Chris Beggy <······@kippona.com> writes:
> http://www.prescod.net/python/IsPythonLisp.html
i got as far as "programmers don't really like nested expressions". the tone
up to that point (perhaps it changes later) sounded pretty defensive. it's
ok, everyone has these identity crises every once in a while...
thi
Chris Beggy <······@kippona.com> writes:
> Here's a rebuttal to some of Paul Graham's recent writing:
>
> http://www.prescod.net/python/IsPythonLisp.html
Who is the author?
Evaluating the relative merits of languages is hard. There are two
kinds of contributions one can make in this regard. The first is
facts about features. The second is stories about experience with
language features that support thoughtful opinions.
Much of the content of this article is unhelpful to me in
understanding the relative merits of python and lisp, including
sarcasm, vague attributions and a need to discredit or attack someone.
--
John Michael Adams
John M. Adams:
> > http://www.prescod.net/python/IsPythonLisp.html
> Who is the author?
are you just curious, or that that bit of information makes a difference
in evaluating the arguments in this rebuttal?
oz
--
the most underused tool in the kitchen is the brain. -- alton brown
ozan s yigit <··@blue.cs.yorku.ca> writes:
> John M. Adams:
>
> > > http://www.prescod.net/python/IsPythonLisp.html
> > Who is the author?
>
> are you just curious, or that that bit of information makes a difference
> in evaluating the arguments in this rebuttal?
If one were interested in the author's opinions, it might be helpful
to know whether the author is actually present in the discussion or
whether the author's words were simply copied to the group.
--
John Michael Adams
·······@stsci.edu (John M. Adams) writes:
> Chris Beggy <······@kippona.com> writes:
>
> > Here's a rebuttal to some of Paul Graham's recent writing:
> >
> > http://www.prescod.net/python/IsPythonLisp.html
>
> Who is the author?
It's not that hard to find out... He's Paul Prescod. Does that help?
Cheers,
M.
--
8. A programming language is low level when its programs require
attention to the irrelevant.
-- Alan Perlis, http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html
·······@stsci.edu (John M. Adams) writes:
> Chris Beggy <······@kippona.com> writes:
>
> > Here's a rebuttal to some of Paul Graham's recent writing:
> >
> > http://www.prescod.net/python/IsPythonLisp.html
>
> Who is the author?
>
> Evaluating the relative merits of languages is hard.
Especially when you don't know the language your criticizing:
I know Scheme and Python, but not Common Lisp. Paul Graham knows
Common Lisp and Scheme but not Python. Don't trust us.
He criticizes Lisp, then says he doesn't know it and shouldn't be
trusted, then says (to paraphrase) "Oh, but these other people know it
and don't like it." It's too bad people who don't understand
something, and know they don't understand it, still feel obliged to
publish a paper critical of it.
Gabe Garza
"John M. Adams" wrote:
>
> Chris Beggy <······@kippona.com> writes:
>
> > Here's a rebuttal to some of Paul Graham's recent writing:
> >
> > http://www.prescod.net/python/IsPythonLisp.html
>
> Who is the author?
http://www.prescod.net/
W3C contributor to XML design... I thought he did not like nested
expressions?
Also a Canadian.
I say "Blame Canada".
:)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
>
> http://www.prescod.net/
>
> W3C contributor to XML design... I thought he did not like nested
> expressions?
>
> Also a Canadian.
>
> I say "Blame Canada".
>
> :)
Watch it or I will have sick my Beaver on you!
Wade
Quoth Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>:
> "John M. Adams" wrote:
>>
>> Chris Beggy <······@kippona.com> writes:
>>
>> > Here's a rebuttal to some of Paul Graham's recent writing:
>> >
>> > http://www.prescod.net/python/IsPythonLisp.html
>>
>> Who is the author?
>
> http://www.prescod.net/
>
> W3C contributor to XML design... I thought he did not like nested
> expressions?
>
> Also a Canadian.
>
> I say "Blame Canada".
>
> :)
Take off, eh!
(Note that Prescod has occasionally been involved with DSSSL
development, which takes his links back to the combination of Scheme
_and_ SGML.)
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@cbbrowne.com")
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/canada.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #72. "If all the heroes are standing
together around a strange device and begin to taunt me, I will pull
out a conventional weapon instead of using my unstoppable superweapon
on them. <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
* Chris Beggy
| Here's a rebuttal to some of Paul Graham's recent writing:
What is there to counter? The guy has completely lost it. His rant
about Java (Java's Cover, dated April 2001) is the worst piece of
dishonest argumentation I have seen outside of U.S. racial politics.
