The "I dumped Java" thread made me think that I don't understand why some
people complain that Lisp is declining while I find it more and more usable
for real/commercial work.
The latest paper I've seen on the subject is from Peter Norvig (whose PAIP
was the book that made me come back to Lisp) :
http://www.norvig.com/Lisp-retro.html
In this paper he writes : "In 2002, the situation for Lisp is more bleak:
the language standard has stagnated, while other languages regularly add new
standards for protocols like HTTP, HTML, XML, SOAP..."
This looks just wrong to me. A quick look at CLiki gives several
possibilities for each protocol:
For HTTP there are AllegroServe, Araneida, CL-HTTP, HTTP dot LSP and
mod_lisp. (There are also some application frameworks like IMHO)
For HTML there are several HTML generation macros which are much more
powerful and easy to use than anything in any other language.
for XML there are also several possibilities.
The only one missing is SOAP but I bet we will see some library soon. (When
I find some time, I will put one with mod_lisp)
Should we choose one possibility for each protocol and put it in the
standard : Of course not.
There are also lots of libraries for SQL interfacing, regex, PDF generation,
graphics, etc...
There is also FLI/FFI that enables the use of C libraries.
So I don't see what is really missing today in Common Lisp for writing web
or X11/Win32 applications for instance.
It's obvious that some stuff should be standardized (like sockets, MP,
bivalent streams, etc...) but not these libraries.
I'm curious to see what people think about this particular subject.
Marc
"Marc Battyani" <·············@fractalconcept.com> writes:
> Should we choose one possibility for each protocol and put it in the
> standard : Of course not.
>
I was surprised at his assessment, too.
Maybe he's suggesting that these should either be in the
standard, or in a central repository, like CPAN for perl.
> There are also lots of libraries for SQL interfacing, regex, PDF generation,
> graphics, etc...
Thanks for your mod_lisp for apache and your contributions to clsql.
> There is also FLI/FFI that enables the use of C libraries.
>
> So I don't see what is really missing today in Common Lisp for writing web
> or X11/Win32 applications for instance.
>
> It's obvious that some stuff should be standardized (like sockets, MP,
> bivalent streams, etc...) but not these libraries.
>
> I'm curious to see what people think about this particular subject.
Unless one considers elisp, I don't know about lisp for other
relatively standard things:
mail: smtp, lmtp, imap
news: nntp
messaging: snmp, irc, im, jabber
unix: shell utilities
ident: ldap
streams: mp3 codec
security: gpg, tls, ssl
char: unicode, utf-8, double-byte tools
files: ftp, nfs, afs
I'm sure many of these exist in lisp, but I don't know where. I
also know that these reflect a unix system administration viewpoint.
Chris
Chris Beggy <······@kippona.com> writes:
> mail: smtp, lmtp, imap
Franz' SMTP, IMAP and POP clients:
<http://opensource.franz.com/postoffice/index.html>.
Their code would probably almost work in other lisps with the
acl-compat stuff from the portable allegroserve project.
> news: nntp
> messaging: snmp, irc, im, jabber
IRC client, by Pierre Mai:
<http://www.pmsf.de/pmai/SillyIRC.html>
I know people have AIM client code in Lisp. I have one myself, I just
need to work out a licensing issue.
A jabber client would be really cool.
> unix: shell utilities
> ident: ldap
> streams: mp3 codec
> security: gpg, tls, ssl
> char: unicode, utf-8, double-byte tools
> files: ftp, nfs, afs
Franz' NFS server:
<http://opensource.franz.com/nfs/index.html>
John Wiseman
John Wiseman <·······@server.local.lemon> writes:
> Franz' SMTP, IMAP and POP clients:
> <http://opensource.franz.com/postoffice/index.html>.
>
> IRC client, by Pierre Mai:
> <http://www.pmsf.de/pmai/SillyIRC.html>
>
> Franz' NFS server:
> <http://opensource.franz.com/nfs/index.html>
Thanks for these great links. Do you think Peter Norvig is aware
of all of these compatible implementations of standards?
Chris
Chris Beggy <······@kippona.com> writes:
> Thanks for these great links. Do you think Peter Norvig is aware of
> all of these compatible implementations of standards?
Well, I would think of those links more as places to start if you are
interested in whatever functionality they offer, not as drop-in
solutions--unless you happen to be using the lisp platform they were
developed for. If you're using another lisp, you simply are going to
have to do some hacking (generally speaking, and due to the use of
things like multiprocessing, sockets, etc.).
I think that might be the disadvantage that Norvig sees, and it is a
real one.
