for a relatively small fraction of their youths
and then stopped wanting to learn more, like how to push the fucking
buttons so Dumbya wouldn't get elected with *minus* 350,000 votes.
That's _also_ disrespect for people, and Dumbya kills people, too.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
From: Marcus G. Daniels
Subject: Re: Israel Thomas and Marcus G. Daniels and respect for people
Date:
Message-ID: <877l57ixhw.fsf@forager.swarm.org>
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
EN> Take Marcus G. Daniels, who says he has been following my posts,
EN> but he summarizes them with a total absence of nuances and
EN> reflection.
Actually what I said was "As you've observed, I've been following your posts".
The non-presumptuous and more-literal way to read that is, "I've been
following-up after your posts". The context being that I was specifically
focused on these threads regarding your response to criticism about being
abusive.
Anyway, I've come to believe it is necessary to be clinical and
unemotional when dealing with you. You often overload your arguments
with a great deal of nuance and personal experience. While this is
appealing from a cult-of-personality sort of view (which you may or
may not have intended and planned), it is also potentially quite
deceptive to the casual reader. So rather than dwelling on your
motive, I find it is better to strip-down the content of the
conversation if at all possible.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Israel Thomas and Marcus G. Daniels and respect for people
Date:
Message-ID: <3185492704536936@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| Anyway, I've come to believe it is necessary to be clinical and
| unemotional when dealing with you.
I take that as an apology for the errors of your ways, but assume that
you are able to pull yourself together only when the risks to yourself
and your personal freedom because of your actions finally dawn on you.
As I have said on numerous occasions, some people start to think only
when the pain of doing so is less than the pain of not doing so.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
From: Marcus G. Daniels
Subject: Re: Israel Thomas and Marcus G. Daniels and respect for people
Date:
Message-ID: <873dfvin22.fsf@forager.swarm.org>
EN> that I have a criminally insane stalker named Marcus G. Daniels
EN> out there who has actually lost the ability to consider others as
EN> human beings, is a _little_ easier to deal with than if you were
EN> sane and smart and just plain evil, which I thought at first.
Now come on, don't hold back, tell us what you really think!
Damn, and I always preferred to think of myself as the loyal opposition...
Oh well.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Israel Thomas and Marcus G. Daniels and respect for people
Date:
Message-ID: <3185519562042309@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| Now come on, don't hold back, tell us what you really think!
|
| Damn, and I always preferred to think of myself as the loyal opposition...
|
| Oh well.
Thank you for yet more data on your personality. So this is what you
think keeping your word to deal with me "clinically and unemotionally"
means! Thank you for showing us how much _ability_ you have to keep
your word. Very interesting. Very interesting, indeed. I had really
thought you would have avoided the most obvious confirmations of what
I have been saying about you, but I'm welcoming more of same if you
keep it up, so all people can see that you _can't_ wipe that moronic
grin off your own face -- it's your natural state and that mean and
menacing look is all you manage when you try to be serious, and fail.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
> Israel Thomas sends me solid evidence of a deeply disrespectul
> personality disorder in _personal_ mail
My newsreader emailed the mentally challenged little jerk a copy of my
newsgroup posting. ( Just as it will send darling Eroc a copy of
this.) Our little lisper interprets this as private, personal mail.
> Marcus G. Daniels, the seemingly semi-literate and not staggeringly
> unintelligent yet massively condescending unwiped asshole, has _all_
> it takes to be a role model for the real idiots, and he is the only
> one who does so in comp.lang.lisp: Nobody else keeps posting so many
> so disrespectful snide remarks for so long as he does, and _nothing_
> else!
Fifty seven words in one sentence !
Three grammatical errors.
> who consider _him_ their role model and legitimizer. Hence the moral
> culpability of Marcus G. Daniels and his learned disrespectfulness.
> Your ardent beliefs in the correctness of your actions has so far
> hindered any mental maturation of significance, just as expected.
Here follow some comments that appeared in the Perl Digest in 1997:
> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 13:05:17 -0400
>From: "M. Prasad" <·······@polaroid.com>
>Subject: Re: Lisp is neither (was Re: Ousterhout and Tcl lost the plot) Mike Coffin wrote:
> In article <·············@polaroid.com>,
> M. Prasad <·······@polaroid.com> wrote:
>
> >Is it just my perception, or does this gent [Eric Naggum] really
> >have a severe attitude problem?
>
> I suggest you do what many of us do:
> ignore his rhetorical flourishes and personal opinions, but pay
> attention to his technical arguments.
>
> -mike
> Pray tell, what technical argument?
>Let me summarize my understanding here.
>We seem to having comments on Ousterhout's paper. Ousterhout's thesis: Scripting languages are
>a phenomenon in their own right, and are quite distinct from systems languages. They are
> becoming significant, and this is likely to continue.
> Some side theses:
>Scripting languages tend to be typeless.
> Strings are a good uniform data type for scripting languages.
>Approximate Summation of Responses:
>Scheme/Lisp is good for everything.
>I can do this in Lisp.
>I can do that in Scheme.
>I can do this in this here system written in Lisp/Scheme.
>Everybody must read such-and-such book.
>Everybody must learn about such-and-such system.
>Tcl is <derogatory> and <derogatory> and <derogatory>
>JO is <derogatory> and <derogatory> and <derogatory>
>People who use Tcl are <derogatory> and <derogatory>...
>People who object to the derogatory language are ... The mind boggles.
> Which of these pieces of technical insight should one respond to?
>I have barely seen the basic thesis discussed, onlyagendas pushed.
I can see from this that the problem of rudeness and arrogance has
been a long term one.
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: Israel Thomas and Marcus G. Daniels and respect for people
Date:
Message-ID: <910fts$g8a$1@paradise.nirvananet>
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
israel thomas <·······@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>> Israel Thomas sends me solid evidence of a deeply disrespectul
>> personality disorder in _personal_ mail
>
>My newsreader emailed the mentally challenged little jerk a copy of my
>newsgroup posting. ( Just as it will send darling Eroc a copy of
>this.) Our little lisper interprets this as private, personal mail.
every newsreader worth being used can be customized not to do that.
all i've ever used let you make the decision whether to send an email
copy when you decide to reply to a post. you might be well advised to
teach your newsreader not to do that any more or (if you can't) switch
newsreaders
btw, i have a marvellous suggestion that should help minimize these
endless "i hate naggum" threads: everybody who feels like that put him
in their killfiles or ignore his messages whenever they encounter
them. the percentage of lisp related messages in this ng would
benefit from that
> ...
hs
Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net> writes:
> Erik Naggum is the single largest force impeding the more widespread use
> of common lisp.
I seriously doubt this can be shown to be true. He was off the air for a
few weeks and I don't recall Lisp sales spiking.
If comp.lang.lisp *is* what vendors are relying on to make or break Lisp
sales, that's more likely the problem than is the effect of any one of us
on such a flimsy marketing strategy...
In article <···············@world.std.com>, Kent M Pitman
<······@world.std.com> wrote:
>If comp.lang.lisp *is* what vendors are relying on to make or break Lisp
>sales, that's more likely the problem than is the effect of any one of us
>on such a flimsy marketing strategy..
For better or worse, there really isn't much else in the way of a "Lisp
marketing strategy" out there. In terms of appeal to a wider global
audience, comp.lang.lisp is pretty much it.
That being the case, what students, users of other languages, and other
interested parties see of the lisp community is a hateful pedant, and
others who come to his defense when he viciously abuses people.
We're talking about a man who asked someone in this forum to commit
suicide. How can any reasonable person not expect such behavior to drive
people away?
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
·······@mediaone.net
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185432009399739@naggum.net>
* Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net>
| That being the case, what students, users of other languages, and other
| interested parties see of the lisp community is a hateful pedant, and
| others who come to his defense when he viciously abuses people.
I don't see anyone coming to your defense. Do you?
Why do you think that you are _not_ part of the problem? How come
your abuse is perfectly OK and that posting articles with intensely
inflammatory subject lines line "naggum-mine" is not indicative of a
person who has arrived at the amazingly self-destructive notion that
he has no effect on the world at all so he can do anything he wants
without incurring the slighest judgment of hypocrisy or ridicule?
If you had any self-esteem at all, "PhD" Raffael Cavallaro, you would
not be able to believe that you do not affect people with your rants
and personal attacks. Just like that insane stalker Marcus G. Daniels
who actually believes that posting hundreds of condescending and
disrespectful messages has _no_ effect on the forum, you suffer from a
moral displacement: You think the evil you commit is somebody else's
fault and that you can blame him for everything _you_ commit. Here's
a surprise for you: You can't. _Only_ the criminally insane believe
that their actions are _caused_ by someone else and that they are
_not_ responsible for their own actions. No normally matured person
can even hold the idea in his head for a second that "look what you
made me do" is a valid excuse for _anything_.
Let me know when you have matured beyond kindergarten and have moved
up the evolutionary ladder to something that can take responsibility
for its own actions, will you? So far, all I can relate to is a sick
person who has a deep personal need to blame me for his emotional
problems, and that, frankly, is intensely disgusting to behold.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net> writes:
> That being the case, what students, users of other languages, and other
> interested parties see of the lisp community is a hateful pedant, and
> others who come to his defense when he viciously abuses people.
I doubt any other newsgroup fares much better.
> We're talking about a man who asked someone in this forum to commit
> suicide. How can any reasonable person not expect such behavior to
> drive people away?
Honestly? I don't think many new posters are reading Erik's long missives.
I think only dyed in the wool people with a serious interest are.
I think some might be reading these anti-erik threads because they call
attention to him. I think these do phenomenally more damage to the ng
than anything Erik rights.
Let me rephrase your question in a way that puts it in the perspective
I see it:
``We're talking about a man who, on channel 51943776 of your TV at 4am
on Sunday morning, asked someone to commit suicide. How can any
reasonable person not expect such behavior to drive people away?'' asked
Raffael Cavallero, reporter for CBS 60 Minutes in the tag scene of his
expose show "People who would be driving people away if only I called
enough attention to it that they would be offended".
I see it that you're promoting a very annoying but highly obscure situation
to the foreground, and then concluding it's having mass effect. The claim
it's annoying is true, but the original situation isn't the cause of any
mass effect -- you are. Just as surely as a largely constant crime rate isn't
makig people feel unsafe in the US as much as primetime media coverage at
close range of every bloody body that does come along. The "if it bleeds,
it leads" philosophy of news has done nothing to make people safer, and has
meanwhile caused enormous anxiety about something that cannot be changed.
I don't doubt Erik is upsetting particular people he's chatting with. I wish
he wouldn't do it. But I have no power to affect it, and his responses
in this discussion pretty much confirm that no one does. If he hasn't
responded to peer pressure on this by now, he's not going to.
Erik annoys some people, but he helps a lot of people technically,
too. And while that doesn't excuse what I agree is occasionally annoying,
it does make me willing to tolerate it.
I myself am used to being frequently labeled annoying. I've tried my
whole career to get better at it, but it comes withthe territory of
being strong-willed. I may not swear at people, but they get pissed off
just the same. I don't like pissing them off, but I don't find it easy to
avoid in all circumstances. I just deal with the aftermath when I find it.
I don't think people should like that I annoy them, but I do think they
should sometimes tolerate it more than they do. And I think the same of
Erik. You can make a list of all the greats of CS, and almost to a one, I
can tell you for the ones I know many times they have been obnoxious and
pissy to people, both in public and private. It is not a trait to be
emulated, but I'm not so sure that the reason for that is the often-cited
one. Emulating pissiness doesn't make you a great thinker. But great
thinkers can be single-minded, driven, impatient, focused, etc., and the
other stuff, while maybe not causal, may be side-effect. In choosing
which of these people to eschew, I look to the whole of the person. Yes,
we should ask them to moderate, but in private. And yes, we should learn
to tolerate, if we want what they have to offer. Otherwise, we may not
be being fair.
I will make one further remark, going seriously out on a limb and risking
pissing off some people myself, perhaps just for comradery with Erik.
But in examining the whole of the person, and I won't say specifically
which people I mean--this isn't in specific response to Raffael's message
in other words--there are some in this discussion who while they are incensed,
are also not prone to contribute much technically. The world does not need
everyone to contribute. I enjoy just chatting with people and being social.
But I find this thread as annoying as many find Erik, and on balance I don't
find some people sustaining this thread to contribute what Erik contributes.
So when I consider the whole of the thing, some people are, taken in the
large, not seen as positively, at least by me, as they imagine.
Now, can we please desist here? I don't like writing stuff like this.
I don't think it favors me personally. Next time I feel like writing
something like this, I'm going to do two things. (a) not write it, and
(b) take another vacation from the newsgroup for a while while I cool down.
I'd rather do that than contribute further to threads like this.
And I wish that others would do likewise. If they don't like the newsgroup,
make a forum they do like and invite people to it. But don't whine about
what you can't change, because the "cure" is (imo) far worse than the disease.
>>>>> "KP" == Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
KP> I think some might be reading these anti-erik threads because they
KP> call attention to him. I think these do phenomenally more damage
KP> to the ng than anything Erik rights.
Was is deliberate that you used the word "rights"?
Supposing it wasn't, I understand your point but I don't agree.
As just evidenced, Erik is so often within a small nudge of writing
pages and pages of these characteristic delusional & narcissistic diatribes.
I believe that Erik is not the sort of person that should just have
his way because he says some smart things. There are few, if any,
unstable people that valuable.
EN> No normally matured person can even hold the idea in his head for
EN> a second that "look what you made me do" is a valid excuse for
EN> _anything_.
It depends on what "made" means. If it means "you hurt my feelings
and now I'm going to hurt you", then it's not a terribly mature way to
respond. If it means "we have different values and you act in a way
that will influence the satisfaction of my preferences in a highly
negative way", then it is entirely appropriate to expect resistance or
a counter-response. Like, _dooh_.
Tolerance for intolerance will not be sustainable in the long run.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185494601436805@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| Tolerance for intolerance will not be sustainable in the long run.
You yourself suffer from such an amazing level of intolerance towards
me that you should know what you're talking about, but I disagree. It
is only in the long run that our ability to deal with other people's
different opinions and their deep caring for their values _can_ be
sustainable, but accepting that people do care about different things
and do _not_ accept that other people trash and denounce their values
constitues _respect_ for people. You have the kind of reprehensible
personality that is capable of disrespecting people, and you are even
proud of that.