Clearly, we no longer have to actually read what he writes, it enough to
"feel" something about it and talk to others who have not read anything
he writes, either. Consequently, it is sufficient to argue that:
1 He has been so energetically hyped.
2 He is aiming low.
3 He has ulterior motives.
4 No one loves him.
5 People are forced to listen to him.
6 He has too many arguments.
7 He is bureaucratic.
8 He is pseudo-hip.
9 He has a large organization.
A The wrong people like him.
B His daddy is in a pinch.
C The DoD likes him.
See http://www.paulgraham.com/javacover.html for how he treats Java
exactly this way. (It is obviously irrelevant whether any of this is
true or not. Arguments like that are not _true_, they are arbitrary.)
It is highly disturbing to watch a person progress from what appeared to
be a clear and successful thinker to his defending his right to be a
prejudiced idiot. Everyone looks at something and makes decision like
"this stinks", but who is presumptuous enough to write an article with
this as the premise? The whole piece is an immature stunt, the likes of
which you expect from 14-year-olds who just came to the Net. He sort of
defends his crap thusly:
Some people who've read this think it's an interesting attempt to write
about something that hasn't been written about before.
But this, too, is hogwash. The prejudice of ignorants has been the
subject of much serious and unserious writing alike over the years. When
not desired, it takes the form of racism, homophobia, and other forms of
bigotry. When the prejudice of ignorants is highly desired, however, it
is called "marketing", "campaigning", "user-friendly", and "popular".
_Not_ managing to figure out that ignorant hackers have prejudice, too,
and thinking it has not been written about before is haughty at best.
But more importantly, should we listen to people who make arguments about
something based solely on the other peoeple who are behind it, the target
of it, and who may like it? Perhaps in a bar, perhaps when trying to
find out which courses to take at a university, but as a world-wide self-
published statement? No. I say: Turn away! This is a man who has come
to his position too quickly and have not a clue how to deal with it.
A similarly unfortunate incident happened to the brilliant mathematician
U. J. J. Leverrier, who computed the position of an additional planet
beyond Uranus to account for its unexplained orbital irregularities
according to Newtonian mechanics. Having found Neptune this way (it was
independently confirmed in 1846), he set out to find a planet inside the
orbit of Mercury to account for its irregular orbit according to the same
Newtonian physics that had given him so much well-deserved success and
high acclaim. The planet Vulcan the he false predicted numerous times
obviously does not exist, however. Instead of another success at what he
was obviously very good at, he paid with his life and carreer to prove
the very theory on which he built his standing _wrong_ and paved the way
for Einstein's much more _accurate_ theories. (This story is recounted
in the introductory essay Why and When Are Smart People Stupid by Ray
Hyman in Stephen J. Sternberg (ed): Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid.
ISBN 0-300-09033-1.)
Leave the tragic ranting on Java or Arc or whatever alone. Remember Paul
Graham for his very useful contributions to Common Lisp (and try to
ignore his misinformed opinion masquerading as fact about `loop').
--
In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none.
In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Chris Beggy
> | Here's a rebuttal to some of Paul Graham's recent writing:
>
> What is there to counter? The guy has completely lost it. His rant
> about Java (Java's Cover, dated April 2001) is the worst piece of
> dishonest argumentation I have seen outside of U.S. racial politics.
> Clearly, we no longer have to actually read what he writes, it enough to
> "feel" something about it and talk to others who have not read anything
> he writes, either. Consequently, it is sufficient to argue that:
(...)
From the "rant about Java [sic]":
"This article developed out of conversations I've had with several
other programmers about why Java smelled suspicious. It's not a
critique of Java! It is a case study of hacker's radar."
That's the first paragraph. The article explicitly disclaims any
pretensions of being an academic attack on the Java language. To
criticize it in that light is therefore both misdirected and
misleading.
-Tim
--
[My address is ,(reverse ···········@mit").]
YOU DO _NOT_ SEND UNSOLICITED COPIES OF POSTED ARTICLES BY MAIL WITHOUT
MARKING THEM AS SUCH, OK? HOW HARD CAN THIS BE TO UNDERSTAND?
* Tim Daly, Jr.
| That's the first paragraph. The article explicitly disclaims any
| pretensions of being an academic attack on the Java language. To
| criticize it in that light is therefore both misdirected and misleading.