John Wiseman
John Wiseman <·······@server.local.lemon> writes:
> Chris Beggy <······@kippona.com> writes:
>
>> news: nntp
Some nntp is here:
http://www.davep.org/lisp/
>
>> messaging: snmp, irc, im, jabber
>
> IRC client, by Pierre Mai:
> <http://www.pmsf.de/pmai/SillyIRC.html>
>
> I know people have AIM client code in Lisp. I have one myself, I just
> need to work out a licensing issue.
>
> A jabber client would be really cool.
I found snmp here:
http://www.switch.ch/misc/leinen/snmp/
Chris
Chris Beggy <······@kippona.com> writes:
[SNIP]
> Unless one considers elisp, I don't know about lisp for other
> relatively standard things:
>
> mail: smtp, lmtp, imap
> news: nntp
> messaging: snmp, irc, im, jabber
> unix: shell utilities
> ident: ldap
> streams: mp3 codec
> security: gpg, tls, ssl
> char: unicode, utf-8, double-byte tools
> files: ftp, nfs, afs
I have the basis for an nntp library somewhere on my home disk. I
played around with it in order to build myself a CL-based news reader
(more as a toy than anything else) and (possibly) as use for a gateway
between nntp and other media.
If there is enough interest, I could probably dust it off and see what
I can do about getting it downloadable from somewhere.
//Ingvar
--
When the SysAdmin answers the phone politely, say "sorry", hang up and
run awaaaaay!
Informal advice to users at Karolinska Institutet, 1993-1994
Ingvar Mattsson wrote:
> Chris Beggy <······@kippona.com> writes:
>
> [SNIP]
>> Unless one considers elisp, I don't know about lisp for other
>> relatively standard things:
>>
>> mail: smtp, lmtp, imap
>> news: nntp
>> messaging: snmp, irc, im, jabber
>> unix: shell utilities
>> ident: ldap
>> streams: mp3 codec
>> security: gpg, tls, ssl
>> char: unicode, utf-8, double-byte tools files: ftp, nfs, afs
>
> I have the basis for an nntp library somewhere on my home disk. I played
> around with it in order to build myself a CL-based news reader (more as
> a toy than anything else) and (possibly) as use for a gateway between
> nntp and other media.
>
> If there is enough interest, I could probably dust it off and see what I
> can do about getting it downloadable from somewhere.
I'm interested Ingvar. The currently available nntp library is GPLed which
means you must GPL your software in order to be able to distribute a
software product combined with the library. Not only does this effectively
preclude all proprietary software from accessing the library but it also
stops any combined products being released under a more liberal licence.
The next less restrictive licence to choose would be the LLGPL:
http://opensource.franz.com/preamble.html
Eventually it would be nice to see the library included in the
Comprehensive Common Lisp Archive Network:
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/cclan
http://cclan.sourceforge.net/
Some code in cCLan is released under the Bugroff license:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/5947/bugroff.html
I guess this code is effectively public domain. Do what you like with the
code without bothering the author. I think a GPL-compatible BSD/MIT-style
license would be a better choice than telling lawyers to learn an honest
trade.
If you want people to be required to provide any changes to the library
when they release code that uses this library consider the LLGPL. If you
want people to be free to modify the library without being required to
provide their code consider the MIT or no advertising clause (i.e.
GPL-compatible) BSD licence, e.g.:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html
Either provides you with greater protections as an author than the bugroff
licence. For example it is wise to make an explicit warranty disclaimer.
Thanks again for your potential offer of code.
Regards,
Adam
Adam Warner <······@consulting.net.nz> writes:
> Ingvar Mattsson wrote:
>
> > Chris Beggy <······@kippona.com> writes:
> >
> > [SNIP]
> >> Unless one considers elisp, I don't know about lisp for other
> >> relatively standard things:
> >>
> >> mail: smtp, lmtp, imap
> >> news: nntp
> >> messaging: snmp, irc, im, jabber
> >> unix: shell utilities
> >> ident: ldap
> >> streams: mp3 codec
> >> security: gpg, tls, ssl
> >> char: unicode, utf-8, double-byte tools files: ftp, nfs, afs
> >
> > I have the basis for an nntp library somewhere on my home disk. I played
> > around with it in order to build myself a CL-based news reader (more as
> > a toy than anything else) and (possibly) as use for a gateway between
> > nntp and other media.
> >
> > If there is enough interest, I could probably dust it off and see what I
> > can do about getting it downloadable from somewhere.
>
> I'm interested Ingvar. The currently available nntp library is GPLed which
> means you must GPL your software in order to be able to distribute a
> software product combined with the library. Not only does this effectively
> preclude all proprietary software from accessing the library but it also
> stops any combined products being released under a more liberal licence.