It is not intolerance, but disrespect for people, that cannot and must
not be tolerated. One must at all times maintain extreme intolerance
towards disrespect for people, life, and property, and that is just
what the legal systems of the Western civilization are designed to do
-- the uniformity of these principles across so many cultures should
be a warning sign to personalities like yours, but you have probably
never thought about such things. No criminal mind has the conceptual
framework to think about what it means to set up systems where due
procedure and laws have precedence over revenge and hatred -- that is
what differentiates the criminal mind from the law-abiding citizen who
understands on an emotional and fairly direct level that justice does
not entail vendettas against people some insane stalker like you
simply do not like. Cultures that thrive on hatred and revenge have
yet to develop legal systems that protect individual freedom, too, and
I don't think they will. Some cultures are just too evil to evolve
the concepts of freedom and rights. And you belong to such a culture.
Society rests on the fundamental premise that even if we do not agree
on the concrete values, we agree that it is wrong to smear people,
destroy property, and kill over our differences. Those who do not
agree with this, and you do not, Marcus G. Daniels, are a danger to
any society of law and justice. You belong in a lawless society where
it would be perfectly legitimate to kill you for your disrespect, and
you are a sad and pathetic misfit in a society based on law. I doubt
that you can change that part of your personality and therefore your
disrespect must not be tolerated at _any_ time. If you keep up the
apology of your past evil ways and actually manage to stay "clinical
and unemotional" remains to be seen, of course, but I'm always happy
to see even the vilest, most reprehensible, most disgusting piece of
shit turn around and change his behavior in the future. It does not
change the past and I do not believe in forgiving, but as long as you
do not relapse, I have no reason to continue to think of you in the
ways and terms you deserve for that past. I do not, however, think
you have the mental ability to understand that by your own admission,
you do not extend this _resepct_ towards me, which makes the evil of
your past unforgivable to those who have a concept of forgiveness.
In other words, since I believe your mind has serious problems in
accepting input that does not fir your preconceptions, you can never
be tolerated for what _you_ do, so just do something else. Start now.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
Marcus Daniels:
>I believe that Erik is not the sort of person that should just have
>his way because he says some smart things. There are few, if any,
>unstable people that valuable.
It would be interesting to have Erik walk the streets of Brooklyn for
a few days trying to explain to folks how they are criminally insane
idiots who should kill themselves, but that doesn't mean that he
disrespects them. For better or for worse, that fantasy isn't
relevant here.
The fact is that even if Erik _never_ said a smart thing, we would
have no control over his postings. It may not seem fair, but it
appears to be true that the best way to avoid his lengthy exercises in
self-justification is to stop arguing with him about ethics, social
consequences, etc. Moreover, just as you're unlikely to alter Erik's
thinking, you're unlikely to alter other people's thinking about him.
We've drawn our own conclusions.
If you think Erik has taken a cheap shot at someone -- something
outside the proper bounds of a comp.lang newsgroup -- it's fine by me
to say so. When Erik posts his rebuttal explaining the lofty
principles behind his post, I urge you to ignore it. Trust others to
make their own judgments. Once you're sucked into an argument about
it, then IMHO you become part of the problem.
Let's see if I have the guts to take my own advice.
Mark Lindeman
>>>>> "ML" == Mark Lindeman <·······@bellatlantic.net> writes:
ML> When Erik posts his rebuttal explaining the lofty principles
ML> behind his post, I urge you to ignore it. Trust others to make
ML> their own judgments. Once you're sucked into an argument about
ML> it, then IMHO you become part of the problem.
In the past, I've tried to compress my objections into short remarks
for just that reason.
To summarize:
I think he has and will set the tone here, and it won't be a nice one.
I think he has and will alienate people for no good reason, other than to
satisfy his self-centered impulses.
I think a consequence of accomodating Erik has and will be that
visitors will the sense that the Lisp community is smaller and more
homogeneous than it is. [Yes, some people will be attracted to the
freak-show aspect of the conversation here, but many will dismiss it.
Many will be unwilling to wade-through the overloaded language and
endure the constant and unnecessar harshness.]
Further, I think he has and will be accomodated, not for his knowledge
of Lisp, but because discouraging his abusiveness seems difficult and
unrealistic.
I have come to think these things after being subjected to Erik's
careless whims for many years in a variety of contexts. It is not, as
Erik suggests, a conclusion I came to hastily and now require for
psychological reasons. (But I guess you'd expect that answer from a
criminally-insane stalker, eh?)
For a while, I was sympathetic to Erik because he does say things that
ring true. However, I came to realize he also says things that are
utterly misguided and wrong. Worse, the weaker his position the more
violent, aggressive, and circular his arguments become.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185556051124976@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| I think he has and will set the tone here, and it won't be a nice one.
Well, _you_ have set the tone here, too, and it _is_ not a nice one.
A forum with people who gang up on others with insane accusations in
the spirit of _your_ disrespect and hostility must appeal to you since
you keep it up, but I wonder how it is possible for someone concerned
about how _others_ influence a forum to neglect his _own_ role.
| I think he has and will alienate people for no good reason, other than
| to satisfy his self-centered impulses.
Well, rather than alienate people, you bring in the lunatics with
_your_ tone. That is _much_ worse. I don't know about self-centered.
It's such an incredibly childish thing to say, but I guess _you_ know.
| Further, I think he has and will be accomodated, not for his knowledge
| of Lisp, but because discouraging his abusiveness seems difficult and
| unrealistic.
Just as you have been and will be "accomodated" because you think you
are even _more_ justified in posting your _purely_ destructive shit
than I am in posting _technical_ corrections and urging people not to
post guesses, untested code, etc. I have a very clear objective, and
it is only people like you and Tom Breton who actively distrust it,
but when it is satisfied, I'm actually happy about it. I have no idea
what your objective is. Would anything at all make you happy and shut
up, short of my violent death at your hands, of course?
Please tell the forum what would make you happy and satisfied that you
have reached your goals. I think that would be fascinating to hear.
| I have come to think these things after being subjected to Erik's
| careless whims for many years in a variety of contexts.
You get what you ask for. You have been attacking me out of the blue
for as long as I can remember, with an endless stream of snide remarks.
What do you really _expect_ with _your_ behavior? Why do you fail to
realize that your actions cause reactions in kind from other people?
| For a while, I was sympathetic to Erik because he does say things that
| ring true. However, I came to realize he also says things that are
| utterly misguided and wrong. Worse, the weaker his position the more
| violent, aggressive, and circular his arguments become.
Then how come your best response is a snide remark? One must wonder.
People who make such broad generalizations as you do have never come
up with any actual evidence of what is "utterly misguided and wrong",
or even what would be _right_. It is mere opinion, and the hostility
that such people have towards me is not a very good indicator of the
truth of _their_ claim, is it? Failure to deal with differences of
opinion through the kind of sniper attacks with endless reems of snide
remarks and hostility-breeding attitudes that you have kept going for
years and years does not exactly _convince_ anyone that you're right.
All it does is convince people that if I want away or shut up, you'd
be free to post _your_ "opinion" without response from people who know
better. If this sounds familiar to the Tom Breton optimization case,
well, that is _no_ surprise, is it? And see how he went off the deep
end, just like you have. People who are wrong and dead set never to
change their mind no matter what happens do turn into lunatics who
attack me for anything and everything and exaggerate like madmen about
their problems with me. But their problem is with _my_ unwillingness
to accept their bogus stories. Apparently that is something we share,
only you're too fucking retarded to realize it.
On the other hand, I wonder what the hell is wrong with saying things
that are "utterly misguided and wrong". Are you disappointed that I'm
not _perfect_? Hell, _I'm_ not even disappointed that I'm not perfect.
With all this bullshit about cults, self-centered, etc, I conclude
that you have cast me as a cult leader cum guru who has _betrayed_ you
by not always posting brilliant and superbly correct answers.
But seriously, are there _anyone_ on this planet that, in some _other_
people's views, do _not_ say things that are "utterly misguided and
wrong"? Even on a regular basis? What kind of people live up to your
demand that they _never_ say anything that is utterly misguided and
wrong? Is this really how you have such fucked-up ideas about people
_enforcing_ conformance to definitions? What kind of lunacy is _that_?
Yes, I say things that Marcus G. Daniels thinks is utterly misguided
and wrong. He responds with snide remarks and broad generalizations.
Take your pick. If he can't be bothered to do something constructive
and has to try to tarnish people for failing to live up to his weird
requirements, what he considers "utterly misguided and wrong" may just
be correct for everyone else. There's no way of knowing, though.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
EN> Please tell the forum what would make you happy and satisfied
EN> that you have reached your goals. I think that would be
EN> fascinating to hear.
I would be satisfied if you started saying, "no, that's wrong, and
here's why .." instead of "you fucking moron why don't you kill
yourself? No, wait, first I want an apology from your mother for ever
giving birth to that disgusting little imbecile."
If someone persists in posting questionable or untrue statements,
if you wish, persist in correcting them. Just do it without the attacks.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185577233132180@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| I would be satisfied if you started saying, "no, that's wrong, and
| here's why .." instead of "you fucking moron why don't you kill
| yourself? No, wait, first I want an apology from your mother for ever
| giving birth to that disgusting little imbecile."
I already do what you want, you disrespectul little fuck. Where do
you get off posting so much insanely defamatory shit about me when I
already do what you claim would satisfy you? You're so dishonest it's
libel, you goddamn piece of shit! I always _start_ explaining to
people what's wrong and usually why, too. I don't need to start doing
this as if I don't: I have done it all my life. 95% of the time,
people accept and usually thank me for the response because it solves
their problems, of course despite my being "utterly misguided and
wrong" in _your_ broad and completely unfounded generalizations. (How
about you explaining why sometime, huh?) Go check the _record_, you
disrespecting dickhead! To see that what you have been attacking _is_
only your own deranged imagination makes me really angry.
If you could try to snap out of your psychosis and actually try to
_observe_ reality for a change, you should have no problem seeing that
I do what you claim you would have been satisfied with. God, I'm so
fucking tired of psychotic morons like you who can't even see past
their own deranged prejudices when they spend so much effort vilifying
me and portraying me as this monster that really lives only in their
own imagination. You're no better than a _racist_, Marcus G. Daniels,
the kind of morons who cannot wrap their tiny little brains around the
fact that their images of the people they hate are _caused_ by their
_disrespect_ for them.
| If someone persists in posting questionable or untrue statements, if
| you wish, persist in correcting them. Just do it without the attacks.
I already do that. It's when I'm attacked that I don't hold back.
You act and reason _exactly_ the same way, so shut the fuck up about
it being wrong. Now, go take your anti-psychotic drugs and snap back
into reality, will you? Find yourself a recent thread you think is my
fault went bad, and actually expend the effort to _read_ it and pay
attention to what actually goes on. I suggest the Aaron K. Johnson
thread, since it should still be on a nearby server and it started
with a reply that from me that shouldn't have ignited anyone, but it
_did_ ignite an emotionally disturbed moron. Big deal. Help get that
kind of people out of the way instead of blaming me for their existence.
I do _not_ cause the Raffael Cavallaros and Tom Bretons and I most
certainly have not caused your psychosis, either.
At worst, I provoke morons into identifying themselves, but take a
real good look at that piece of shit fan of yours Israel Thomas. Take
a look at Tom Breton and Raffael Cavallaro. What do they do towards
me? What do _you_ do towards me, Marcus G. Daniels? Do you post some
shit that is easily explained as "wrong"? You don't exactly have a
very good grip on explaining why yourself, either, do you? "Utterly
misguided and wrong" without evidence, as a sweeping generalization.
How fucking impressive _that_ is for one dishing out advice on what he
would be satisfied with from others.
God _damn_ you, Marcus G. Daniels! You've been spinning your own yarn
for so many years and making up a monster in your imagination that you
should really go see a good psychiatrist to help you get rid of. For
once I really mean that as a _personal_ advice to a person that I do
think has become criminally insane, it's not just a stupid act you
could change of your own will, any longer. Get professional help!
And self-centered? You're fucking _obsessed_ with your fantasy of me!
You're the one centered around me. Do you think I _like_ the retarded
discussions about me from psychotics like you, Tom Breton and Raffael
Cavallaro? Do you think _I_ invite you sick fucks to talk about me
for weeks when you get your ire up? _You_ turn this newsgroup into a
flame-fest against me. And what could I _possibly_ do to mollify your
rage when you are so blinded by your hatred and disrespect that you
don't even _see_ what would have quieted you down and satisfied you?
What the hell does what you do have to do with anything that could
possibly be countered with "no, that's wrong and here's why?" It is
not possible to acquiesce you, because _you_ are the destroyer of this
forum. You try to make it my fault, but I already do what you want.
_You_ help people feel justified in attacking me. _You_ condone the
lynch mobs, the ganging up on me. _You_ fuel the hostility towards
me. What does that make you, Marcus G. Daniels? Criminally insane!
FIND AN OFFENDING THREAD AND READ IT FROM THE _START_, NOT JUST FROM
WHEN YOUR UPTIGHT SENSIBILITIES GET TRIGGERED INTO BELIEVING YOU SEE
WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE!
I suggest you talk to Barry Margolin about what it took him to snap
out of his imaginary world and start to see what was really going on.
He was also posting unfounded shit about me for a _long_ time before
he realized that reality was a _little_ more complex than he wanted it
to be and kept trying to make it by posting vilifying crap about me.
What I actually do _ought_ to have been enough to go on, but such
psychotic fucks as you and Tom Breton and Raffael Cavallaro don't stop
at reality because it just isn't bad enough to justify what you do.
I've fucking _had_ it with you, Marcus G. Daniels. Stop pouring your
purified bile into this forum and start saying something that doesn't
reek of your particularly stinking brand of abject disrespect so
intense that you can't even see anything but your own prejudice.
#:Erk
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
EN> Find yourself a recent thread you think is my fault went bad, and
EN> actually expend the effort to _read_ it and pay attention to what
EN> actually goes on. I suggest the Aaron K. Johnson thread, since it
EN> should still be on a nearby server and it started with a reply
EN> that from me that shouldn't have ignited anyone, but it _did_
EN> ignite an emotionally disturbed moron. Big deal. Help get that
EN> kind of people out of the way instead of blaming me for their
EN> existence.
Here's my read:
1) Aaron suggests that GUI and integration features are an important part
of a language environment's success.
2) Erik draws the distinction between languages vs. tools and
standardized vs. non-standardized languages. He suggests using
Allegro CL's GUI builder.
He signs his message with "#:Erik, seriously annoyed".
3) Aaron expands on the notion of bells-and-whistles, and provides
three links, including the well-known good-news-and-how-to-win-big
Gabriel article. He says he'd try Allegro CL's builder, but points
out is not free.