An academic attack? How misguided can you _get_? You have divulged that
you "agree" with this immature cretin's misplaced, prejudicial ranting,
whatever it means to "agree" with something so devoid of content and
meaning apart from the pure destructiveness that emanates, if not reeks,
from this pile of shit, and therefore do not see it as a validation of
the most base, most unevolved of human emotive responses, of what you so
aptly called "herd thinking", but it is precisely because this septic
tank overflow is dressed up in the formal wear of an academic attack, a
nicely published form by a supposed non- nutcase, that it is so vile.
Had it been written on public bathroom stalls with creativ spelling like
"JAVA STINX!" it would have been more less dishonorable.
There is nothing wrong in gathering a bunch of your sophomoric friends to
laugh at how something somebody else has done "stinks" and at Ada and the
DoD and whatnot (lowlives who could not program in Ada if it would save
their lives generally dislike it because they are too randomly wired to
accomplish anything useful) in order to have the most fun before you run
out of moonshine. It could be quite an enjoyable party, too. Publishing
a transcript of this party, however, is not a good idea. Allowing others
to use your party comments as the basis for their _judgment_ about Java,
simply indicates a seriously vindictive and destructive personality -- it
has turned from drunken party fun to published opinion. Out of all the
useless newbies who have opinions on things they do not know, we should
get Paul Graham to stand up and speak for the clueless anti-intellectual.
Even if he had chosen to attack Scheme or Perl, a whiff of either is
sufficient to call for backup, would this have been seriously misguided.
Validating idiotic prejudice is bad for all parties involved. After all,
what better argument do people who think Java (or, hypothetically, Scheme
or Perl) might be a good idea need to avoid Common Lisp than to point to
this raving lunatic and his ad hominem-style to show that Common Lisp has
a jerk who actually believes that you should judge a language by those
who seem to argue in favor of it. Luckily, Paul Graham also hates Common
Lisp, so at least we get rid of any guilt by association if anyone should
notice his various ranting.
So not only is this childish stunt hurtful because is _approves_ of the
worst human flaw, the tendency for people to _want_ to turn off their
brains, and give into fear and emotion and become no smarter than sheep,
it is _directly_ damaging to Common Lisp. Of course, if you are the same
kind of lamebrained herd animal that really care what others feel before
you make up your mind about something, why are you using Common Lisp?
Just because someone has done something good and decent in the past, does
not mean that they should continue to be treated as an authority after
that if they do something fantastically stupid and destructive to the
community that respected them. The irrational attacks on Common Lisp and
the "loop" coverage in his book are fairly strong clues about uninformed
opinionating and confusion of personal and professional opinions, of
which this "Java Cover" stunt was an amazingly atrocious example.
--
In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none.
In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process.
Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> * Chris Beggy
> | Here's a rebuttal to some of Paul Graham's recent writing:
>
> What is there to counter? The guy has completely lost it. His rant
> about Java (Java's Cover, dated April 2001) is the worst piece of
> dishonest argumentation I have seen outside of U.S. racial politics.
It is, and he makes this quite clear, a comment on Java's _cover_ based
on
how Java is presented to the world, and his reasons for being suspicious
about it, not on the merits of the language itself ("Bear in mind, this
is
not a critique of Java, but a critique of its cover. I don't know Java
well
enough to like it or dislike it. This is just an explanation of why I
don't
find that I'm eager to learn it."). There is only one way of doing
that,
and that is to use the language. I have done so (written around 15k
lines
in it, so am speaking from a position of some knowledge. I hope not to
use
it again. Commercial reality may dictate otherwise, but I won't find
it
fun. Besides the language itself (most of the intellectual challenge
in
programming in it involves working around its various deficiencies,
which
are without any counterbalancing strengths), there is a significant
minority
of Javaheads who are so fanatical about the language, and so bigoted,
that
they remind me of the Taleban. So whatever you or I might think of his
reasoning process, I at least can agree with his conclusions, and his
desire
not to waste any of his life working in a language which is obviously
worse
than Lisp, Prolog, Smalltalk, Icon, Scheme and (for entirely different
reasons) C. I should add that there are lots of languages much worse
than
Java -- Cobol for instance -- but I can't imagine Cobol programmers
thinking
_their_ language is beyond criticism and the best thing since sliced
bread.
(Maybe they did once, but are more humble now that it's "legacy".)