OK, if I remember correctly, the current code is tied to CMUCL's
socket-opening code, but I imagine compatibility wrappers to be
easy(ish) to find/write (there *may* be ACL compat code, depending on
when in time it was written).
[SNIP]
> Thanks again for your potential offer of code.
Not a problem, it's been collecting virtual dust on my disk since a
few years abck. As for what license I will release it under, I don't
know, but my gut feeling right now is "here is the code, do what you
will, if it breaks, you keep both parts, should you want to submit a
fix, here's my mail address".
//Ingvar
--
When C++ is your hammer, everything looks like a thumb
Latest seen from Steven M. Haflich, in c.l.l
Ingvar Mattsson wrote:
> Adam Warner <······@consulting.net.nz> writes:
>
>> Ingvar Mattsson wrote:
>>
>> > Chris Beggy <······@kippona.com> writes:
>> >
>> > [SNIP]
>> >> Unless one considers elisp, I don't know about lisp for other
>> >> relatively standard things:
>> >>
>> >> mail: smtp, lmtp, imap
>> >> news: nntp
>> >> messaging: snmp, irc, im, jabber
>> >> unix: shell utilities
>> >> ident: ldap
>> >> streams: mp3 codec
>> >> security: gpg, tls, ssl
>> >> char: unicode, utf-8, double-byte tools files: ftp, nfs, afs
>> >
>> > I have the basis for an nntp library somewhere on my home disk. I
>> > played around with it in order to build myself a CL-based news reader
>> > (more as a toy than anything else) and (possibly) as use for a
>> > gateway between nntp and other media.
>> >
>> > If there is enough interest, I could probably dust it off and see
>> > what I can do about getting it downloadable from somewhere.
>>
>> I'm interested Ingvar. The currently available nntp library is GPLed
>> which means you must GPL your software in order to be able to
>> distribute a software product combined with the library. Not only does
>> this effectively preclude all proprietary software from accessing the
>> library but it also stops any combined products being released under a
>> more liberal licence.
>
> OK, if I remember correctly, the current code is tied to CMUCL's
> socket-opening code, but I imagine compatibility wrappers to be
> easy(ish) to find/write (there *may* be ACL compat code, depending on
> when in time it was written).
>
> [SNIP]
>
>> Thanks again for your potential offer of code.
>
> Not a problem, it's been collecting virtual dust on my disk since a few
> years abck. As for what license I will release it under, I don't know,
> but my gut feeling right now is "here is the code, do what you will, if
> it breaks, you keep both parts, should you want to submit a fix, here's
> my mail address".
That's great thanks Ingvar. With Marc's mod_lisp and your nntp code I
should be able to construct a web based inferface to an nntp discussion
forum. I'm still a newbie at Lisp. But if I manage to improve the nntp
code I'll release the modifications under the MIT licence which best
corresponds to your "do what you will" gut feeling.
With contributions like yours Lisp may one day have a large set of freely
available and easily accessible libraries like Python:
http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/modindex.html
Thanks again,
Adam
Adam Warner <······@consulting.net.nz> writes:
> I'm interested Ingvar. The currently available nntp library is GPLed
> which means you must GPL your software in order to be able to
> distribute a software product combined with the library. Not only
> does this effectively preclude all proprietary software from
> accessing the library but it also stops any combined products being
> released under a more liberal licence.
Have you considered contacting the author to see if they mind either
changing the license, or granting you an alternative license?
Chris.
--
http://www.double.co.nz/cl
> In this paper [Norvig] writes : "In 2002, the situation for Lisp is more bleak:
> the language standard has stagnated, while other languages regularly add new
> standards for protocols like HTTP, HTML, XML, SOAP..."
What rubbish. That is the same as comparing cars by their sound systems.
Lisp has survived for fifty years by doing language-level stuff Deeply
Right, not on the basis of handy interfaces to the Widget du Jour.
btw, the metrics Norvig uses--puh-leaze! He seems to think the herd
(amazon and newsgroup traffic) determines which languages prevail. I
guess we are all using COBOL and VSAM, right?
Everything is up in the air right now with PLs...Java, Perl, Python,
Ruby, yada yada yada with lotsa of the new folks distinguished most by
features copied from Lisp.
Calling a winner at this point is silly, folks should just shut up and
code.
:)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Harvey has overcome not only time and space but any objections."
Elwood P. Dowd
"Marc Battyani" <·············@fractalconcept.com> wrote in message
·······················································@lp.airnews.net...
> In this paper he writes : "In 2002, the situation for Lisp is more bleak:
> the language standard has stagnated, while other languages regularly add new
> standards for protocols like HTTP, HTML, XML, SOAP..."