He asks that Erik not be annoyed, and says "Peace". Then he
comments on Erik's signature in a friendly way.
4) Erik says:
I suggest you find a street corner and cry "just which language are
you trying to insult" to passers-by who don't give you a nickel.
That'll make them about as positive to your requests as I am now.
Erik quotes Aaron's don't-be-annoyed plea, with a somewhat cryptic
"You're underestimating both of us, now. Don't do that." However,
he then reassures with a smiley. Erik never explicitly answered
Aaron's "just which language are you trying to insult", question --
the conspicuous absence might have seemed dismissive to Aaron.
(Aaron probably should have been sticking with a term
"language-specific development environment", or something like.)
5) Aaron says in response to the first remark:
"I didn't throw the first punch, but you just did."
He restates his question, making it clear that he is talking about
environments and not languages per se. Aaron says "No need to be nasty."
He quotes the previous transactions, and then attaches a reply to
Kent Pitman that is apologetic for potentially offending, ending with
"I certainly don't mean to deflate any of you who have devoted so much
effort. So thanks."
[IMO, earlier Kent Pitman made some good remarks about why the situation
is the way it is, and explains why someone like Erik might be annoyed, which
Aaron acknowledges.]
6) Erik says:
So you are the kind of person who throws punches and thinks in such terms.
That is valuable to know, but not conducive to your case.
Quoting the "No need to be nasty":
So drop it, then. It's your choice to be nasty in return to
something that is _not_ nasty towards you to begin with, but you
just love to blame others for your own behavior, don't you?
That's why you have to get everything for free and can't use Lisp
because you don't get it.
Beware of people who say "I love Lisp, but ...". They do not
actually love Lisp, they love getting great things for free, and
Lisp is great, so if they _could_ get it for free, they _would_
love it, but there is no real love, because real love means
commitment and people who do not want to contribute time and
money do not commit themselves to whatever it is they claim to
love.
Just stop defending yourself, and you won't feel under attack,
either, but you make this what you want to make it, and I am
unimpressed with the way you choose to respond. You show us that
what you really are about is getting other people's good stuff
for free.
7) Aaron comments on the fact that Erik has started to assign motives
to his stated concerns and is making generalizations about people who
have a qualified interest in Lisp. In his second to last paragraph,
Aaron seems frustrated that the conversation is becoming combative.
8) Erik mentions his policy of trying to influence people to rethink
their positions by making it painful to hold "idiotic opinions".
He concludes with, "You are a waste of space and should be recycled."
I'll let Aaron speak for himself, but it sounded to me like Aaron just
wanted to hear an explanation for why the Lisp community hadn't
come-up with a Tcl/Tk or Python-type configuration, given that they
are so popular. He didn't unreasonably resist or cling to his
original proposal, as far as I could tell, although he did get a bit
defensive. Nothing I'd put in the `recycle him' bin.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185593366223105@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| 3) Aaron expands on the notion of bells-and-whistles, and provides
| three links, including the well-known good-news-and-how-to-win-big
| Gabriel article. He says he'd try Allegro CL's builder, but points
| out is not free.
He also says "Just which language are you trying to insult", which I
notice that _you_ don't notice. How _amazingly_ observant of you!
| 5) Aaron says in response to the first remark:
|
| "I didn't throw the first punch, but you just did."
You missed the fact tha he did throw the first punch.
Thanks for showing us that you don't see what you don't want to see.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
EN> He also says "Just which language are you trying to insult",
EN> which I notice that _you_ don't notice. How _amazingly_ observant
EN> of you!
Gee, who's not paying attention?
MD> Erik never explicitly answered Aaron's "just which language are
MD> you trying to insult", question -- the conspicuous absence might
MD> have seemed dismissive to Aaron.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185631555440711@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| Erik never explicitly answered Aaron's "just which language are
| you trying to insult", question -- the conspicuous absence might
| have seemed dismissive to Aaron.
It's a non-rhetorical _question_ in need of _answering_? Geez...
It's so delightful to watch your faked concern for Aaron when you
clearly lack the ability to be concerned with people other than
yourself..
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
MD> Erik never explicitly answered Aaron's "just which language are
MD> you trying to insult", question
EN> It's so delightful to watch your faked concern for Aaron when
EN> you clearly lack the ability to be concerned with people other
EN> than yourself..
Go ahead, keep changing the subject...
AJ> Just which language are you trying to insult
EN> I suggest you find a street corner and cry "just which language are
EN> you trying to insult" to passers-by who don't give you a nickel.
EN> That'll make them about as positive to your requests as I am now.
AJ> I didn't throw the first punch, but you just did.
EN> So you are the kind of person who throws punches and thinks in such terms.
EN> That is valuable to know, but not conducive to your case.
Now Erik says:
EN> You missed the fact tha he did throw the first punch.
Right, right... So you are the kind of person who throws punches and
thinks in such terms. That is valuable to know, but not conducive to
your case.
EN> I suggest the Aaron K. Johnson thread, since it should still be on
EN> a nearby server and it started with a reply that from me that
EN> shouldn't have ignited anyone, but it _did_ ignite an emotionally
EN> disturbed moron.
Ok, you are pointing to the "just what language are you trying to
insult" remark as being when Aaron, the "emotionally disturbed moron"
was ignited.
Is "emotionally disturbed moron" is the appropriate term for Erik to
be thinking at that first juncture when, in response to the text
below, Aaron asks Erik "Just what language are you trying to insult
here?" Sure, Aaron could have said, "Are you talking about Python?",
or simply restated the question, but given that Erik was speaking in
generalities and not immediately addressing the original question of
integration and GUI features (which is a strength of Python and other
scripting environments and absent or hard-to-get-going in free
implementations of Common Lisp), I think this small degree of
irritation is to be expected. Aaron didn't respond in any more
abrasive terms than Erik did, supposing you want to read the exchange
that way.
EN> All too many of those who complain about Common Lisp have very little
EN> idea what they can do with the language in the available environments,
EN> and seem awfully preoccupied with specific (free) implementations and
EN> what they can do, just like they are willing to use one-implementation
EN> "languages" in ways they _claim_ they would never use a standardized
EN> language, so one must assume that they have some sort of weird hangup
EN> against implementation-specific features unless there is only _one_
EN> implementation.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185642295277401@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| ... nothing new ...
Can the owner of that bitch please pick up its last droppings and get
the hell out of here? Thank you.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
Omigod, it's a flame war about a flame war. You know, a meta-flame war! Or is
it flame meta-war?
I needed something after Florida. :)
t
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Marcus G. Daniels
> | 3) Aaron expands on the notion of bells-and-whistles, and provides
> | three links, including the well-known good-news-and-how-to-win-big
> | Gabriel article. He says he'd try Allegro CL's builder, but points
> | out is not free.
>
> He also says "Just which language are you trying to insult", which I
> notice that _you_ don't notice. How _amazingly_ observant of you!
>
> | 5) Aaron says in response to the first remark:
> |
> | "I didn't throw the first punch, but you just did."
>
> You missed the fact tha he did throw the first punch.
>
> Thanks for showing us that you don't see what you don't want to see.
Shit! I don't mean to disrespect anyone when I say this but separating
the crap from the useful content in this newsgroup is becoming a chore.
Please stop threads like this.
kirk
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Marcus G. Daniels
> | I would be satisfied if you started saying, "no, that's wrong, and
> | here's why .." instead of "you fucking moron why don't you kill
> | yourself? No, wait, first I want an apology from your mother for ever
> | giving birth to that disgusting little imbecile."
>
> I already do what you want, you disrespectul little fuck. Where do
> you get off posting so much insanely defamatory shit about me when I
> already do what you claim would satisfy you? You're so dishonest it's
> libel, you goddamn piece of shit! I always _start_ explaining to
> people what's wrong and usually why, too. I don't need to start doing
> this as if I don't: I have done it all my life. 95% of the time,
> people accept and usually thank me for the response because it solves
> their problems, of course despite my being "utterly misguided and
> wrong" in _your_ broad and completely unfounded generalizations. (How
> about you explaining why sometime, huh?) Go check the _record_, you
> disrespecting dickhead! To see that what you have been attacking _is_
> only your own deranged imagination makes me really angry.
>
> If you could try to snap out of your psychosis and actually try to
> _observe_ reality for a change, you should have no problem seeing that
> I do what you claim you would have been satisfied with. God, I'm so
> fucking tired of psychotic morons like you who can't even see past
> their own deranged prejudices when they spend so much effort vilifying
> me and portraying me as this monster that really lives only in their
> own imagination. You're no better than a _racist_, Marcus G. Daniels,
> the kind of morons who cannot wrap their tiny little brains around the
> fact that their images of the people they hate are _caused_ by their
> _disrespect_ for them.
>
> | If someone persists in posting questionable or untrue statements, if
> | you wish, persist in correcting them. Just do it without the attacks.
>
> I already do that. It's when I'm attacked that I don't hold back.
> You act and reason _exactly_ the same way, so shut the fuck up about
> it being wrong. Now, go take your anti-psychotic drugs and snap back
> into reality, will you? Find yourself a recent thread you think is my
> fault went bad, and actually expend the effort to _read_ it and pay
> attention to what actually goes on. I suggest the Aaron K. Johnson
> thread, since it should still be on a nearby server and it started
> with a reply that from me that shouldn't have ignited anyone, but it
> _did_ ignite an emotionally disturbed moron. Big deal. Help get that
> kind of people out of the way instead of blaming me for their existence.
> I do _not_ cause the Raffael Cavallaros and Tom Bretons and I most
> certainly have not caused your psychosis, either.
>
> At worst, I provoke morons into identifying themselves, but take a
> real good look at that piece of shit fan of yours Israel Thomas. Take
> a look at Tom Breton and Raffael Cavallaro. What do they do towards
> me? What do _you_ do towards me, Marcus G. Daniels? Do you post some
> shit that is easily explained as "wrong"? You don't exactly have a
> very good grip on explaining why yourself, either, do you? "Utterly
> misguided and wrong" without evidence, as a sweeping generalization.
> How fucking impressive _that_ is for one dishing out advice on what he
> would be satisfied with from others.
>
> God _damn_ you, Marcus G. Daniels! You've been spinning your own yarn
> for so many years and making up a monster in your imagination that you
> should really go see a good psychiatrist to help you get rid of. For
> once I really mean that as a _personal_ advice to a person that I do
> think has become criminally insane, it's not just a stupid act you
> could change of your own will, any longer. Get professional help!
>
> And self-centered? You're fucking _obsessed_ with your fantasy of me!
> You're the one centered around me. Do you think I _like_ the retarded
> discussions about me from psychotics like you, Tom Breton and Raffael
> Cavallaro? Do you think _I_ invite you sick fucks to talk about me
> for weeks when you get your ire up? _You_ turn this newsgroup into a
> flame-fest against me. And what could I _possibly_ do to mollify your
> rage when you are so blinded by your hatred and disrespect that you
> don't even _see_ what would have quieted you down and satisfied you?
>
> What the hell does what you do have to do with anything that could
> possibly be countered with "no, that's wrong and here's why?" It is
> not possible to acquiesce you, because _you_ are the destroyer of this
> forum. You try to make it my fault, but I already do what you want.
> _You_ help people feel justified in attacking me. _You_ condone the
> lynch mobs, the ganging up on me. _You_ fuel the hostility towards
> me. What does that make you, Marcus G. Daniels? Criminally insane!
>
> FIND AN OFFENDING THREAD AND READ IT FROM THE _START_, NOT JUST FROM
> WHEN YOUR UPTIGHT SENSIBILITIES GET TRIGGERED INTO BELIEVING YOU SEE
> WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE!
>
> I suggest you talk to Barry Margolin about what it took him to snap
> out of his imaginary world and start to see what was really going on.
> He was also posting unfounded shit about me for a _long_ time before
> he realized that reality was a _little_ more complex than he wanted it
> to be and kept trying to make it by posting vilifying crap about me.
>
> What I actually do _ought_ to have been enough to go on, but such
> psychotic fucks as you and Tom Breton and Raffael Cavallaro don't stop
> at reality because it just isn't bad enough to justify what you do.
>
> I've fucking _had_ it with you, Marcus G. Daniels. Stop pouring your
> purified bile into this forum and start saying something that doesn't
> reek of your particularly stinking brand of abject disrespect so
> intense that you can't even see anything but your own prejudice.
>
> #:Erk
> --
> "When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
> to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
> frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
> -- Unknown
--
Public key @ http://www.geocities.com/ksaranat/pub-key.txt
In article <···············@world.std.com>, Kent M Pitman
<······@world.std.com> wrote:
>I don't think many new posters are reading Erik's long missives.
>I think only dyed in the wool people with a serious interest are.
>I think some might be reading these anti-erik threads because they call
>attention to him. I think these do phenomenally more damage to the ng
>than anything Erik rights.
Well the ones to whom they are addressed are _certainly_ reading them,
and they're not going to come back. The newcomers who get abused _do_
read Erik's postings, and they quickly leave c.l.l, in all liklihood,
never to return.
Many lurkers _do_ read Erik's postings - I know because I have received
emails from them which generally say something like "thanks for saying
that, I was beginning to think everyone in c.l.l was insane, because
they all come to the defense of this vicious guy Erik..." These people,
as is true of lurkers in general, are as great, or greater in number
than those who post. Many have written me to say they are _afraid_ to
post, because they don't want to be beaten up on by Erik.
You seem far too concerned with some questionable notion that long
threads calling attention to Erik's abusive behavior will somehow cause
damage to lisp's reputation, without being much concerned at all about
the demonstrable, present damage of having the better part of the
posting newsgroup community come to the defense of a viciously abusive
poster. This atmosphere sends out a definite message - "we don't really
want you here." And it seems to succeed, because almost no new posters
stick around.
Ralph
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
·······@mediaone.net
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185587729373689@naggum.net>
* Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net>
| Many lurkers _do_ read Erik's postings - I know because I have received
| emails from ...
Let them speak for themselves. You are not a trustworthy reporter.
| These people, as is true of lurkers in general, are as great, or
| greater in number than those who post. Many have written me to say
| they are _afraid_ to post, because they don't want to be beaten up on
| by Erik.
Do you perchance get e-mail from people who have at least _slightly_
different opinions from those you hold yourself or do they all just
happen to _agree_ with everything you do?
| This atmosphere sends out a definite message - "we don't really want
| you here."