Returning to Paul Graham's article, the issue is whether he's using
reasonable
heuristics or it's just uninformed bigotry. To use an analogy, I could
say that I won't drink American Budweiser because it's heavily
advertised,
and swigged by trendoids straight out of the bottle. Or I could say
that
I won't drink it because it's an American beer and they're all gnat's
piss.
The first is IMO a good reason, the second would be highlighting my (in
reality, nonexistent) ignorance, and (given the facts) be little better
than
racism. You may point out that the only way I could know for certain
is
by drinking the stuff. But why should I offend my taste buds? Also,
my
heuristics work quite well. If they didn't, I'd change them. Java,
ISTM,
is like American Bud. We all make decisions based on imperfect
information,
particularly when, as would be the case with Paul Graham mastering Java,
the
costs of perfect information are so high.
There's an undercurrent in Paul Graham's writings -- a quest for an
understanding of quality (in the Pirsig, rather then the ISO, sense).
In
that respect, he's following in the footsteps, quite some distance
behind,
Richard Gabriel, and even Christopher Alexander and Pirsig himself.
This
is worthwhile in its own right. What may be slightly more misguided is
his attempt to make a popular Lisp, or a better, Lisp. Lisp is
unpopular
_because_ it is so good. A better Lisp would be only slightly better,
and not worth the switch for Common Lispers for much the same reason as
a
QWERTY to Dvorak switch is not worthwhile. And Arc would still be
perceived as a Lisp by non-Lispers, just like Scheme is. My belief,
and
I've thought about this long and hard, is that a better language than
Common Lisp would be (a) very different from it, and (b) even less
popular. Arguably, and I'm not saying I accept the argument, it exists
in the form of Prolog. So, unless it's tailored to a particular
system in which it resides (like Emacs and AutoCAD are), or is extended
to
support a specific kind of application (like XLispStat is), there is
very
little point in inventing another Lisp, except perhaps as a testing
ground
for new ideas for Common Lisp to adopt after they have proven
themselves.
(setf (get 'suit 'material) 'asbestos)
Le Hibou
--
Dalinian: Lisp. Java. Which one sounds sexier?
RevAaron: Definitely Lisp. Lisp conjures up images of hippy coders,
drugs,
sex, and rock & roll. Late nights at Berkeley, coding in Lisp fueled by
LSD.
Java evokes a vision of a stereotypical nerd, with no life or social
skills.
* Donald Fisk
| It is, and he makes this quite clear, a comment on Java's _cover_ based on
| how Java is presented to the world, and his reasons for being suspicious
| about it, not on the merits of the language itself ("Bear in mind, this is
| not a critique of Java, but a critique of its cover.
Would you want the same thing to be done about yourself or something you
had done? Would you want it to be done about Common Lisp?
If you have different rules for different people, I do not care about
your rules. However, if you would as happily accept the same treatment
of Common Lisp, let me know, and I shall consider your opinions.
Whether you "agree" with such a load of crap or you think Java "deserves"
a treatment like that is wholly immaterial. If you allow it to happen to
other people and other things, you must allow it to happen to yourself
and to things you value. If you let someone trash Java this way, you
have opened the door to trash Common Lisp this way. Because Paul Graham
does it, he has directly invited people who think Java is a good idea to
think Lisp is bad because _Paul Graham_ is associated with hit.
| Lisp is unpopular _because_ it is so good.
Nonsense. (Common) Lisp is unpopular because of the exact same crappy
"reasoning" that Paul Graham applies to Java. It has nothing to do with
quality. It has everything to do with ignorant fucks who plaster their
prejudice all over the place, without ever looking at it on their own.
Paul Graham has done to Java what most sane Common Lisp defenders argue
is so wrong to do to Common Lisp. That is the issue, not whether Java
sucks or not. Incidentally, he also thinks Common Lisp sucks.
Please, just think. People generally think better if they take off their
asbestos suits, because the mortally frightened generally do not think.
--
In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none.
In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process.
Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> * Donald Fisk
> | It is, and he makes this quite clear, a comment on Java's _cover_ based on
> | how Java is presented to the world, and his reasons for being suspicious
> | about it, not on the merits of the language itself ("Bear in mind, this is
> | not a critique of Java, but a critique of its cover.
>
> Would you want the same thing to be done about yourself or something you
> had done? Would you want it to be done about Common Lisp?