>
XML and SOAP are just attempts to implement what is already easy in Lisp. Lisp's uniform
syntax allows comparable functionality. Thus it is not neccesary to implement these
standards for communicating Lisp applications. It is only the other languages that need
this help. I find it no surprise that Lisp users are slow to use these protocols. If the
need arises to talk to other apps I certainly find myself wondering why go to all that
trouble, and it is trouble. Perhaps Lisp should step up and present itself as an
inter-language communication language, instead of these other syntaxes.
Wade
Hello Marc,
Several years ago, in an email to me, Peter Norvig was
talking about Java and AI and said something to the
effect "Java is half as good for AI as Lisp and
that is probably good enough". [rough quote]
He might be right, but substitute Python, Ruby,
etc. for Lisp and the "quote" probably still holds.
I share his frustration about no standards for
SOAP and XML-RPC however. I have spent some time
hacking around for crude SOAP support but I am
not so happy with the results, and I don't have
time work on this much anymore.
Still, I think that you and I agree that the
stability of Common Lisp is usually more important than
support for the latest APIs. That said, I find it
much easier to find people to pay me for Java coding than
Lisp :-(
I have experimented with developing with Mzscheme, and
then using Kawa to compile to Java byte codes; this combinaton
might work out well when you really have to "ship Java".
-Mark
-- Mark Watson, author and Java consultant
-- www.markwatson.com - Open Source and Open Content
-- www.knowledgebooks.com - Commercial artificial intelligence software
Marc Battyani wrote:
> The "I dumped Java" thread made me think that I don't understand why some
> people complain that Lisp is declining while I find it more and more usable
> for real/commercial work.
>
> The latest paper I've seen on the subject is from Peter Norvig (whose PAIP
> was the book that made me come back to Lisp) :
> http://www.norvig.com/Lisp-retro.html
> ........
Mark Watson wrote:
>
> Hello Marc,
>
> Several years ago, in an email to me, Peter Norvig was
> talking about Java and AI and said something to the
> effect "Java is half as good for AI as Lisp and
> that is probably good enough". [rough quote]
"Good enough is best" is the strategy that makes
Microsoft successful. For the time being. It worked
for Cobol for a long time, and now it's working for Java.
That, and the fact that it's on the PHB radar. However, for
long term survival, you have to do better than that. Java
is just a better C++, and if I was designing a language (I am,
but I'm keeping it under wraps for the time being)
I wouldn't start with C++. Trying to improve on C++
is like shooting fish in a barrel. No, if a
general purpose language isn't at least as good as
the best high level languages currently available (Lisp,
Prolog, Smalltalk, Icon IMO (C is low level)), you might
as well use one of those instead.
"Been around a long time and still actively used" is a good
heuristic for choosing a language that won't become legacy --
Lisp and C pass, Cobol and Java don't.
And with the dotcoms going titsup everywhere, it seems to
me likely, or at least possible, that Java, which has
ridden the internet/e-commerce bandwagon more visibly than
anything else, might soon suffer the way Prolog and Lisp
suffered when the AI winter set in.
Someone posted an article on comp.lang.misc on comp.lang.*
newsgroup traffic. You can spot various things -- hype
(Java and Ruby), followed by a slow decline in the case
of Java, and Year 2000 bug (Cobol). One curious thing
is the behaviour of Lisp -- it was in the doldrums for
many years, but has recently perked up. Either more people
are posting here, or the same people are posting here more
often. Both are good signs. I don't know the reason.
> -Mark
--
Le Hibou
You know you've been hacking too long if, when someone
asks you if you have a son, you reply, "No, but I've
got a Symbolics 3630".
Donald Fisk wrote:
>
> And with the dotcoms going titsup everywhere, it seems to me likely,
> or at least possible, that Java, which has ridden the
> internet/e-commerce bandwagon more visibly than anything else,
> might soon suffer the way Prolog and Lisp suffered when the AI
> winter set in.
>
I've been telling my co-workers for awhile that "XML winter" is coming.
All the hype about the "semantic web" is raising expectations that
seem likely to be dashed, much the same way they were when the AI market
cratered. A *syntax* for nested property lists is the easy part of the
problem, and I'm unaware of any major advances in solving the semantic
problem (anyone talked to Cyc lately?).
Java is promoted as *the* language for processing XML - maybe when XML
dies back, it will drag Java down with it. We can but hope...
Bob Bane <····@removeme.gst.com> wrote in message news:<················@removeme.gst.com>...
> Donald Fisk wrote:
>
> >
> > And with the dotcoms going titsup everywhere, it seems to me likely,
> > or at least possible, that Java, which has ridden the
> > internet/e-commerce bandwagon more visibly than anything else,
> > might soon suffer the way Prolog and Lisp suffered when the AI
> > winter set in.