That is indeed the atmosphere that _you_ fucking abusers of this forum
have created. Say something that the Marcus G. Daniels fan club does
not like, and what happens? Abuse? You bet! You take it from there.
Clean up your own act. Quit _your_ personal attacks and abuse.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
On 12 Dec 2000 05:28:49 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>* Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net>
>| Many lurkers _do_ read Erik's postings - I know because I have received
>| emails from ...
>
> Let them speak for themselves. You are not a trustworthy reporter.
>
>| These people, as is true of lurkers in general, are as great, or
>| greater in number than those who post. Many have written me to say
>| they are _afraid_ to post, because they don't want to be beaten up on
>| by Erik.
I don't post here often... and I try to filter Erik's posts. Sometimes
they are worthwhile but typically they are just flames. I'm certainly
not afraid to post by any means, but I do find the group less enjoyable
because of Erik's presence. This is certainly the most hostile group I
have ever read on a regular basis... in large part due to Erik.
....
Just one more data point.
--
Kenneth P. Turvey <······@SprocketShop.com>
--------------------------------------------------------
One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly
making exciting discoveries.
-- A. A. Milne
······@SprocketShop.com (Kenneth P. Turvey) writes:
> On 12 Dec 2000 05:28:49 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> >* Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net>
> >| Many lurkers _do_ read Erik's postings - I know because I have received
> >| emails from ...
> >
> > Let them speak for themselves. You are not a trustworthy reporter.
> [...]
> not afraid to post by any means, but I do find the group less enjoyable
> because of Erik's presence. This is certainly the most hostile group I
> have ever read on a regular basis... in large part due to Erik.
Indeed the viciousness of his verbal abuse is appalling. It certainly
deters from expressing a dissenting opinion, or any opinion for that
matter :-) I came back to this newsgroup to find out where Lisp was
going: well... it seems to have moved to the middle-east.
Cheers,
--
Dr. Denys Duchier ·············@ps.uni-sb.de
Forschungsbereich Programmiersysteme (Programming Systems Lab)
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Geb. 45 http://www.ps.uni-sb.de/~duchier
Postfach 15 11 50 Phone: +49 681 302 5618
66041 Saarbruecken, Germany Fax: +49 681 302 5615
>>>>> "D3" == Denys Duchier <·············@ps.uni-sb.de> writes:
D3> I came back to this newsgroup to find out where Lisp was going:
D3> well... it seems to have moved to the middle-east.
For what's its worth, I'll get out of the way. I've said what I had to say.
There's no reaching him.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185672348660233@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| There's no reaching him.
You have been invited to try something other than disrespect about a
100 times. You never have. I don't know what the conclusion should
be, but I'm not going to change my mind about you until you change
your behavior towards me. You refuse to do that. I refuse to think
of you as anything but a criminally insane, thoroughly evil piece of
human refuse in _response_ to your chosen actions and approach towards
me. You get what you deserve, only I have been _charitable_ to one
who has spent so much time and effort attacking me as you have and so
much effort instigating hostility towards me from this newsgroup's
more despicable readership. You have said what you "had" to say, now
that your disciples have become numerous enough that you can leave.
You're a miserable coward, too. If you took responsibility for what
you have done, you would wish you could undo it, but you shall be
denied that, no apology will be accepted unless you follow it up with
actions that contradict your past behavior and what you have done
shall be remembered until you choose to repent from your evil ways.
I strongly doubt that you will actually shut up and go away until you
get a bullet through your head, which I strongly encourage anyone in
your vicinity see to it that you receive as soon as possible. Such is
the damage you have done that your death seems little reprieve as long
as you do not realize what you have done. But you _have_ reached me,
actually. I have not felt hatred for anyone since the feeling scared
me as a child, despite an unspeakable amount of evil from a very small
number of people just like you over the years. You have managed to do
so fucking much to hurt me that I have the deepest hatred for you I
shall probably ever feel towards any still or once living human. You
are probably exceedingly proud of that, so: CONGRATULATIONS!
Now, go rot in Hell, Marcus G. Daniels, and take your fucking fan club
with you. There shall no forgiveness for what you have done to me.
You are and will remain a thoroughly, completely evil human being with
no shred of good in the entirety of your soul. May Your God Damn You.
I doubt, in return, that this or anything else I have said has reached
you. I would have hoped you had people around you who could tell you
what you have done and why _your_ destructiveness has bred feelings of
hostility and animosity that no horror story author could invent,
but now I hope there are nobody around you at all, because the mere
presence of your evil would surely destroy any unsuspecting goodness.
If anyone should still be around you, I hope they make sure to cremate
you so your blood and flesh and bones shall nourish nothing but flames.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
On 13 Dec 2000 04:59:08 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> replied
to Marcus G. Daniels:
>* Marcus G. Daniels
>| There's no reaching him.
> I strongly doubt that you will actually shut up and go away until you
> get a bullet through your head, which I strongly encourage anyone in
> your vicinity see to it that you receive as soon as possible.
> You are and will remain a thoroughly, completely evil human being with
> no shred of good in the entirety of your soul. May Your God Damn You.
> If anyone should still be around you, I hope they make sure to cremate
> you so your blood and flesh and bones shall nourish nothing but flames.
>
>#:Erik
You are a very seriously disturbed person.
Try http://www.rikshospitalet.no/ for help.
>Indeed the viciousness of his verbal abuse is appalling. It certainly
>deters from expressing a dissenting opinion, or any opinion for that
>matter :-) I came back to this newsgroup to find out where Lisp was
>going: well... it seems to have moved to the middle-east.
Indeed.
I wonder whether Mr NAGGUM attacks his cat as badly as he attacks
humans.
Perhaps that is why he has CAT and no human who cares for him.
* George Aksyonov <·······@aol.com>
| Indeed.
| I wonder whether Mr NAGGUM attacks his cat as badly as he attacks
| humans.
|
| Perhaps that is why he has CAT and no human who cares for him.
Please stop doing this in your messages.
Please discuss lisp.
Stop these foolish and rude outbursts.
Do the above three lines sound anything familiar to you?
_Why_ do you choose to do what you do?
What are _you_ like in real life? Do you attack people on the street
because you have read ugly things about them in the newspaper? I can
assume you are that kind of person, because you just gave me the right
to assume such things about you. Do you understand this? Or does
somebody else have to tell you to behave because you look first and
foremost on _who_ says something before you listen to them? Does that
mean, say, that you attack only black people on the street if you read
ugly things about them? Or does it mean that you regret what you did
and would like to apologize for going completely overboard? Again,
you have a choice. I suggest you take it and start to _think_ about
what you are doing here and why you acted the way you do.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
George Aksyonov <·······@aol.com> writes:
> Perhaps that is why he has CAT and no human who cares for him.
God. When I read this I started to share some of the hatred for these
completely insane and heartless morons.
If you've ever had a cat, you would know that they require quite a bit
of love and attention. Cats don't give love easy either. They learn
to trust very slowly, but loose that trust very easily, and regaining
it is a struggle.
I would guess that George Aksyonov could not possibly earn the love of
a cat. A human? maybe, but not a cat. I'm sure he can find a
socially demented, hypocritical worthless human being to share his
pitiful views and disgusting accusations. Right now I'm stuck in
Australia, thousands of miles from my cat. The last thing I needed to
read is this putrid trash. God. If I found out that George Aksyonov
went to an animal adoption center to adopt a cat, it would be worth
taking time out of my life to write a letter to some organization
trying to prevent that from happening. It is pricks like _you_,
George, who make me sad that it is so easy to get a cat.
George. Did you ever consider that you might be an asshole? After
your first post, and the response you got, I figured you out as
someone who _accidentally_ fueled the fire, and even thought that
Erik's followup might be off. But he had you pinned, and indeed you
are the belligerent asshole you hinted you might be.
dave
> George Aksyonov <·······@aol.com> writes:
>
> > Perhaps that is why he has CAT and no human who cares for him.
>
> God. When I read this I started to share some of the hatred for these
> completely insane and heartless morons.
I agree. Its completely uncalled for. Regardless of what a person
might think of EN's postings, trying to score some sort of points by
exploiting his sick cat is rude and mean-spirited. I urge
Mr. Aksyonov to consider apologizing to Erik and the group at large.
Erik, I hope your cat is feeling better.
Gregm
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
wrote:
> Do you perchance get e-mail from people who have at least _slightly_
> different opinions from those you hold yourself or do they all just
> happen to _agree_ with everything you do?
Yes, I do get some email from people who disagree with me wrt your
posts, but the overwhelming majority of the email I get is from people
who:
1. agree with me that you are so offputting that they will
2. never post to this forum, for fear of having to deal with you.
You effectively limit the posters to c.l.l to people who either agree
with you, or have been here so long they are used to ignoring your rants.
In practice, this means you almost eliminate new participants to this
newsgroup.
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
·······@mediaone.net
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <nkj66kp7k7e.fsf@tfeb.org>
Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net> writes:
>
> In practice, this means you almost eliminate new participants to this
> newsgroup.
>
Which is obviously false.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185623340565981@naggum.net>
* Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net>
| You effectively limit the posters to c.l.l to people who either agree
| with you, or have been here so long they are used to ignoring your
| rants.
That'd be the people who agree with _you_ first, and _then_ your two
categories. I feel entirely comfortable dismissing and scaring off
anyone who agrees with _your_ style, however, so if anything, I have
succeeded in chasing off some massive stupidity.
| In practice, this means you almost eliminate new participants to this
| newsgroup.
Well, this is a testable hypothesis, and very easily falsified, too.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
RC> In practice, this means you almost eliminate new participants to
RC> this newsgroup.
EN> Well, this is a testable hypothesis, and very easily falsified, too.
We'd have to know the number of lurkers and the makeup of the lurkers
before we could say anything very meaningful about the effects of your
reactions. A Erik-filtered subset of self-selected individuals would
explain a few new participants, but it doesn't tell us about who
leaves before jumping in to the mix.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185636757304366@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| We'd have to know the number of lurkers and the makeup of the lurkers
| before we could say anything very meaningful about the effects of your
| reactions. A Erik-filtered subset of self-selected individuals would
| explain a few new participants, but it doesn't tell us about who
| leaves before jumping in to the mix.
We can perhaps use the data on how many rational and smart people
leave when they see that a newsgroup is about the Marcus G. Daniels
fan club ganging up on and beating a noted and long-term contributor
to death for weeks and months and years on end because they don't like
some part of his style.
_I_ get mail from Lispers world-wide, too, and while I think referring
to personal mail is indecent in a public forum, I can relate that some
don't post because they are afraid to be pegged as "members of the
Naggum fan club" by such fucking evil-doers as _your_ fan club simply
because they happen to enjoy how I help them use and understand Common
Lisp. I thrive on eyes that shine up with that sign of understanding
that you see in bright children who have struggled to figure out some
hard problem. Nothing give me more personal pleasure than to make a
difficult connection that simplifies something, be it for myself or
someone else. I don't know what you thrive on, but I have a guess:
Vanquishing that sign of intelligence and enjoyment of one's ability
to master problems. Many people of just-above-average intelligence
think high intelligence is phenomenally scary.
Example: rec.org.mensa is a fantastic display of morons throwing rocks
at people they hate simply because they are more intelligent than the
stupid stone-throwers, and that really doesn't take a lot, does it?
Some of those rock-throwing morons are just as periodic and persistent
as our local Marcus G. Danielses. All over the media, we find people
who are scared shitless of letting "experts" make decisions, probably
because they cannot follow their reasoning, and who spend all their
energy on denouncing experts as such. You, Marcus, make so many
stupid simplifications and retarded short-circuited conclusions that
all you have left is a moronic complaint that I say some "utterly
misguided and wrong" things sometimes. Let me guess: You are so
_average_ in intelligence and intellectual powers that you would't
even know it if you did, or you never have any ideas advanced and
complex enough that _anybody_ would disagree with you, hence you think
having different ideas than yourself is relevant to judging people's
thinking ability. Well, moron, you're wrong.
I really hope nobody here believe for a minute that I would keep going
and help people and discuss and promote Common Lisp with all sorts of
people, even those who have been stupid and evil in the past, if _all_
I met in this forum were the likes of you and your fan club, Marcus G.
Daniels. You're a cost that I have simply become used to, like taxes.
To see a bright person understand something means suffering a Raffael
Cavallaro. To solve a really hard problem costs an Israel Thomas. To
explain something that involves difficult prioritation and scheduling
of resources costs a Tom Breton. To point out that somebody has made
up his mind that something is complex because he doesn't think in the
right terms costs five snide remarks from Marcus G. Daniels. I still
make a windfall profit, emotionally, from seeing people understand.
It's like caring for a sick cat (or baby), who pukes and shits and
urinates without control for several days (or years for the babies :)
because you know you have a very loving companion when it's over.
The morons who abuse this forum the way you condone, encourage, and
instigate them to do are _irrelevant_ to how I feel at the end of the
day if I get but a single e-mail or a followup saying that somebody
understood something or solved a problem. If the evil and stupidity
in this world, and yours in particular mattered to me, personally, I
cannot imagine how I would have the energy to keep going for so long.
You, Marcus G. Daniels, are as irrelevant as a dog turd in a beautiful
park on a sunny day. That you follow me around and insist on stinking
like hell is a fucking nuisance, to be forgotten like all other evil
and stupidity in this world as soon as you go away. That you don't
quit betrays a level of destructiveness on your part that I really do
hope you get shot and killed for some day, but only because it doesn't
seem possible to clean up this park without the death of the dogs who
has been trained to shit in it.
You do not understand your own role, but you do not in fact contribute
anything but hostility and destructiveness, and that means that your
energy must come from a pure desire to destroy. Nobody could keep
going like you do and have on _constructive_ energy. All that talk
about "cults" also tells me that you are on a mission from a deity of
limited powers and insight to destroy a competing religion. So I boil
you down to stupid envy of intelligence, combined with a thoroughly
evil religious motivation to destroy what you covet and know you can
never have: Enjoyment from understanding anything truly complex.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
EN> _I_ get mail from Lispers world-wide, too, and while I think
EN> referring to personal mail is indecent in a public forum, I can
EN> relate that some don't post because they are afraid to be pegged
EN> as "members of the Naggum fan club" by such fucking evil-doers as
EN> _your_ fan club simply because they happen to enjoy how I help
EN> them use and understand Common Lisp. I thrive on eyes that shine
EN> up with that sign of understanding that you see in bright children
EN> who have struggled to figure out some hard problem. Nothing give
EN> me more personal pleasure than to make a difficult connection that
EN> simplifies something, be it for myself or someone else. I don't
EN> know what you thrive on, but I have a guess: Vanquishing that sign
EN> of intelligence and enjoyment of one's ability to master problems.