No, but I'd be powerless to stop it being done, and if it is done within
earshot of me, I'll respond to it, unless it falls into the category of
"winding me up", which it usually does. Freedom of speech is more
important
than freedom from possibly unwarranted criticism. And the freedom to
make
even well-informed criticism of Java is the last thing the Java Taleban
wants.
I doubt if the writings of Paul Graham even register with the Java
crowd.
Googling on "Java's Cover" reveals little, and nothing unfavourable.
When
you're popular, you don't worry about being good.
A better-informed critique of Java's contents would of course have been
preferable to "Java's Cover", but it's high time someone spoke out
against
the hype surrounding Java. It's positively dangerous (see below), not
merely scary.
> If you have different rules for different people, I do not care about
> your rules. However, if you would as happily accept the same treatment
> of Common Lisp, let me know, and I shall consider your opinions.
The issue doesn't arise, as Lisp has no cover, unless they are the
parentheses (see below). The criticisms I hear of Lisp fall into three
categories:
(a) by-products of its quality -- it's hard to learn (true, so you can
be
sure that programmers who master it are good), unpopular (and when did
that
indicate lack of quality?) and old (but it's survived the course);
(b) misinfomed claptrap ("it's interpreted", etc.)
(c) the parentheses. These are the first impression, and usually the
last,
programmers get when they look at Lisp. I like to think of the
parentheses
as the things that scare away the bad programmers. But we can point
out that XML has twice the number of angle brackets, that unlike Java,
you can change Lisp's syntax to get rid of the parentheses if you want
to,
and that this has been tried at least three times (Lisp 2.0, CGOL and
Dylan)
but didn't catch on.
Much of this, I get the impression, is because of the treatment Lisp
gets
at universities, though I have no more than hearsay evidence for this.
------------------------
Lisp hasn't been hyped at all since the 1980s, and even then it
benefited
from only a small fraction of the hype that Java currently enjoys.
Lisp
paid heavily for that hype -- Lisp machines are no longer made, and only
a
handful of companies still offer Lisp as their product. Companies
employing people as Lisp developers are now very thin on the ground.
Hype in general is a serious problem. In the 1980s, when AI and
expert systems were all the rage, people had unrealistic expectations
of machines with near human-level intelligence, which could not be met.
And when they duly weren't met, companies went bust, and Lisp's brief
popularity ended. (Prolog fared even worse.)
Then, in the 1990s, it was the turn of the WWW to be hyped. Java was
very much part of that hype. This time round there were differences --
such as no noble ideal of technological advancement -- after all,
distributed hypertext was invented in 1945 (Memex) and realized 30 years
later (INFO on ITS). All the web did was add pictures to the text,
and enable programs to generate HTML. No, this time it was pure greed
-- making money from nothing. Otherwise intelligent people believed
that the rules of economics had miraculously changed, as they did in
17th century Holland when tulip bulbs sold for fantastic prices. And
Java has been the snake oil which has fuelled this "new economy".
Meanwhile, back in the real world, people realized that Adam Smith was
still right. Disillusionment started around two years ago. This has
coincided with Java's slow decline from its peak. When disillusionment
is total, as it was for AI by the mid 1990s, the computer industry could
well find itself in the most severe recession it has ever experienced,
and people will look for something to blame, and that something could
well be Java. The Java hypers will deserve much of the blame when this
happens, as they inflated the bubble more than most. Lisp will likely
survive Java, because good things last unless they're very unlucky.
Things which are merely fashionable, such as Java, don't last, and
aren't missed when they go.
Note that I wouldn't be rounding on Java if it hadn't been relentlessly
hyped. It's not that bad a language. It's just not anything like as
good as its advocates make out, and better alternatives already existed
well before Java was released, or even conceived.
> Whether you "agree" with such a load of crap or you think Java "deserves"
> a treatment like that is wholly immaterial. If you allow it to happen to
> other people and other things, you must allow it to happen to yourself
> and to things you value. If you let someone trash Java this way, you
> have opened the door to trash Common Lisp this way.
And when it does, Lisp will survive. It doesn't need a blasphemy law.
to
protect it. People with taste will still see how good it is, whatever
is
said about it.
> Because Paul Graham
> does it, he has directly invited people who think Java is a good idea to
> think Lisp is bad because _Paul Graham_ is associated with hit.
They already thought Lisp was bad before Paul Graham wrote his article.
If they didn't, they'd use it.
> | Lisp is unpopular _because_ it is so good.