> >
>
> I've been telling my co-workers for awhile that "XML winter" is coming.
> All the hype about the "semantic web" is raising expectations that
> seem likely to be dashed, much the same way they were when the AI market
> cratered. A *syntax* for nested property lists is the easy part of the
> problem, and I'm unaware of any major advances in solving the semantic
> problem (anyone talked to Cyc lately?).
>
Try opencyc.org
Olivier
Bob Bane <····@removeme.gst.com> writes:
> I've been telling my co-workers for awhile that "XML winter" is
> coming. All the hype about the "semantic web" is raising expectations
> that seem likely to be dashed, much the same way they were when the AI
> market cratered. A *syntax* for nested property lists is the easy
> part of the problem, and I'm unaware of any major advances in solving
> the semantic problem (anyone talked to Cyc lately?).
How true! I used to work on really foundational semantics work and
it's just _so_ frustrating to see that people _again_ think that there
are cheap solutions to this just because you have a new syntactic
sugar coating. There aren NO cheap solutions! Really good NL
semantics,even for amazingly simple tasks like automatic translation
between very close languages, requires "real AI". And vice versa -
"real AI" requires an understanding of semantics which we are still
very far away from. Compared to the goals, our level of understanding
is just a tiny bit ahead of Aristotle...
--
(espen)
"Espen Vestre" <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> wrote in message
···················@merced.netfonds.no...
> Bob Bane <····@removeme.gst.com> writes:
>
> > I've been telling my co-workers for awhile that "XML winter" is
> > coming. All the hype about the "semantic web" is raising expectations
> > that seem likely to be dashed, much the same way they were when the AI
> > market cratered. A *syntax* for nested property lists is the easy
> > part of the problem, and I'm unaware of any major advances in solving
> > the semantic problem (anyone talked to Cyc lately?).
>
> How true! I used to work on really foundational semantics work and
> it's just _so_ frustrating to see that people _again_ think that there
> are cheap solutions to this just because you have a new syntactic
> sugar coating. There aren NO cheap solutions!
This always amazes me too, that people think all these free parsing tools
will somehow magically solve the difficult application logic. I wrote a
server used by java clients and because it was hard to grok all the
subtlties in how configuration sessions went and the information this server
needed to do its work, they constantly were asking to have a SOAP interface
as if that would magically make it easy to work with. This was as much as
anything just being afraid of trying to understand keyword arguments for
server commands!
That's the problem with the tool-user's approach (tools have their place, I
know!) they just want to stick together prefab chunks and have everything
automagically work. Some things are just plain hard. (I don't mean
keywords, sheesh)
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Thanks for the comments on my retrospective update. I stand by my
conclusion "Lisp experts are still as productive as ever, but newer
programmers are less likely to pick up Lisp". I do agree with many of
the points made in this thread. I agree that most of the libraries do
exist somewhere, but the fact that they are not standardized makes the
language harder to use, especially for a non-expert. By "standardized"
I mean available from one canonical location in a form that is
portable across implementations; I don't care whether they are part of
an ANSI standard or not.
One thing I regret about my page is the emphasis on popularity. Of
course it is true that popular does not equate to better. And the
measures I cite were the ones that were available to me, and are not
the most scientific or useful. The only number that I think really
counts is number of jobs offered. Even that number is unreliable; I
know there are more than 4 openings for Lisp programmers.
I've updated my page to de-emphasize popularity and stress the
features that once made Lisp unique, and to incorporate some of the
points made in this thread. Now I want the take-home message to be
"Overall, Lisp does very well on the nine features. Anyone making an
objective choice based on these features would continue to find Lisp
the best choice for a wide range of applications. But there are now
viable contenders that did not exist in 1991." In other words, using
Lisp was a no-brainer in 1990, but now it depends on how you
prioritize a number of factors.
Here's a challenge for the Lisp community: give me the URL that I can
point to and say
"Lisp has a free, portable collection of libraries for threads, GUIs,
HTML, HTTP, XML, SOAP, and many other things available at ?????."
-Peter Norvig
"Marc Battyani" <·············@fractalconcept.com> wrote in message news:<··················································@lp.airnews.net>...
> The "I dumped Java" thread made me think that I don't understand why some
> people complain that Lisp is declining while I find it more and more usable
> for real/commercial work.
>
> The latest paper I've seen on the subject is from Peter Norvig (whose PAIP
> was the book that made me come back to Lisp) :
> http://www.norvig.com/Lisp-retro.html
>
On 19 May 2002, Peter Norvig wrote:
[snip]
> the points made in this thread. I agree that most of the libraries do
> exist somewhere, but the fact that they are not standardized makes the
> language harder to use, especially for a non-expert. By "standardized"
> I mean available from one canonical location in a form that is
> portable across implementations; I don't care whether they are part of
> an ANSI standard or not.