This is so touching, Erik! Balloons, teddy bears, frolicking in the park!
Wonderful! Let's make an after-school special, shall we?
If I wanted to vanquish intelligence, there would be dozens of targets
in comp.lang.lisp, and you wouldn't be my first choice.
I do admit, however, that my contempt for your abusive behavior is
virtually bottomless.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185652157185910@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| This is so touching, Erik! Balloons, teddy bears, frolicking in the
| park! Wonderful! Let's make an after-school special, shall we?
Sure, complete with a speaking dog turd that follows people around and
tries to make other people stink like hell, too.
But it really is quite amazing how you react. I couldn't invent a
better image than what you provided all on your own, free of charge.
| If I wanted to vanquish intelligence, there would be dozens of targets
| in comp.lang.lisp, and you wouldn't be my first choice.
*laugh* Is that really the best your little turd brain can do? HAHA!
I _am_ your first choice, you pathetic little shit! I'm obviously all
you've got. You are absolutely nothing without me to attack, and you
do _nothing_ else, here. I'm your raison d'etre. Without me to post
about, you would vanish like a dog's fart. You already give me so
much credit for being the next strongest force in this newsgroup that
I think you should realize that the only reason you're the number one
force, of the evil and destructive kind in your case, is that you have
me to work so hard to put down. But you're the winner, bar none, in
the contest of being the worst asshole to post to comp.lang.lisp in
its entire existence. The reason: I scare idiots off; you make them
come here and join your vendetta against me.
| I do admit, however, that my contempt for your abusive behavior is
| virtually bottomless.
I know, it is from lowest rungs of hell that you keep posting, too. I
sincerely hope that is where you _stay_ when you make this planet a
better place, because you certainly will never understand what an evil
creep you are while you are alive. I really hope you terrorize some
people in your surroundings, too, so somebody will off you soon and
send you _home_. Let me know who, and I'll send them flowers. Hell,
why not set up a Marcus G. Daniels' Memorial Fund for scholarships to
computer science students who want to learn Common Lisp and have the
money sit in escrow pending your notarized death certificate. I need
to place almost USD 15K in some charity before the end of the year for
tax reasons, anyway, so maybe encouraging someone to get rid of you
and learn Common Lisp at the same time would be a great combo package!
You don't really have contempt for my "abusive behavior", though. You
need it to keep your moral upper hand and to keep posting your shit so
your little fan club can have somebody they can feel better than. For
what would a Marcus G. Daniels do without me to feel contempt for?
Oh, I do notice that you carefully craft your wording to be contempt
for my _behavior_, now, instead of repeating that braindamaged honesty
to say you disrespect _me_, but you need to contradict it, you see, to
make a difference.
You deserve _everything_ you get from me, and twice that. Of course
you realize that as you have taken it upon you to keep posting shit
about me, attacking out of the blue, you _gave_ me the right to deal
with you exactly as I please. If you don't like it, well, _doh_, you
can just quit your attacking out of the blue. I'm nice and respectful
to you compared to what you do me. In fact, I still respect _you_ as
a human being enough to hope that you will some day realize what you
have done, up to and including understanding just how much you told me
and the rest of the world about yourself with your reaction to the
park metaphor. _You_ have crossed every line I have _left_ to cross
when it comes to you, but I do not consider evil and stupidity as
_important_ enough to remember, so if you come to and start to behave
like a human being, I won't hold your past against you. There are
lots of people out there who have been really mean to me after having
been worked up to a frenzy by a disrespectful dickhead like you, hey,
it probably was you!, who know that I do accept an apology and an
about-face. (Provided they don't keep it up, of course.) Even an
evil son of a bitch like you could quit what you do and see that I no
longer think of you, say anything about you, or hold you responsible
for the people you have attracted and encouraged here up until now.
It's up to you to start to behave if you don't want more "abuse", or
as I prefer to call it: Due response to evil. I think this is fair.
Your mode of thinking is one of life-long disrespect and revenge and
hatred, but even such a insanely demented anti-justice attitude can be
altered by the person holding it. Try it. You'll be surprised.
Hell, you'll surprise _everyone_ if you suddenly stop your evil.
Until then, of course, you're just a contempt-filled douchebag who
must accept what comes to you as long as you keep up your hostility.
That's life for a Marcus G. Daniels. And you must _like_ it since you
don't do anything else or anything about it, right?
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
EN> You are absolutely nothing without me
Maybe if we all chip-in we could build you a statue?
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185659651888015@naggum.net>
* Marcus G. Daniels
| Maybe if we all chip-in we could build you a statue?
You already have, and it's the statue you are attacking, not me.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
>| rOn 12 Dec 2000 15:22:20 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> categories. I feel entirely comfortable dismissing and scaring off
> anyone who agrees with _your_ style, however, so if anything, I have
> succeeded in chasing off some massive stupidity.
MR Nggum,
the only person who is exhibing "stupidity" is your good self.
Please stop doing this in your messages.
Please discuss lisp.
Stop these foolish and rude outbursts.
* George Aksyonov <·······@aol.com>
| the only person who is exhibing "stupidity" is your good self.
Yup, take sides, post some unfair accusation like that, and you hope
you contribute to something? How amazingly brilliant! Good stuff!
Sure, I'll listen to someone who can't even keep himself clean. Must
be a man _full_ of sound advice, indeed.
| Please stop doing this in your messages.
| Please discuss lisp.
| Stop these foolish and rude outbursts.
You failed to avoid rudeness yourself. You took sides and you felt it
was appropriate to take part in the mud-slinging. That should tell
you something _very_ important.
You had _one_ opportunity not to start what you have started, and did
not choose to use it. I'm actually interested in learning why you did
not seize that opportunity to avoid involving yourself. It is of
course off-topic, but please ask your mentor Marcus G. Daniels to stop
his incessant posting about me, and the rest of you will follow. I
have asked him to stop a good number of times, but it doesn't help.
Maybe he will only listen to his fans. I know _I'm_ more symptathetic
to people who manage not to jump out of the closet to attack me when
they have something to tell me, so maybe he will listen to you as you
are already of his kind and on his side? Please try, will you?
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
From: Michael D. Kersey
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3A36FF37.91E3F10A@hal-pc.org>
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> You effectively limit the posters to c.l.l to people who either agree
> with you, or have been here so long they are used to ignoring your rants.
> In practice, this means you almost eliminate new participants to this
> newsgroup.
I, for one, disagree. I read this newsgroup partially *because* of Mr.
Naggum's well-founded and vigorous defense of himself, the newsgroup and
Lisp in general.
I have not seen him speak ill of anyone without significant provocation.
Further, I have decided to methodically kill-file people who insult or
attack him. So I won't be reading any more of your posts except the
portions that Erik Naggum or others include in their posts.
*PLONK*
In article <·················@hal-pc.org>,
Michael D. Kersey <········@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>> You effectively limit the posters to c.l.l to people who either agree
>> with you, or have been here so long they are used to ignoring your rants.
>> In practice, this means you almost eliminate new participants to this
>> newsgroup.
>
>I, for one, disagree. I read this newsgroup partially *because* of Mr.
>Naggum's well-founded and vigorous defense of himself, the newsgroup and
>Lisp in general.
>
If you think that entertainment, then please continue. I find his
postings frequently insulting and deplorable. (And, of course,
sometimes interesting and informative.)
>I have not seen him speak ill of anyone without significant provocation.
>
"Significant provocation" can include disagreement. I must admit
to having deliberately provoked him on one occasion. I did it by
writing a calm post that questioned his assessment of another
person's motives, in a polite manner. In that it was partly intended
as an experiment in provocation, I apologize.
Nor have I seen a newsgroup regular like Erik Naggum in another group
since I gave up on comp.lang.perl*.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
·····@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3186250664071382@naggum.net>
* David Thornley
| I must admit to having deliberately provoked him on one occasion. ... In
| that it was partly intended as an experiment in provocation, I apologize.
To whom? I don't accept apologies for deliberate provocation.
#:Erik
--
The United States of America, soon a Bush league world power. Yeee-haw!
In article <·····························@news.ne.mediaone.net>,
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Do you perchance get e-mail from people who have at least _slightly_
>> different opinions from those you hold yourself or do they all just
>> happen to _agree_ with everything you do?
>
>Yes, I do get some email from people who disagree with me wrt your
>posts, but the overwhelming majority of the email I get is from people
>who:
>
>1. agree with me that you are so offputting that they will
why? I have seen some very good technical answers from Erik.
If he calls you a whatever, justified or not, so what you got
your question answered and you can get on with work.
>
>2. never post to this forum, for fear of having to deal with you.
There is a word's for this kind of personality problem: wimps.
Also if you have a fire and pour gas on it and it becomes a bigger
fire, what do you do if you want the fire to go out? You pour
more gas right?
marc
>
>You effectively limit the posters to c.l.l to people who either agree
>with you, or have been here so long they are used to ignoring your rants.
>
>In practice, this means you almost eliminate new participants to this
>newsgroup.
>
>--
>
>Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
>·······@mediaone.net
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> Clean up your own act. Quit _your_ personal attacks and abuse.
Erik, only those who willfully ignore the harm your vitriol causes could
ever think that asking posters, as you have, to please do the world a
favor and commit suicide, is not abuse.
Only similary deluded people would conclude that my pointing out that such
behavior as yours drives new posters from this newsgroup constitutes
"abuse." Nor is it a "personal attack" when I, or others, point out the
very real harm you do.
Simply put, your tone doesn't promote truth, though you may believe it
does. It simply diminishes the usefullness of this newsgroup to many
others, by preventing them from ever posting.
Ralph
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185825600594591@naggum.net>
* Raffael Cavallaro
| Erik, only those who willfully ignore the harm your vitriol causes
| could ever think that asking posters, as you have, to please do the
| world a favor and commit suicide, is not abuse.
Why on earth are you so _incredibly_ obsessing about that? What do
you want? As far as you go ranting and raving, there's even less
likelihood that you will ever stop ranting and raving no matter what
_anyone_ does, and you have certainly never said anything at all that
could be interpreted as opening for any action that _would_ appease
you. You may not have noticed it, but I do that _all_ the time, and
you people who keep attacking me _never_ do it. Even when you are
asked point-blank, you don't actually give answers that can be used
for anything at all. This is very, very indicative of how you think
and why there is no _point_ in even trying to listen to what you keep
ranting and raving about. Please understand this and do something
differently that might actually convey a desire to _stop_ your insane,
obsessive hostility. Unless, of course, you don't desire that at all,
which is what everybody but you hostility freaks already suspect.
| Nor is it a "personal attack" when I, or others, point out the very
| real harm you do.
No, of course not. Your halo protects you from all criticism.
| Simply put, your tone doesn't promote truth, though you may believe it
| does.
I'll take that as sound advice from someone who really knows.
| It simply diminishes the usefullness of this newsgroup to many others,
| by preventing them from ever posting.
When you realize that this applies to you even more than it does to
me, you _may_ have something worthwhile to tell me, because then you
will already have changed _your_ ways in order to achieve some goals
that do not consist purely of destruction, as is evident now. People
who only seek to destroy must be ignored, lest they succeed, like
Marcus G. Daniels, who made it very, very hard for himself to be
ignored, very different from your most recent fan club members.
#:Erik
--
The United States of America, soon a Bush league world power. Yeee-haw!
From: Erik Winkels
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <87ofyhk7g9.fsf@xs4all.nl>
Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net> writes:
> These people, as is true of lurkers in general, are as great, or
> greater in number than those who post.
Let me delurk for once then. It won't make any statistical difference
but I just like to register a different opinion.
> Many have written me to say they are _afraid_ to post, because they
> don't want to be beaten up on by Erik.
I wouldn't be afraid to post and I certainly haven't been scared away
by Erik. He (along with Kent) was one of the reasons I subscribed to
c.l.l. after seeing his postings regularly pop up on my Dejanews Lisp
searches.
Maybe some people should just reread some of Erik's postings before
hitting the follow-up button right away after spotting a politically
incorrect word or sentence.
Cheers,
Erik.
--
"I imagine it's part of the whole black-is-white up-is-down
freedom-is-slavery and ignorance-is-strength worldview that's prevalent
on That Platform." -- Ben in the SDM
Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net> writes:
> In article <···············@world.std.com>, Kent M Pitman
> <······@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't think many new posters are reading Erik's long missives.
> >I think only dyed in the wool people with a serious interest are.
> >I think some might be reading these anti-erik threads because they call
> >attention to him. I think these do phenomenally more damage to the ng
> >than anything Erik rights.
>
> Well the ones to whom they are addressed are _certainly_ reading them,
> and they're not going to come back.
>
> The newcomers who get abused _do_
> read Erik's postings, and they quickly leave c.l.l, in all liklihood,
> never to return.
Says who? I have been `flamed' by Erik years ago in another
newsgroup, but that didn't stop my posting at all. I wasn't even
upset about him, rather he actually convinced me after a few more
postings.
> Many lurkers _do_ read Erik's postings - I know because I have received
> emails from them which generally say something like "thanks for saying
> that, I was beginning to think everyone in c.l.l was insane, because
> they all come to the defense of this vicious guy Erik..." These people,
> as is true of lurkers in general, are as great, or greater in number
> than those who post. Many have written me to say they are _afraid_ to
> post, because they don't want to be beaten up on by Erik.
But those who did not agree with you probably didn't write any Emails,
so what does this prove? Posting here is much less `dangerous' than
posting to comp.lang.c, for instance. But that doesn't stop people
from asking questions about how to clear the screen in C, either.
> You seem far too concerned with some questionable notion that long
> threads calling attention to Erik's abusive behavior will somehow
> cause damage to lisp's reputation, without being much concerned at
> all about the demonstrable, present damage of having the better part
> of the posting newsgroup community come to the defense of a
> viciously abusive poster. This atmosphere sends out a definite
> message - "we don't really want you here." And it seems to succeed,
> because almost no new posters stick around.
I am a `lurker' myself, but what I find really *DISGUSTING* is this
kind of `show trial' of several people against Eric as a person. If
you don't like him, so be it, but why do you people have to make such
an issue of it? This /public accusation/ is cruel and `abusive',
other than anything Erik has ever posted.
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
In article <·····························@news.ne.mediaone.net>,
Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net> wrote:
> In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>, ········@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Any rational person who has observed your responses would clearly see
> >that it is you who have "snapped", and have very little control over
> >your emotional responses. Furthermore, most unlike you, I refrain from
> >making viscious sub-human wishes about your bodily harm.