>
> Nonsense. (Common) Lisp is unpopular because of the exact same crappy
> "reasoning" that Paul Graham applies to Java. It has nothing to do with
> quality. It has everything to do with ignorant fucks who plaster their
> prejudice all over the place, without ever looking at it on their own.
I think you overestimate both the taste of the great majority of people,
and
the effect of an obscure (to non-Lispers at least) critic, one of only a
very small handful of people who have not followed the herd and have
dared to
speak out against Java.
Le Hibou
--
Dalinian: Lisp. Java. Which one sounds sexier?
RevAaron: Definitely Lisp. Lisp conjures up images of hippy coders,
drugs,
sex, and rock & roll. Late nights at Berkeley, coding in Lisp fueled by
LSD.
Java evokes a vision of a stereotypical nerd, with no life or social
skills.
* Donald Fisk
| Freedom of speech is more important than freedom from possibly
| unwarranted criticism. And the freedom to make even well-informed
| criticism of Java is the last thing the Java Taleban wants.
This is so nuts that there is no point in trying to reason with you.
--
In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none.
In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> This is so nuts that there is no point in trying to reason with you.
LOL !
-----------------------------------------------------
Kelvin is LORD!
All praise the Lord Kelvin!
Only The One, True Lord KELVIN Can Conserve You From Entropy!
Donald Fisk <················@enterprise.net> wrote:
>A better-informed critique of Java's contents would of course have been
>preferable to "Java's Cover", but it's high time someone spoke out
>against the hype surrounding Java.
Don't worry, it looks like it is going to be overtaken by C# hype.
-----------------------------------------------------
Kelvin is LORD!
All praise the Lord Kelvin!
Only The One, True Lord KELVIN Can Conserve You From Entropy!
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>* Donald Fisk
>[...]
>| Lisp is unpopular _because_ it is so good.
>
> Nonsense. (Common) Lisp is unpopular because of the exact same crappy
> "reasoning" that Paul Graham applies to Java. It has nothing to do with
> quality. It has everything to do with ignorant fucks who plaster their
> prejudice all over the place, without ever looking at it on their own.
>
>[...]
I would submit that that terms such a "nonsense" and phrases like
"ignorant fucks who plaster their prejudice..." and "crappy reasoning"
are not the hallmarks of a measured debate. These types of remarks
usually demonstrate sloppy thought and hasty delivery.
And now back our normal programming - the programming language debate.
****
Lisp unpopular because it is powerful, and be used for programming in
areas such as Artificial Intelligence and the Semantic Web, a step up
from base language (is this alchemy?). I have often felt that the
syntax has been a factor. "Unthink" our years of programming {Perl,
Java, Python, C, Cobol, Fortran, Basic, PL/1} and see that clarity of
thought that went in to designing Lisp.
Gordo (not a programmer)
* Gordon Joly
| I would submit that that [...] are not the hallmarks of a measured
| debate.
So, evidently, you think there was a measured debate prior to their use.
This is downright _frightening_.
| These types of remarks usually demonstrate sloppy thought and hasty
| delivery.
That you arrive at such conclusions by counting words on a word list
instead of understanding them is evidence thereof.
--
In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none.
In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>* Gordon Joly
>| I would submit that that [...] are not the hallmarks of a measured
>| debate.
>
> So, evidently, you think there was a measured debate prior to their use.
> This is downright _frightening_.
>
Please expand.
Gordo
* Gordon Joly
| Please expand.
This is my impression of your "objection": Your concern for a "measured
debate" starts and ends with words, not with the contents of the debate.
An ad hominem argument that contains no words on your word list, will
pass your "measured debate" detection scheme. Invalid reasoning, lack of
foundation, etc, are all hard to spot, but you rose to object only when
you found some objectionable words. This is, in my opinion, stupid, and
an hypocritical ad hominem argument to boot. Your desire for a "measured
debate" has no bearing on your behavior, but you use it to judge others.
I have never seen your name before you stood up from the anonymous crowd
to denounce something you had not participated in as not being to your
liking and only to attack the person making the argument. You made no
argument of any sort, only implied that "measured debate" is the alpha
and omega of an exhange. What is _wrong_ with people like you?
--
In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none.
In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process.
I did not attack the person.
Gordo
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>* Gordon Joly
>| Please expand.
>
> This is my impression of your "objection": Your concern for a "measured
> debate" starts and ends with words, not with the contents of the debate.