[snip]
(I'm sure others will make this point, but...) Isn't this a rather hard,
er, standard? I mean, a single implementation language often gets
"portable across implementations" for free, there being only one
implementation.
And even there, there are typically loads of libraries that aren't
portable across platform ports. Look at Python on the mac and Python on
Windows.
Or look at Python vs. Jython
(see: http://www.jython.org/cgi-bin/faqw.py?req=show&file=faq04.001.htp)
I can speak better for Smalltalk (and perhaps the examples are
clearer): there are at least two implemenations (VisualWorks and
Squeak) that provide nearly all their facilities (including GUIs, sound,
networking etc.) identically across all the (many) platforms they
support. That is, not even a recompile is needed to work with the same
program on Mac, Windows, Linux, WinCE, etc. However, porting *between*
these two implementions/dialects can be a significant effort (depending on
what bits you use of each).
Python has 3-7 XML kits. Some are in the base image. Some are not. Some
require specific external parsers, some don't, some work with many,
etc. etc. etc. I've worked with several Python systems that depend on
specific versions of python (1.5.2, 1.6, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, etc.).
BTW, where is the canoncial Python SOAP implementation?
(Noting that SOAP is in a *fair* bit of flux at the moment and SOAP
interopt is still rather dicey.)
(SOAP 1.2 isn't even in final call working draft status yet, much less
Candidate recommendation or Recommendation. That is, there *is no SOAP
standard*. There's a W3C note for SOAP 0.9, but...)
Choice can make things harder to use. Thus, the wider range of
implementations, with different capabilities, might make Lisp harder to
use, but, one hopes, in a Good Way :)
Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Bijan Parsia <·······@email.unc.edu> writes:
> On 19 May 2002, Peter Norvig wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > the points made in this thread. I agree that most of the libraries do
> > exist somewhere, but the fact that they are not standardized makes the
> > language harder to use, especially for a non-expert. By "standardized"
> > I mean available from one canonical location in a form that is
> > portable across implementations; I don't care whether they are part of
> > an ANSI standard or not.
> [snip]
>
> (I'm sure others will make this point, but...) Isn't this a rather hard,
> er, standard? I mean, a single implementation language often gets
> "portable across implementations" for free, there being only one
> implementation.
It's a hard standard, but it's a reasonable one. And, in my opinion,
the "but there's more then one implementation" answer is a fairly weak
excuse. Compare the convenience of downloading the standard Python
distribution from www.python.org and having, by default, libraries for
html, xml, whatever-the-latest-buzzcronym-is-ML, graphics, operating
system interfaces, database interfaces, etc. Compare this to
downloading one of the free Common Lisps, going to Cliki, going from
there to somebodies homepage, trying to build it, failing because
things that should be standard across implementations (FFI, sockets,
threads, etc.) aren't, and, if you haven't thrown up your hands yet,
fixing it to run on your implementation of choice.
If anything, the proliferation of free Common Lisp implementations is
a sign of fragmentation and wasted effort--we have communities
actively working on CMUCL, SBCL, CLISP, GCL, ECLS, and OpenMCL.
Imagine what we'd have if the free Common Lisp community picked one
implementation, and vested all their efforts into improving it and
writing libraries for it. Considering that it takes a lot of work to
write and maintain a Common Lisp implementation, and we'd have free'd
up the resources to required to maintain 5 of them, I'd bet we'd even
get some damn nice libraries.
But, realistically, this is never going to happen. This is painfully
ironic, because (correct me if I'm wrong--I was 5 when X3J13 was
formed and may not be at all clued in on its original purpose) the
whole point of *COMMON* Lisp was to get a whole bunch of different
groups working on increasingly divirgent Lisp dialects to standardize.
Consider these observations and not requests. I'm very grateful to the
CMUCL developers for continuing to maintain a superb product. I'm
pretty happy with using CMUCL for my own personal projects and
LispWorks for the *very* rare occaisons when I get to use it at work.
Short of unrealistic dreams of Lisp becoming a mainstream language and
being able to easily find a job using it, I'm fairly happy with what
Lisp is giving me now.
Please don't interpret this as bashing the free Common Lisp community
as a whole, either. Writing and maintaining robust software is hard
work, and I absolutely appreciate the free Lisp software that I use.
It's just that I really love Lisp, and I don't think thumping our
chests and gazing pridefully upon a crazy-quilt of implementations and
uncoordinated effort is going to move it that far from where it is
now.
