Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> I am not going to make the google monkey, here. Several of your
> early posts here were Scheme propaganda; sometimes more,
> sometimes less subtle, but always recognizable. Kent described
> that very nicely; now that I remember that, I think I /will/ do
> the google monkey:
Hrm, I think the tendency of some *other* people (I'm told Tom Lord
was like this) to have a Scheme chip on their shoulder in every post
has for some reason bled over into discussions that *aren't* about
that.
The reference to Kent's article that you provide is a good one, but I
think you missed the point that I was making, and that Kent was
criticizing.
Kent rightly pointed out that certain kinds of questions and design
issues indicate that one might be better suited for a different sort
of language.
But what I think he missed in that post is that I wasn't asking those
kinds of questions...I had said "an article that says Common Lisp
sucks is not an article about Scheme". Now Kent is right that *some*
kind of "common lisp sucks" articles *are* really articles about
Scheme.
However:
1) If the person posting them is, as Kent acknowledged, perhaps
unaware that Scheme is the language for them, or the way in which
their questions point naturally in that direction, then it's wrong
to describe them as "propoganda".
2) I wasn't actually posting articles that said "Common Lisp sucks".
In fact, every time it's come up, I said that Common Lisp is pretty
darn good, and solves the problems it sets out to solve very well.
3) You had expressed an objection to "hundreds of articles about
Scheme". Leaving aside the hyperbole, in that context, even the
sorts of articles that Kent points out might "lead to Scheme", are
not articles about Scheme in that sense.
Thomas
·········@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
>
> > I am not going to make the google monkey, here. Several of your
> > early posts here were Scheme propaganda; sometimes more,
> > sometimes less subtle, but always recognizable. Kent described
> > that very nicely; now that I remember that, I think I /will/ do
> > the google monkey:
>
> Hrm, I think the tendency of some *other* people (I'm told Tom Lord
> was like this) to have a Scheme chip on their shoulder in every post
> has for some reason bled over into discussions that *aren't* about
> that.
>
> The reference to Kent's article that you provide is a good one, but I
> think you missed the point that I was making, and that Kent was
> criticizing.
>
> Kent rightly pointed out that ...
Yes, yes, ok, fine. Look, I am not asking you to defend
yourself, I am not asking you to repent, I am not asking you to
apologize. All I am asking you is to stop discussing this to
death. There is no need to. Just stop contributing to this
flamewar, and everything will be fine. As was happening before,
when you were posting technical stuff, everybody was nice to you,
and glad about your contributions. You already indicated that
you weren't interested in continuing this until eternity, so just
stop -- stop this thread, stop attacking Erik or certain other
people you disregard out of the blue (yes, you did. google for
yourself before saying it's not true), and the great peace in
comp.lang.lisp that had already been proclaimed can happily
continue again :-)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID 0xC66D6E6F