> An ad hominem argument that contains no words on your word list, will
> pass your "measured debate" detection scheme. Invalid reasoning, lack of
> foundation, etc, are all hard to spot, but you rose to object only when
> you found some objectionable words. This is, in my opinion, stupid, and
> an hypocritical ad hominem argument to boot. Your desire for a "measured
> debate" has no bearing on your behavior, but you use it to judge others.
>
> I have never seen your name before you stood up from the anonymous crowd
> to denounce something you had not participated in as not being to your
> liking and only to attack the person making the argument. You made no
> argument of any sort, only implied that "measured debate" is the alpha
> and omega of an exhange. What is _wrong_ with people like you?
>--
> In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none.
> In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
>
> 70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process.
* Gordon Joly
| I did not attack the person.
Stop lying, too. This is what you said:
I would submit that that terms such a "nonsense" and phrases like
"ignorant fucks who plaster their prejudice..." and "crappy reasoning"
are not the hallmarks of a measured debate. These types of remarks
usually demonstrate sloppy thought and hasty delivery.
This is a classic ad hominem argument. If you are so concerned about
"measured debate" as you seem to be, when you are not conducting it
yourself, you need to find a reasonably good book on argumentation and
look up what ad hominem means if you do not recognize your own as such.
--
In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none.
In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>* Gordon Joly
>| I did not attack the person.
>
> Stop lying, too. This is what you said:
>
> I would submit that that terms such a "nonsense" and phrases like
> "ignorant fucks who plaster their prejudice..." and "crappy reasoning"
> are not the hallmarks of a measured debate. These types of remarks
> usually demonstrate sloppy thought and hasty delivery.
>
> This is a classic ad hominem argument. If you are so concerned about
> "measured debate" as you seem to be, when you are not conducting it
> yourself, you need to find a reasonably good book on argumentation and
> look up what ad hominem means if you do not recognize your own as such.
>--
> In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none.
> In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
>
> 70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process.
I attacked the method of debate, not the person. It was related
directly to what the person had said, quoting it back directly.
Could you recommend "a reasonably good book on argumentation"?
Gordo
* Gordon Joly
| I attacked the method of debate, not the person. It was related
| directly to what the person had said, quoting it back directly.
There is no such thing as the "method of debate". Your goal was to
discredit the person and deter people from listening to the argument
because _you_ did not like something about the "delivery". You have had
absolutely _nothing_ to say about the argument. So just figure it out.
"Measured debate", my ass, what you are after is pure and simple control
over people's expression of their opinions. As long as you do not
address the contents of argument, shut the fuck up about your "measured
debate". Annoying hypocrites like that infest every newsgroup and should
be shot on sight.
| Could you recommend "a reasonably good book on argumentation"?
David Kelley: The Art of Reasoning.
Anthony Weston: A Rulebook for Arguments.
My other recommendations are unfortunately University textbooks in
Norwegian, but if you have had debate in school at any level, you _know_
that starting to talk about the "method of debate" is _completely_ out of
line, especially the idiotic inference about the arguers thinking
ability, which I assume you are aware of, yet seem to want to ignore that
you have said. If that is an apology, make it explicit, please.
Here is my concern about your hypocritical concern: Why are you trying to
imply that you do not know this when you are so hypocritically concerned
about "measured debate"? Something is not right, and because there is a
definite "stink" to your hypocritical concern, it is hostile. However,
it seems that you are simply massively ignorant of what you speak, and
should be cut some slack. Please let me know if you are clueless and
really innocent, and I shall ignore your transgression.
--
In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none.
In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>"Measured debate", my ass
> shut the fuck up
I presume that these mean something diplomatic in the original
Norwegian ?
-----------------------------------------------------
Kelvin is LORD!
All praise the Lord Kelvin!
Only The One, True Lord KELVIN Can Conserve You From Entropy!
Andie Wolbrink <···············@hotmail.com> writes:
> I presume that these mean something diplomatic in the original
> Norwegian ?
Would you _please_ stop making arbitrary changes to the
contents of your "From:" field? Some of us have to change our
killfiles each time you do that.