>
> I see another unsupecting victim has stepped on the naggum-mine and had
> a leg blown off. Oh well.
>
> I've said it before, and in all seriousness:
>
> Erik Naggum is the single largest force impeding the more widespread use
> of common lisp. People come to c.l.l, see the sort of treatment that
> others receive at his hands, and quickly conclude that something is not
> quite right in common lisp land. They don't come back, because, after
> all, there are always scheme, Dylan, Smalltalk, and other functional
> languages, all of which have newsgroups where newcomers arent flayed
> alive.
And there isn't even an FAQ entry for that. ;-)
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
From: Valeriy E. Ushakov
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <9028sc$h2h$1@news.spbu.ru>
Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net> wrote:
> I see another unsupecting victim has stepped on the naggum-mine and
> had a leg blown off. Oh well.
Why is that after reading this I just can't stop mumbling "... shoot
yourself in the foot..." and then giggling silly???
;-)
SY, Uwe
--
···@ptc.spbu.ru | Zu Grunde kommen
http://www.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/ | Ist zu Grunde gehen
Mike Ajemian <·······@brainlink.com> writes:
> I've been reading c.l.l. for about six months now, and find it to be the most
> informative and lively newsgroup I read. Erik's posts are many times helpful,
> sometimes funny, sometimes over the line, but I disagree that he's impeding
> growth of the newsgroup. He's one of the half-dozen people on this group that I
> really look forward to reading notes from to help me gain more knowledge of
> lisp.
I used to think so too, until I realized that basics like "optimize
last, if ever" escape him.
--
Tom Breton, http://world.std.com/~tob
Not using "gh" 1997-2000. http://world.std.com/~tob/ugh-free.html
Some vocal people in cll make frequent, hasty personal attacks, but if
you killfile them cll becomes usable.
I should think 5 times before posting to a thread like this, but i think this
is a gratuitous attack. Maybe E.N. has a tendency to go on length righteous
crusades every now and then, but he knows Lisp well enough and posts enough
helpful advice that we should be able to overlook the flamefests.
(Besides, in all the ones that i've cared to read, he had a valid point.)
--
Glauber Ribeiro
··········@my-deja.com http://www.myvehiclehistoryreport.com
"Opinions stated are my own and not representative of Experian"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3184675861936706@naggum.net>
* Tom Breton <···@world.std.com>
| I used to think so too, until I realized that basics like "optimize
| last, if ever" escape him.
On last count, a dozen other people here voiced "concern" over your
idiotic stand on optimization, but I'm the only one you choose to
remember "disagreed" with you. So I wonder why you optimized your
hatred towards me so prematurely.
How about posting some rabid hatemongering towards the kind soul who
responded to you now, disagreeing with your completely misguided views
like any normal, rational person _has_ to do?
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <907f6t$n2g$1@joe.rice.edu>
In article <··············@world.std.com> on
<··············@world.std.com>, "Tom Breton" <···@world.std.com> wrote:
> I used to think so too, until I realized that basics like "optimize
> last, if ever" escape him.
>
"Last" is a bit late to fix design problems. Design problems can result
in slow code.
--
-> -\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=<*><*>=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/- <-
-> -/-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/ { Rahul -<>- Jain } \=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\- <-
-> -\- "I never could get the hang of Thursdays." - HHGTTG by DNA -/- <-
-> -/- http://photino.sid.rice.edu/ -=- ·················@usa.net -\- <-
|--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-|
Version 11.423.999.210020101.23.50110101.042
(c)1996-2000, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
Dear Raffle Cavalier Phenomenal Dimwit,
Raffael Cavallaro Ph.D. wrote:
> Erik Naggum is the single largest force impeding the more widespread use
> of common lisp. People come to c.l.l, see the sort of treatment that
> others receive at his hands, and quickly conclude that something is not
> quite right in common lisp land. They don't come back, because, after
> all, there are always scheme, Dylan, Smalltalk, and other functional
> languages, all of which have newsgroups where newcomers arent flayed
> alive.
Purely For Your Information, Erik Naggum is the only reason I read
comp.lang.lisp, and Erik Naggum is the only reason i'm thinking to myself
"maybe i should learn Common Lisp".
Too is the fact that because of him, a genius like myself occasionally drops
in and endow scintillating ideas. And with that, creating another hundred
gallons of avid readers like yourself.
> ... flayed alive.
Intriguing thought. Do you have pictures of flayed people? Videos? Let's
talk offline. This newsgroup is fucking PG.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
> From: Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net>
> Organization: Road Runner
> Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:26:35 GMT
> Subject: the naggum-mine claims another victim
From: ······@honolulu.ilog.fr
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <91657t$1o5$1@honolulu.ilog.fr>
Xah Lee wrote:
> Purely For Your Information, Erik Naggum is the only reason I read
> comp.lang.lisp, and Erik Naggum is the only reason i'm thinking to myself
> "maybe i should learn Common Lisp".
A few years ago, when Naggum wasn't so "special", many more people
contributed to comp.lang.lisp in a reasonable way. Postings of Barry Margolin
were the ones I estimated most. I remember an excellent one when he explained
in detail what CDR-coding is. Alas, he also was attacked by Naggum on
2000-08-23, like most others in this newsgroup.
Bruno
Joe Marshall <···@content-integrity.com> writes:
> Raffael Cavallaro <·······@mediaone.net> writes:
>
> > I've said it before, and in all seriousness:
> >
> > Erik Naggum is the single largest force impeding the more widespread
> > use of common lisp. People come to c.l.l, see the sort of treatment
> > that others receive at his hands, and quickly conclude that
> > something is not quite right in common lisp land.
>
> That's ridiculous.
>
> No competent engineer would choose a programming language based on the
> personality of usenet posters!
Raffael may have overstated the case, but IMO he has a point.
Granted, of course, the Common Lisp using community is a lot bigger
than cll, and probably a fair bit bigger than everyone who's ever
lurked in cll. (Or maybe not. It's hard to count lurkers.)
But I do think the dogmaticness and hostility that "some posters"
display probably takes its toll. Not mainly in putting people off
Lisp "because they are POed at Erik and take it out on Lisp", but in
less direct ways.
They may look at the ng traffic and despair of getting support from
other users, or decide they just don't want to deal with it. The ng's
traffic itself suffers - that's not a "maybe" - which has a similar
effect. And by not hanging around cll, they may not learn what
elegance Lisp is capable of, and choose (say) Perl because they don't
know better.
So while you are technically correct, Joe, I think there's more to it.
--
Tom Breton, http://world.std.com/~tob
Not using "gh" 1997-2000. http://world.std.com/~tob/ugh-free.html
Some vocal people in cll make frequent, hasty personal attacks, but if
you killfile them cll becomes usable.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3184675699811972@naggum.net>
* Tom Breton <···@world.std.com>
| They may look at the ng traffic and despair of getting support from
| other users, or decide they just don't want to deal with it. The ng's
| traffic itself suffers - that's not a "maybe" - which has a similar
| effect. And by not hanging around cll, they may not learn what
| elegance Lisp is capable of, and choose (say) Perl because they don't
| know better.
Statistically, traffic in on-topic threads has increased when a moron
is taking a beating. You really ought to know this when you care so
much about the traffic. So you're lying or scheming or both, just
like we've been used to from you in the past.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
·······@rose-hulman.edu (Nathan Froyd) writes:
> In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>, ·········@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >This is without question the stupidest thing ever posted to this
> >newsgroup.
>
> You provide no rationale as to why you believe this.
>
> >If you were honest about your goals you would stop posting immediately.
>
> Again, you provide no rationale whatsoever to back your claim up.
Come now, some things are left as obvious to the intelligent reader.
> I don't think you're really listening to Erik;
Perhaps. When one person indulges themself in verbally abusing
others, especially with no legitimate provocation, the others
sometimes tune that person out. Behavior has consequences.
--
Tom Breton, http://world.std.com/~tob
Not using "gh" 1997-2000. http://world.std.com/~tob/ugh-free.html
Some vocal people in cll make frequent, hasty personal attacks, but if
you killfile them cll becomes usable.
In article <··············@world.std.com>, Tom Breton wrote:
>·······@rose-hulman.edu (Nathan Froyd) writes:
>> >If you were honest about your goals you would stop posting immediately.
>>
>> Again, you provide no rationale whatsoever to back your claim up.
>
>Come now, some things are left as obvious to the intelligent reader.
I think Erik's goals have been clearly stated: stop stupidity.
Stupidity occurs and he does something about it. He has goals and he's
being honest about them. How does that imply that he should stop
posting?
>> I don't think you're really listening to Erik;
>
>Perhaps. When one person indulges themself in verbally abusing
>others, especially with no legitimate provocation, the others
>sometimes tune that person out. Behavior has consequences.
If they're not listening, there's no reason for them to respond. Ergo,
they are listening, they're just hearing what they want to hear.
--
</nathan> ·······@rose-hulman.edu | http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~froydnj/
Yes, God had a deadline. So He wrote it all in Lisp.
·······@rose-hulman.edu (Nathan Froyd) writes:
> In article <··············@world.std.com>, Tom Breton wrote:
>
> >·······@rose-hulman.edu (Nathan Froyd) writes:
> >> >If you were honest about your goals you would stop posting immediately.
> >>
> >> Again, you provide no rationale whatsoever to back your claim up.
> >
> >Come now, some things are left as obvious to the intelligent reader.
>
> I think Erik's goals have been clearly stated: stop stupidity.
> Stupidity occurs and he does something about it.
Yes, adds to it, and adds greatly to a hostile atmosphere.
> He has goals and he's
> being honest about them.
Why should anybody else believe that?
> How does that imply that he should stop
> posting?
You seem to be trying hard not to understand the point. You assert
several times that Erik's doing good, when IMO it's patently obvious
he is doing great harm. I can't break thru a wall of denial like
that.
Anyways, jfrank801 before me already made the point just fine.
> >> I don't think you're really listening to Erik;
> >
> >Perhaps. When one person indulges themself in verbally abusing
> >others, especially with no legitimate provocation, the others
> >sometimes tune that person out. Behavior has consequences.
>
> If they're not listening, there's no reason for them to respond.
Then why did you? And that isn't just a cheap shot (tho it is that
too). You yourself just exhibited the behavior of responding without
listening. So you *can* see some reason for doing that. So you can't
say "If they're not listening, there's no reason for them to respond".
Now, I can agree with you that as a general approach, it's better to
killfile an asshole than to continue a thread with him or her. That's
what I keep recommending in my sig.
But the situation in cll is a constant, perpetual thing. And so of
course it sometimes erupts, because people just get tired of this
constant garbage and shoot back. And I certainly can't blame them.
--
Tom Breton, http://world.std.com/~tob
Not using "gh" 1997-2000. http://world.std.com/~tob/ugh-free.html
Some vocal people in cll make frequent, hasty personal attacks, but if
you killfile them cll becomes usable.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185492403281570@naggum.net>
* Tom Breton <···@world.std.com>
| Yes, adds to it, and adds greatly to a hostile atmosphere.
No, the hostile atmosphere is not caused by me in _any_ way. I do not
address the "atmosphere", but individual people and individual actions
of these people. The people who address the atmosphere and who attack
people are Marcus G. Daniels, Raffael Cavallaro, Tom Breton, and such
random vermin as Israel Thomas. I am not responsible, nor could I
ever be, for the kind of articles you USENET terrorists post. You
must grow up to take responsibility for your own actions. You cannot
blame anyone else for what you do. The kind of provocation you can
claim just "happen" to you in real life does not happen in a written
medium. You have the option of refraining from responding, of
delaying your response until you calm down, of responding in ways that
reflect who you want to be, option you do not have in a bar brawl,
say, because of the physical and immediate nature of the conflict. If
you do not understand this, as I suspect you guys never will, neither
will you understand your own role in perpetuating the hostilities like
the kinds of apes that form street gangs and fight over their honor.
Now, the most interesting thing here is how the USENET terrorists Tom
Breton, Marcus G. Deniels, Raffael Cavallaro and such random vermin as
Israel Thomas defend their evil. They do not address actions in a way
that it is possible to change anything and have their evil stop. It
has always been inordinately simple and straight-forward to stop my
criticism, but it amazes me that the moron terrorists do not grasp it.
Do not post _your_ personal attacks. I don't attack out of the blue.
I never have and I never will. People who want to push my buttons
know exactly what to do, and I'm accused of being very predictable by
those who try, such as Marcus G. Deniels, who does it for his own
insane and perverse "enjoyment". You can't accuse people of being
predictable and at the same time claim that they do something without
reason. But Marcus G. Daniels is the kind of person who does that.
Tom Breton is the kind of person who does that. Raffael Cavallaro is
the kind of person who does that. Take a good, close look at the
first article that leaking douchebag Israel Thomas ever posted to
comp.lang.lisp and you must _be_ Tom Breton if you do not understand
what kind of personality we are dealing with in that instance. I
cannot _possibly_ be responsible for such first attacks on me. I have
no _possible_ way of preventing it, modifying it, _anything_. Only a
criminally nsane person like Tom Breton could even _think_ of blaming
me for that first hostile article. The hostile atmosphere was and is
the responsibility of people like Marcus G. Daniels, who thrive on
making other people hate and disrespect who he hates and disrespects.
His _goal_ is to create hostile atmospheres where some people are
attacked. Israel Thomas is the evidence that he succeeds. That Tom
Breton rears his ugly head and Raffael Cavallaro thinks it's OK to
come back with more of his unique hostility is the fault of people who
try to work the forum up to hate and disrespect people. The moral
culpability lies with such instigators, and the morons who respond,
that is, pathetic shit-for-brains like Israel Thomas, probably have no
mental capacity to understand how they got into their emotional state
to begin with. If they did, they would be ashamed of it and stop it.
The people who work up the hostile atmosphere are those who keep it up
after every conceivable reason for doing so is gone. I have made it
very, very clear that people have an opportunity to do something else.