--
Raymond Wiker Mail: ·············@fast.no
Senior Software Engineer Web: http://www.fast.no/
Fast Search & Transfer ASA Phone: +47 23 01 11 60
P.O. Box 1677 Vika Fax: +47 35 54 87 99
NO-0120 Oslo, NORWAY Mob: +47 48 01 11 60
Try FAST Search: http://alltheweb.com/
Donald Fisk <················@enterprise.net> writes:
> So whatever you or I might think of his reasoning process, I at least can
> agree with his conclusions
danger will robinson!
thi
> I've thought about this long and hard, is that a better language than
> Common Lisp would be (a) very different from it, and (b) even less
> popular. Arguably, and I'm not saying I accept the argument, it exists
> in the form of Prolog.
haskell?
mr
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when "Barney" <······@members.com> would write:
>> I've thought about this long and hard, is that a better language than
>> Common Lisp would be (a) very different from it, and (b) even less
>> popular. Arguably, and I'm not saying I accept the argument, it exists
>> in the form of Prolog.
>
> haskell?
ML is interesting.
The one abstraction it has which I'd quite like to see in CL is its
notion of "pattern matching." To a great extent, pattern matching
ties to typing, so it might be difficult to construct something
analagous in CL.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ·············@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/sap.html
Signs of a Klingon Programmer #6: "Debugging? Klingons do not
debug. Our software does not coddle the weak."
> The one abstraction it has which I'd quite like to see in CL is its
> notion of "pattern matching." To a great extent, pattern matching
> ties to typing, so it might be difficult to construct something
> analagous in CL.
How about:
(pattern-match var
((some-atom another-atom ?x) (do-something-with x))
((a-different-atom ?x ?y) (do-something-with x y))
(t (do-something-else)))
Seems to work fine.
-- Jeffrey Straszheim | A sufficiently advanced
-- Programmer, Math Geek | regular expression is
-- http://www.shadow.net/~stimuli | indistinguishable from
-- stimuli AT shadow DOT net | magic
In article <··············@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>,
Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> wrote:
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when "Barney" <······@members.com> would
> write:
> >> I've thought about this long and hard, is that a better language than
> >> Common Lisp would be (a) very different from it, and (b) even less
> >> popular. Arguably, and I'm not saying I accept the argument, it exists
> >> in the form of Prolog.
> >
> > haskell?
>
> ML is interesting.
>
> The one abstraction it has which I'd quite like to see in CL is its
> notion of "pattern matching." To a great extent, pattern matching
> ties to typing, so it might be difficult to construct something
> analagous in CL.
Generic Function dispatch in CL and Dylan already do many of the things
that ML pattern matching do. Destructuring bind does a lot of the rest.
-- Bruce
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Chris Beggy
> | Here's a rebuttal to some of Paul Graham's recent writing:
>
> What is there to counter? The guy has completely lost it. His rant
> about Java (Java's Cover, dated April 2001) is the worst piece of
> dishonest argumentation I have seen outside of U.S. racial politics.
> Clearly, we no longer have to actually read what he writes, it enough to
> "feel" something about it and talk to others who have not read anything
> he writes, either. Consequently, it is sufficient to argue that:
At first, I wasn't sure who you were referring to (i.e., who "guy" was: Chris
or Paul Graham.)
I found Graham's article better than most of the foolishness I've seen put
forth by those promoting Java or Python or Ruby or VB as the greatest thing
since sliced bread. I don't buy into all of his published points of view (I'm
a big fan of LOOP); Lisp (CL) is my language of choice when its my decision to
make, so I'm a little prejudiced. I don't know for a fact that its better than
the other "popular" languages out there, but it seems to get the job done
quite elegantly. It does seem to me that all good languages should eventually
evolve to an isotope of "Lisp."
I thoroughly enjoy your commentaries.
sl
> (...) They are merely features that the programming language world in
> general, and Guido in particular, have chosen to reject. (...)
As newly elected leader of and speaker for the programming language
world in general, I hereby veto this decision to reject symbols and
sexps.
> (...) Programmers do not like deeply nested expressions. They like a
> language that encourages a style where expression results are
> assigned names. (...)
Let Programmer be a person who does not like deeply nested
expressions. For all Programmers, Python is adequate.
> (...) Python could one day grow a macro feature (...)
With proper care and feeding, your language, too, could grow up one
day.
-Tim
--
[My address is ,(reverse ···········@mit").]
Chris Beggy wrote:
> Here's a rebuttal to some of Paul Graham's recent writing:
>
> http://www.prescod.net/python/IsPythonLisp.html
>
> Chris
When someone shows up with a reasonable, well-argued critique, rather than
an odd post about, Python can't be Lisp because I like Python and I don't
like Lisp, then I'll notice.
Ot, to quote the Red Electroid ate the end of "The Adventures of Buckaroo
Bonzai Accross the Eighth Dimension", "So what? Big Deal..."
faa