I am explicit about it in every single conflict. People like Tom
Breton do not understand this, not because they distrust _me_, but
because they distrust _themselves_. They are are hateful, revengeful,
and harbor a certainty about their emotional prejudices that defines
madness and insanity. On top of it, they are massively uintelligent
under pressure, so any ability they would otherwise be able to invoke
to change their minds is disconnected. Such people usually grow up to
be criminals, gang members, rapists, football hooligans, wife beaters,
street protesters who destroy property in blind rage, etc. The very
important distinction between normal people and such anti-social scum
is that only by thinking do they refrain from violence and other forms
of disrespect for other people and their property, so when they lose
their ability to think, nothing keeps them back, anymore. Normally
matured and socially responsible people actually have an _emotional_
restriction against violence and injustice and disrespect for people
and property. It's what we call _conscience_. The kinds of people
who have to keep thinking in order to stop themselves from harming
others do not actually _have_ a conscience. If you have to _think_
about whether to hit somebody when verbally provoked, you _will_ hit
when you feel sufficiently provoked. If your emotional response is
_not_ to hit, you don't have to think about it. Pretty simple, yet
overlooked by people who normally believe that thinking is much more
important than feeling. Such people talk about _controlling_ one's
emotions. I submit that the normal, healthy, mature human being does
not _have_ feelings that need to be controlled. Those who control
their emotions through conscious processes actually _fear_ their own
emotions and will respond with extreme _hostility_ to people who argue
that no such control is necessary if you are good person. That is why
Tom Breton's first inclination is to distrust.
| Why should anybody else believe that?
Distrust without due cause is a symptom of destructive personalities.
| You seem to be trying hard not to understand the point. You assert
| several times that Erik's doing good, when IMO it's patently obvious
| he is doing great harm. I can't break thru a wall of denial like that.
No, just like the facts cannot be broken through by your distrust.
The day you realize that you _may_ be wrong is the day you have a new
hope of becoming an honest human being. Until then, the "wall of
denial" sadly applies to he who erects it, not he who identifies it.
| But the situation in cll is a constant, perpetual thing.
I think we need to keep this statement very clearly in mind. This is
how Tom Breton sees the situation. Marcus G. Daniels has a similarly
deranged and distorted view of both me and the newsgroup. These guys
do not see what they do not want to see. We have a long-term resident
in comp.lang.lisp who also expressed exactly similar attitudes some
time ago, but I was deeply impressed when he understood that he did
harbor an image of me that prevented him from seeing what actually
happened, and simply stopped doing it. That has happened to a dozen
people over the past two dozen years
| And so of course it sometimes erupts, because people just get tired of
| this constant garbage and shoot back. And I certainly can't blame
| them.
That's surprisingly honest of you, and we need to keep this in mind as
a literal statement of how you think and feel, too. No, _you_ most
certainly can't "blame" the right person for his actions. Everybody
else should, and probably do. The idea that provocation is a license
to initiate violence is held only by people who _want_ a license from
somebody else to initiate violence. The idea that it is OK to open
fire on somebody (the degree of violence is determined not by the
principle but by the "provocation") you don't like simply because you
claim to be "provoked" is proof of a personality that is a threat to
public safety. Tom Breton has a criminal mind with no concept of
justice and fairness. One must expect him, like Marcus G. Daniels, to
commit acts of actual physical destruction because of his _admitted_
inability to take responsibility for his own actions and his
extraordinary willingness to exonerate and excuse others when they
attack a target he harbors hatred and emotional prejudice towards.
Such is behavior and thinking we find in street thugs and mobsters,
but such people are also allowed on USENET. The results are what we
see from Tom Breton, Raffael Cavallaro, and Marcus G. Daniels, and the
overall result is that random vermin like Isreal Thomas feel that is
OK to post their braindamaged shit and to keep feeling enraged despite
absence of anything concrete that could explain it. Irrational and
destructive minds like that need the Marcus G. Danielsses of the world
to feel OK, and Tom Breton and Raffael Cavallaro keep them whipped up
in that anti-intelligent, anti-justice, anti-rational, anti-ethical
emotional state. If these emotionally disturbed lunatics could snap
out of it and start to _think_, there wouldn't be any hostility, and
the Marcus G. Danielses of the world would again become invisible.
#:Erik
--
"When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying
to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a
frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle."
-- Unknown
> >>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>
> EN> You are absolutely nothing without me
So call our bluff. Demonstrate how miserable we'd be without you.
(I promised myself I would not respond, but this I couldn't pass up)
--
Tom Breton, http://world.std.com/~tob
Not using "gh" 1997-2000. http://world.std.com/~tob/ugh-free.html
Some vocal people in cll make frequent, hasty personal attacks, but if
you killfile them cll becomes usable.
In article <··············@world.std.com>,
Tom Breton <···@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>
> > >>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> >
> > EN> You are absolutely nothing without me
>
> So call our bluff. Demonstrate how miserable we'd be without you.
>
> (I promised myself I would not respond, but this I couldn't pass up)
I think you proved it by responding! :-)
--
Glauber Ribeiro
··········@my-deja.com http://www.myvehiclehistoryreport.com
"Opinions stated are my own and not representative of Experian"
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
"Michael D. Kersey" <········@hal-pc.org> writes:
> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
> > You effectively limit the posters to c.l.l to people who either agree
> > with you, or have been here so long they are used to ignoring your rants.
> > In practice, this means you almost eliminate new participants to this
> > newsgroup.
>
> I, for one, disagree. I read this newsgroup partially *because* of Mr.
> Naggum's well-founded and vigorous defense of himself, the newsgroup and
> Lisp in general.
>
> I have not seen him speak ill of anyone without significant provocation.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
> Further, I have decided to methodically kill-file people who insult or
> attack him. So I won't be reading any more of your posts except the
> portions that Erik Naggum or others include in their posts.
Great, I'm sure they'll be happier for it. Please killfile me as
well. I'll be in good company.
--
Tom Breton, http://world.std.com/~tob
Not using "gh" 1997-2000. http://world.std.com/~tob/ugh-free.html
Some vocal people in cll make frequent, hasty personal attacks, but if
you killfile them cll becomes usable.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim
Date:
Message-ID: <3185745043922086@naggum.net>
* Tom Breton <···@world.std.com>
| Please killfile me as well. I'll be in good company.
Wow, I'm good company? Hey, that's the nicest thing one of you guys
have said about me in a _long_ time. Thank you!
#:Erik
--
The United States of America, soon a Bush league world power. Yeee-haw!
········@my-deja.com writes:
> Would the Buddha
> toss such crap my way?
or would the buddha smile and say:
"hee hee, what crap we all stand in!
smells so bad, it's a damned sin!"
maybe he'd then whack the ground
and coax a flower from steaming mound.
but what do i know, no buddhi i.
just a slacker slacking by...
thi
From: ·········@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <901ram$v8h$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Erik,
Your junior-high level attacks at other people are
getting predicable and tiring. It seems that the higher the
flame content to your messages the lower the actual content.
There is NO excuse for the attacks you've made (unless you are
in fact a junior-high student, in which case you should wait
a few years before returning to the newsgroup).
In keeping with this thread perhaps what Lisp needs to beet Java
is you moving to the Java newsgroups and telling them how to think.
Then we should get a flood of java-heads coming here for refuge
and we can convert them.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <901ssm$hu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
jfrank801,
Whoever you are, I couldn't have said it better myself. You have
provided a heart warming laugh!
Warmest regards,
Aaron.
In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>,
·········@yahoo.com wrote:
> Erik,
> Your junior-high level attacks at other people are
> getting predicable and tiring. It seems that the higher the
> flame content to your messages the lower the actual content.
> There is NO excuse for the attacks you've made (unless you are
> in fact a junior-high student, in which case you should wait
> a few years before returning to the newsgroup).
>
> In keeping with this thread perhaps what Lisp needs to beet Java
> is you moving to the Java newsgroups and telling them how to think.
> Then we should get a flood of java-heads coming here for refuge
> and we can convert them.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
* ········@my-deja.com
| jfrank801,
| Whoever you are, I couldn't have said it better myself. You have
| provided a heart warming laugh!
I'm glad he reached your emotions so successfully. What a genius he
must be. It is always such a pleasure to watch competence in action.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
From: ········@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <904q8m$bq2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <················@naggum.net>,
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> * ········@my-deja.com
> | jfrank801,
> | Whoever you are, I couldn't have said it better myself. You have
> | provided a heart warming laugh!
>
> I'm glad he reached your emotions so successfully. What a genius he
> must be. It is always such a pleasure to watch competence in
action.
>
Oh, sir, i didn't realize you were watching, sir. I really didn't mean
it sir. No-I think that....no.....please don't hit me
sir.....no!!!!...please not the electrocution....NO!!!!! I promise to
behave Dr. Naggum. I meant to say....NOOOOO!!!!!!!!..... all hail Dr.
Naggum.....OW!!!.....please have mercy, sir.......AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> wrote
...
> I guess Lisp zealots just get infuriated when they hear anything
> good about any other language that they might learn from. Python (for
> example) learned from Lisp. Now, its Lisp's turn to learn from Python,
> which is winning the popular vote. I keep bring up Python, and I want to
> say in advance, I'm not trying to provoke a language war.
...
I don't see your point. Python is easily embeddable so why don't you link a
Python interpreter into your Lisp?
You could then use the packages you want. As it has already been pointed
out, Lisp is quite good in generating code.So you could easily write Lisp
code that writes Python code.
You could also write a read-eval loop in Python over a socket and call it
from Lisp. It's quite easy.
> See also , in relation to Python:
> http://www.strout.net/python/pythonvslisp.html A very fair assessment is
> made, I think, of the strengths and weaknesses of both.
Hum, if I use his grid with the correct values for Lisp, guess who wins ;-)
Here is a better article on the same topic from Peter Norvig :
http://www.norvig.com/python-lisp.html
Marc
From: Frank Goenninger
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <3A257658.4ED7DF07@hp.com>
Hi there-
I just scanned the article mentioned by Marc below:
Marc Battyani wrote:
>
> Hum, if I use his grid with the correct values for Lisp, guess who wins ;-)
> Here is a better article on the same topic from Peter Norvig :
> http://www.norvig.com/python-lisp.html
>
> Marc
Peter Norvig states:
"... and (3) Python isn't called "Java", which is a requirement in its
own right for some of my audience."
Why not call CL just JavaNG (/NextGeneration/)?
But seriously: Java has all the publicity it needs. Why? I think,
despite the controverse discussion of the value of free/open software,
_just the simplicity of Java is it what makes it so popular AND the free
availability of ONE Java_!
Java is simple. It is the class of language most people get taught in
school somehow. It is the _Internet_ language. It all was said already
but I really think the intended simplicity of Java is the reason for
success. Take two hours time for learning and you have a full /GUI/
running! It is not important to have an application of value - nowadays
it's the sexy GUI that counts. As I am in the consulting business having
implemented numerous projects for clients world-wide this is common
sense - as experience clearly tells me.
How could the LC (Lisp Community - is there really one? Java _has_ one!)
learn from Java's success? What to change? With what objectives? By what
means?
That's the sort of things we all should think of IMO.
Your feedback? Thanks.
Regards
#:frgo
--
Frank Goenninger
HP Consulting, Product Lifecycle Collaboration Services
Hewlett-Packard GmbH, Germany
for contact details see: http://ecardfile.com/id/frank_goenninger
--
> Just what language are you trying to insult here? I LIKE Lisp, but I'm
> starting to find from a couple of people some religious zealot knee-jerk
> reaction to ANY commentary about some potential problems it has to
> overcome. I do have a problem with shelling out serious dough for a more
> powerful Lisp , yes, and I'm just observing that for all of Lisp's
> wonderful syntactical elegence, its a shame that it can't be more than it
> is in the public eye. This is not a language war, at least I didn't intend
> it to be. I guess Lisp zealots just get infuriated when they hear anything
> good about any other language that they might learn from. Python (for
> example) learned from Lisp. Now, its Lisp's turn to learn from Python,
> which is winning the popular vote. I keep bring up Python, and I want to
> say in advance, I'm not trying to provoke a language war. please keep the
> tone cordial. So don't write belligerent responses like "Oh yeah, well
> take that Python scripting pseudo-language and shove it up your -----" :)
Winning the popular vote is of limited significance. The important
question is where will Python/Perl/Java be in 10 years? How stable
are they? What will happen to all the Wonderful New Things written in
the above languages? I suspect once these languages become old, most of
their users will move on to the next New Generation languages.
I'll be interested these languages once the specs are ISO'ed, the
languages are stable and the compilers have been around for 5 or 10
years. If they're not going to last that long, why bother? It takes
a long time to become good at a language.
Some implementations of Lisp may lack some native tools found with the
new languages but thats not the point. As I (imperfectly,
incorrectly) understand it, Lisp is more about solving hard problems
more easily- which is where the design of the language itself is so
critical- than easy problems like creating the latest generation of
widgets, skins, etc.
What things should Lisp learn from Python then?
> > You are not really talking about languages, Aaron, but about tools.
> > If you insist on comparing tools with languages, languages must lose.
> > An application with an input language that can modify its behavior is
> > very different from a full-blown programming language with a separate
> > specification from its implementations, plural.
> >
>
> Ok, so I'm talking about tools....then where the f**k are all those cool
> Lisp tools that other languages seem to have for no cost and active
> development? Am I getting this wrong here? Is Lisp pro-or-anti Open
> Source?
It also might be that serious Lisp development can be done <without>
all these wonderful things. But, please be more specific about what
tools Lisp is missing. I mean important tools, like debugging,
profiling, etc... a GUI is more of a personal preference, but
everybody needs a debugger.
Lisp is plenty open source. There are several Lisp distributions you
can download. Following classic tradition, you are completely free to
add whatever features you want and contribute them back to the
community.
Gregm
On 26 Nov 2000 10:00:47 -0500, Greg Menke
<··············@zxy.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>I'll be interested these languages once the specs are ISO'ed, the
>languages are stable and the compilers have been around for 5 or 10
>years. If they're not going to last that long, why bother? It takes
>a long time to become good at a language.
I should jump in here. Perl will not be standardised. Larry Wall
desires very much that it be a "living language." So in ten years
there will still be a Perl, but it may not be friendly to scripts
written today. Specifically the unpopular bits will be gone, and any
newly fashionable paradigms emerging will be embraced. It's the
difference between Latin and English, and neither is bad for lacking
qualities of the other.
And while I'm here, Lisp doesn't need to beat Java. Lisp doesn't have
a sense of competition. So any discussion can only be totally
subjective. Personally, whether Lisp becomes popular is of little
interest, and if they start writing Java-like (GUI, 'components',
blah... i.e. buzzword compatible) programs with it they won't be much
use to me. That's what I have Perl for.
nerkul
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> writes:
> On 25 Nov 2000, Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> > * "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
> > | It occurs to me that lesser languages like Java, etc. succeed in the
> > | modern world where Lisp seems like a computer science lesson from days
> > | of old because they have, or are perceived to have, an easy way to
> > | write/design a GUI, and to integrate well with low-level OS
> > | libraries/functions.
> >
> > Are you referring to ANSI Common Lisp, the Standard, when you make
> > these claims? If so, do you consider standardization of a language to
> > be a negative aspect of its usability? In other words, would you
> > rather use an unstandardized language with many useful bells and
> > whistles over a standardized language with many useful, unstandardized
> > bells and whistles?
> >
>
> Ok, I'll answer: I want standards and "bells and whistles"
>
> I refer you to http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/keith/crisis/crisis.html I
> understand this man's sentiment. He says "...the programming languages I
> like I feel I can't use". I DO want to use Lisp more. Its syntax (or lack
> of it)is just plain superior. See also , in relation to Python:
> http://www.strout.net/python/pythonvslisp.html A very fair assessment is
> made, I think, of the strengths and weaknesses of both.
Yes. But... The guy has not programmed in Common Lisp since 1983 at
least :) and he has very little understanding of the true power of CL.
A case in point, he does not know about
(setf (subseq <a-sequence> <start> <end>) ....)
Being presented with the obvious complaint, he gave no answer. :)
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti =============================================================
NYU Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://galt.mrl.nyu.edu/valis
Like DNA, such a language [Lisp] does not go out of style.
Paul Graham, ANSI Common Lisp
In article <···············@octagon.mrl.nyu.edu>, Marco Antoniotti
<·······@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
> "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> writes:
>
> > On 25 Nov 2000, Erik Naggum wrote:
> >
> > > * "Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net>
> > > | It occurs to me that lesser languages like Java, etc. succeed in the
> > > | modern world where Lisp seems like a computer science lesson from days
> > > | of old because they have, or are perceived to have, an easy way to
> > > | write/design a GUI, and to integrate well with low-level OS
> > > | libraries/functions.
> > >
> > > Are you referring to ANSI Common Lisp, the Standard, when you make
> > > these claims? If so, do you consider standardization of a language to
> > > be a negative aspect of its usability? In other words, would you
> > > rather use an unstandardized language with many useful bells and
> > > whistles over a standardized language with many useful, unstandardized
> > > bells and whistles?
> > >
> >
> > Ok, I'll answer: I want standards and "bells and whistles"
> >
> > I refer you to http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/keith/crisis/crisis.html I
> > understand this man's sentiment. He says "...the programming languages I
> > like I feel I can't use". I DO want to use Lisp more. Its syntax (or lack
> > of it)is just plain superior. See also , in relation to Python:
> > http://www.strout.net/python/pythonvslisp.html A very fair assessment is
> > made, I think, of the strengths and weaknesses of both.
>
> Yes. But... The guy has not programmed in Common Lisp since 1983 at
> least :) and he has very little understanding of the true power of CL.
> A case in point, he does not know about
>
> (setf (subseq <a-sequence> <start> <end>) ....)
>
> Being presented with the obvious complaint, he gave no answer. :)
This has been discussed in length on INFO-MCL years ago. People
have pointed out several weaknesses in hos comparison.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.net> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.net...
>
> All too many of those who complain about Common Lisp have very little
> idea what they can do with the language in the available environments,
> and seem awfully preoccupied with specific (free) implementations and
> what they can do, just like they are willing to use one-implementation
> "languages" in ways they _claim_ they would never use a standardized
> language, so one must assume that they have some sort of weird hangup
> against implementation-specific features [...]
For myself, I'd rephrase it thus:
> Some Common Lisp beginners have very little
> idea what they can do with the language in the professional quality
> commercial environments, and seem more concerned initially with (free)
> implementations and what they can do ... so one must assume that they
> prefer to avoid being dependent on company-specific features when
they're
> getting started.
"Aaron K . Johnson" <···@21stcentury.net> wrote in message
···········································@ajohnson.21stcentury.net...
[A lot of stuff]
I question your basic assumption, i.e., that Lisp needs to beat Java.
Trying to "beat Java" will only assure that Lisp will be cluttered with even
more superfluous crud than it already has - not a change most Lisp users
would like to see. The point is to make Lisp a better Lisp. Improve on the
strengths and mitigate the weaknesses. But first make sure that the
weaknesses really are weaknesses and not just a mispreceived need for the
market's "flavor of the day".
Remember that Fortran is still around. It fills a niche that "more modern"
languages cannot fill as well. It did this by taking what it needed from
other languages - as it was needed - but never forgetting its roots as a
language for producing efficient mathematical code from a description that
most scientists and engineers could understand.
Common Lisp will be fine as long as it remembers its roots as a portable,
dynamic language, well suited to symbolic programming but tailored to meta-
and multi-paradigmatic programming, unencumbered by clunky syntax, and
suited to describing all levels of a running system from the simplest
mathematical operators to the highest level DWIM functionality. Oh yeah,
make sure it keeps GC, too :-). As long as Lisp can stick to these
principals, there will be a niche for it. And that's good enough for me.
This is not to say that there is nothing I'd like to change about the Common
Lisp. Here are a few things that might make my programing life easier...
(a) Standardize multi-threading/multi-processing operators and associated
synchronization and control primitives.
(b) Standardize an FFI to code written in ANSI C.
(c) Extend and standardize the pathname/file/stream subsystems to support
sockets and streams on sockets.
(d) Semi-standardize GUI - CLIM would probably be a good start.
(e) Semi-standardize database access.
By "semi-standardize", I mean that systems would be able to omit this
functionality, but if GUI or database functionality were provided, it would
be required to be a superset of the described functionality. Of course the
presence of each of these areas of functionality would be noted by the
presence of a standardized *feature* code and only implementations that
provided a superset of the described functionality would be allowed to
enable these feature codes.
(f) Create a portable interchange format that's lower level and more compact
than source code, but can be efficiently translated at load time into
machine code - portable FASL's, if you will.
(g) Standardize environment access functions to allow capture of at least
the global and current environments (Else what's the use of having the
environment parameters on eval, defmacro, etc., since you can't get the
environment to pass to them in a portable way).
(h) Get rid of some of the cruft in the language - do we really need all of
the CxxxxxR functions? Do we really need first through tenth, or would just
telling people to use nth suffice? Can we unify defun and
defgeneric/defmethod in a better way? Can we do a defmacromethod that
specializes on the types of objects passed as parameters? Can we prescribe
the unification of structures and CLOS and built-in objects like conses and
symbols in a fuller manner? Can we regularize the various namespaces?
E.g., how come I can create a lexically scoped function or variable, but not
a lexically scoped class? Should a package just be a fancy environment
structure that allows you to import and export symbols? Should an
environment allow all of the package functions? And so on. There are
several issues that Lisp folk know a lot more about in a formal way than
they did when the first CL standard was written. I don't know if agreement
would be any easier to come by now on some of these issues, but at least the
knowledge of the issues to allow intelligent discussion is there.
In my opinion, issues a-g above address some serious portability issues that
have split other language communities (see what's happened WRT the Smalltalk
community since its minimal standard was approved by ANSI - and,
argumentatively, that community was much less fragmented than the Lisp
community is in these areas) and h is just a personal rant.
Now, of course, I don't have the hubris to expect that everyone in the Lisp
community has the same needs or desires as myself, nor do I think that the
community should drop everything and go out there and implement what I think
that I need. However, I will also state my belief that a major revisiting
of the language standard is probably needed, given that much of the work
that led to the standard is now 20 years old. Even though the current
standard was approved only six years ago, I can foresee a minimum of ten
years of work between project initiation and approval should the standard
ever be revisited and that would mean that there would be about sixteen or
so years between the updates (This is about par for the course for most ANSI
standard languages - datapoints are COBOL, Fortran, and ADA, all of which
seem to update their ANSI standards about every fifteen years or
thereabouts).
But in any case, if the standard is to be changed, it should be changed to
make the language a better Common Lisp, not just alligned to the latest fad
of the hour.
faa
"Frank A. Adrian" <·······@uswest.net> writes:
> Common Lisp will be fine as long as it remembers its roots as a portable,
> dynamic language, well suited to symbolic programming but tailored to meta-
> and multi-paradigmatic programming, unencumbered by clunky syntax, and
> suited to describing all levels of a running system from the simplest
> mathematical operators to the highest level DWIM functionality. Oh yeah,
> make sure it keeps GC, too :-). As long as Lisp can stick to these
> principals, there will be a niche for it. And that's good enough for me.
Can I summarise? "Common Lisp wil be fine as long as it remains
suited to everything"
I agree absolutely, but it doesn't exactly sound like a niche market :-)
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
"Daniel Barlow" <···@telent.net> wrote in message
···················@protege.telent.net...
> "Frank A. Adrian" <·······@uswest.net> writes:
> > Common Lisp will be fine as long as it remembers its roots as a
portable,
> > dynamic language, well suited to symbolic programming but tailored to
meta-
> > and multi-paradigmatic programming, unencumbered by clunky syntax, and
> > suited to describing all levels of a running system from the simplest
> > mathematical operators to the highest level DWIM functionality. Oh
yeah,
> > make sure it keeps GC, too :-). As long as Lisp can stick to these
> > principals, there will be a niche for it. And that's good enough for
me.
>
> Can I summarise? "Common Lisp wil be fine as long as it remains
> suited to everything"
Well, maybe :-). I still think that some other languages do some things
better. E.g., if i had to write numeric code for a parallel machine, I'd
probably stick to Fortran. If I had a straight transaction processing app,
I'd probably use COBOL or SQL. But in most cases, you're right - the
multi-level and multi-paradigmatic nature of Lisp allows it to beat most
other languages for "general" programming tasks.
> I agree absolutely, but it doesn't exactly sound like a niche market :-)
Well, it's a somewhat largeish niche :-).
"Daniel Barlow" <···@telent.net> wrote in message
···················@protege.telent.net...
> "Frank A. Adrian" <·······@uswest.net> writes:
> > Common Lisp will be fine as long as it remembers its roots as a
portable,
> > dynamic language, well suited to symbolic programming but tailored to
meta-
> > and multi-paradigmatic programming, unencumbered by clunky syntax, and
> > suited to describing all levels of a running system from the simplest
> > mathematical operators to the highest level DWIM functionality. Oh
yeah,
> > make sure it keeps GC, too :-). As long as Lisp can stick to these
> > principals, there will be a niche for it. And that's good enough for
me.
>
> Can I summarise? "Common Lisp wil be fine as long as it remains
> suited to everything"
>
> I agree absolutely, but it doesn't exactly sound like a niche market :-)
It's an horizontal niche. You have to cut the application domain
horizontally. A slice...
OK, a thin slice because, as pointed by almost everybody here, Lisp is not
for everybody, but also an extremely wide slice. I'm sure we can find people
using Lisp in almost every application domain.
Marc
* "Frank A. Adrian" <·······@uswest.net>
| Here are a few things that might make my programing life easier...
:
| (b) Standardize an FFI to code written in ANSI C.
This is most probably a mistaken expression of the real desire. What
you most probably want is a portable means of arriving at definitions
in Common Lisp that reflect the nature of the C definitions, not to be
able to "port" your hand-written definitions. Portability should not
be done at the source code level, as that may entail implementation-
specific properties that are very hard to duplicate elsewhere, such as
varying needs to accomodate complex declarations. Rather, conforming
Common Lisp code should read ANSI C code and extract the definitions
from it and produce implementation-specific Foreign Function Interface
code. This code can be arbitrarily hairy to reflect the what the Lisp
and C worlds need to interact, including automatic type conversions
and whatever else is necessary to talk to ANSI C. (Other languages
should not be too hard to add to this, once the C substrate is there.)
| (f) Create a portable interchange format that's lower level and more
| compact than source code, but can be efficiently translated at load
| time into machine code - portable FASL's, if you will.
Once upon a time, the SGML world wanted a binary interchange format
that would enable much less character-by-character parsing, i.e., that
maintained significant parsing state in the interchange format itself.
This standardization project was canned after several years of not
getting anywhere. However, I would nominate ASN.1 as the language
that best suits your needs. Instead of having to parse symbols and
strings and such character by character, you could efficiently store
the length of the object and just map the data right into memory.
ASN.1 even has bignum support, although integers are known to be slow
to parse in BER due to the use of a "continuation" bit in the values.
| (h) Get rid of some of the cruft in the language - do we really need
| all of the CxxxxxR functions? Do we really need first through tenth,
| or would just telling people to use nth suffice? [...]
Please, don't waste your time on wondering whether we need these.
They're there, and they don't do any harm at all being there. All of
this, which you call a "personal rant", is fairly random in my view.
| But in any case, if the standard is to be changed, it should be
| changed to make the language a better Common Lisp, not just aligned
| to the latest fad of the hour.
I think much of the slow progress in standards circles (at least in
the most responsible standards cirlces) is intended to discourage the
short-time view in a very strong, very painful way, so those who want
fads of the hour will be incredibly frustrated and leave in disgust.
This is a good thing, but the price may be too high for some of the
ideas that aren't just fads of the hour.
#:Erik
--
Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> This is most probably a mistaken expression of the real desire.
> What you most probably want is a portable means of arriving at
> definitions in Common Lisp that reflect the nature of the C
> definitions, not to be able to "port" your hand-written definitions.
> Portability should not be done at the source code level, as that may
> entail implementation- specific properties that are very hard to
> duplicate elsewhere, such as varying needs to accomodate complex
> declarations. Rather, conforming Common Lisp code should read ANSI
> C code and extract the definitions from it and produce
> implementation-specific Foreign Function Interface code. This code
> can be arbitrarily hairy to reflect the what the Lisp and C worlds
> need to interact, including automatic type conversions and whatever
> else is necessary to talk to ANSI C. (Other languages should not be
> too hard to add to this, once the C substrate is there.)
people interested in extending such a tool (that already exists, hint
hint) by adding modules for their favorite FFI, should check out
http://www.swig.org
and send the SWIG authors a patch (or become a SWIG developer).
thi
From: Dorai Sitaram
Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <9018ec$66v$1@news.gte.com>
In article <·····················@news.uswest.net>,
Frank A. Adrian <·······@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>(h) Get rid of some of the cruft in the language - do we really need all of
>the CxxxxxR functions?
Actually it's only CxxxxR. But I once came across a
Lisp or Scheme that had unlimited C[ad]+R. Very handy.
I presume such an identifier is expanded out at
compile-time to the requisite composition of CaRs and
CdRs, but I didn't have the gumption at the time to
check if two occurrences of the same C[ad]+R
instance evaluated to procs that were eq.
--d