Gabe Garza
On Mon, 20 May 2002, Gabe Garza wrote:
> Bijan Parsia <·······@email.unc.edu> writes:
>
> > On 19 May 2002, Peter Norvig wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > the points made in this thread. I agree that most of the libraries do
> > > exist somewhere, but the fact that they are not standardized makes the
> > > language harder to use, especially for a non-expert. By "standardized"
> > > I mean available from one canonical location in a form that is
> > > portable across implementations; I don't care whether they are part of
> > > an ANSI standard or not.
> > [snip]
> >
> > (I'm sure others will make this point, but...) Isn't this a rather hard,
> > er, standard? I mean, a single implementation language often gets
> > "portable across implementations" for free, there being only one
> > implementation.
>
> It's a hard standard, but it's a reasonable one.
Then it need to be fairly applied (or better stated). How portable is code
between Python and Jython? Between Python 1.5.1 and Python 2.2? Why
*can't* we compare apples with apples (i.e., implementations with
implementations)?
I'm not saying that Lisp doesn't have (e.g., marketing) problems because
of it's multi-implementation situation, but I want to know what the *real*
problem is. That you can't port your code between implementations easily
seeems like an *odd* point. How easy is it to port Perl DOM code to
Python? (Which level DOM?)
> And, in my opinion,
> the "but there's more then one implementation" answer is a fairly weak
> excuse. Compare the convenience of downloading the standard Python
> distribution from www.python.org and having, by default, libraries for
> html, xml, whatever-the-latest-buzzcronym-is-ML, graphics, operating
> system interfaces, database interfaces, etc.
I do. I currently have three Python distributions on my hard drive and now
half to download another because a library I'm using (Redfoot) wants
veriosn 2.2.2 or some such.
> Compare this to
> downloading one of the free Common Lisps, going to Cliki, going from
> there to somebodies homepage, trying to build it, failing because
> things that should be standard across implementations (FFI, sockets,
> threads, etc.) aren't, and, if you haven't thrown up your hands yet,
> fixing it to run on your implementation of choice.
If it's a problem of the free versions that's one thing. It's always open
for me to get one of the commercial ones and several of those are
reasonably complete.
> If anything, the proliferation of free Common Lisp implementations is
> a sign of fragmentation and wasted effort--we have communities
Well here's a something it *could* be a sign of: healthy diversity :) With
healthy diversity comes some other issues.
> actively working on CMUCL, SBCL, CLISP, GCL, ECLS, and OpenMCL.
> Imagine what we'd have if the free Common Lisp community picked one
> implementation, and vested all their efforts into improving it and
> writing libraries for it. Considering that it takes a lot of work to
> write and maintain a Common Lisp implementation, and we'd have free'd
> up the resources to required to maintain 5 of them, I'd bet we'd even
> get some damn nice libraries.
Evidently this doesn't serve the needs and desiers of various people,
indeed, the ones actually writing code. What needs would be *neglected* in
the alternative paradise you paint?
> But, realistically, this is never going to happen. This is painfully
> ironic, because (correct me if I'm wrong--I was 5 when X3J13 was
> formed and may not be at all clued in on its original purpose) the
> whole point of *COMMON* Lisp was to get a whole bunch of different
> groups working on increasingly divirgent Lisp dialects to standardize.
On a *base*. It's not clear how things are going to shake out on MOST of
the things on Norivg's list.
> Consider these observations and not requests.
Sure. I agree with some but mostly disagree with the conclusions you
draw. Some of Norvig's complaints seem to be promulgating a *bit* of a
myth, IMHO. Or, at least, based on something of a double standard with a
much more critical eye directed toward Lisp than, e.g., Python.
I speak as someone who's spent a fair bit of time writing Python code and
followng the community and using its standard library. Often the stdlib is
more promise than reality, IMHO.
> I'm very grateful to the
> CMUCL developers for continuing to maintain a superb product. I'm
> pretty happy with using CMUCL for my own personal projects and
> LispWorks for the *very* rare occaisons when I get to use it at work.
> Short of unrealistic dreams of Lisp becoming a mainstream language and
> being able to easily find a job using it, I'm fairly happy with what
> Lisp is giving me now.
Heh. Indeed. That's good.
> Please don't interpret this as bashing the free Common Lisp community
> as a whole, either. Writing and maintaining robust software is hard
> work, and I absolutely appreciate the free Lisp software that I use.
> It's just that I really love Lisp, and I don't think thumping our
> chests and gazing pridefully upon a crazy-quilt of implementations and
> uncoordinated effort is going to move it that far from where it is
> now.
Well, I don't *think* that's what I was doing.
I'm curious that you ignored all the details of my argument, and
especially the comparison with the situation in Smalltalk land. I think my
*real* point is that portability across dialects of every unfinished spec
roaming the land might not be the real solution to
whatever-the-problem-actually-is.
Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> writes:
> Gabe Garza <·······@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> > If anything, the proliferation of free Common Lisp implementations is
> > a sign of fragmentation and wasted effort--we have communities
> > actively working on CMUCL, SBCL, CLISP, GCL, ECLS, and OpenMCL.
> > Imagine what we'd have if the free Common Lisp community picked one
> > implementation
>
> A lot of very bored people and a general stagnation of development.
There should be more to Common Lisp then just the glamorous parts,
like the compiler. You also need libraries to have a truly usable
system. These are often boring to write, but every bit as necessary
as the interesting parts of the system if one is to write useful code.
Python has no shortage of developers willing to contribute to the
boring parts, and hence has plenty of libraries, is very useful, and
has a growing user base.
> Nowhere to go if you want to experiment with new things that would
> make the code unstable
Of course there'd be somewhere to go: the "One" implementation.
Download the source, do what you want with it. Is their a current
distribution I don't know of that's accepting of unstable code
or something?
> No choice of implementations with different design goals for size,
> speed, ANSI compatibility, extra-ANSI extensions, safety (I trust you
> will agree that these are conflicting goals)
I completely *disagree* that these are conflicting goals.
Size vs. Speed: LispWorks has a pretty robust compiler, but also has a
tree shaker that can produce reasonably sized executables. Recently
there's been some interesting work building smaller CMUCL cores--and
CMUCL is damn fast.
ANSI vs. Extensions: One of the points of Lisp is that it's the
"programmable programming language." It's *designed* to be extended,
and it's easy to extend it without damaging compatibility. You just
put your extensions in a package other then COMMON-LISP. If your
extensions involve modifications to the readtable, then include a
function to enable and disable them.
Safety: Again, one of the nice things about Lisp is that you can have
either safety or speed. Existing implementations give you this
already (e.g., (declare (optimize (speed 3) (safety 0))) gives *VERY*
different code then (declare (optimize (speed 0) (safety 3))) in
CMUCL). I don't know why you listed this as a conflicting goal--I
apologize if I'm misunderstanding your point. I'm sure you'll correct
me if I am. :)
> No chance to use an implementation with more-or-less onerous
> licensing conditions. (I may not want to extend CLISP if my changes
> must be GPLed; the CLISP maintainers may not want to extend some other
> Lisp if it means that anyone can take their changes and incorporate it
> into proprietary products)
I'll agree that licensing would be a major sore point. But then again,
CLISP is the only GPL'd free distribution I know of, and I don't think
GPL was the developers first choice of license...
> Really, it doesn't sound like a win.
Frankly, even if all your dire predictions were true (and I don't think
this is so), I'd be willing to put up with a less robust core
system (as long as it wasn't GPL'd...) if it meant having a large set
of usable libraries.
> > writing libraries for it. Considering that it takes a lot of work to
> > write and maintain a Common Lisp implementation, and we'd have free'd
> > up the resources to required to maintain 5 of them, I'd bet we'd even
> > get some damn nice libraries.
>
> This might be true. If, that is, you completely ignore all the social
> factors involved and consider free software developers as
> interchangeable "resources" who will work on whatever you direct them
> to work on.
I don't, which is precisely why I say it will never happen in a latter
(unquoted) paragraph. Lots of boring code just isn't going to be
written. I'm not going to write it (at least for free), and someone
else probably isn't going to write it either. There's an even smaller
chance that a team of people will get together to put together a
powerful and coherent system (at least for free).
And, again, I'm not complaining. I'm happy with CMUCL. I just don't
think it's fair to lament the success of languages that have more
practical immediate uses (like Python)--largely due to being single
distributions with tons of libraries--when Lisp has obvious and easily
identifiable shortcomings in this area.
Gabe Garza
Gabe Garza <·······@ix.netcom.com> writes:
[...]
I started writing a very long response to your article, but I think I
can summarize by saying: as long as the cost of communication is
non-zero, different development communities with different priorities
will form. Even supposing they all start from the same code base, it
would be somewhere in the range (very difficult, physically
impossible) to keep the branches from proceeding at different speeds
and in different directions.
You have to fix the pressures that push people to split before you can
say "splitting is a bad thing". If not splitting means you can't
solve the problems that you set out to solve, then clearly splitting
is a less bad thing.
In short, develop a instantaneous direct mind link and then we'll talk
again ;-) In the absense of such, ragging on free Lisp developers for
being wasteful is like ragging on legs for being overmuscled because
we wouldn't need all that strength if only the Earth had 1/6th normal
gravity.
> And, again, I'm not complaining. I'm happy with CMUCL. I just don't
> think it's fair to lament the success of languages that have more
> practical immediate uses (like Python)--largely due to being single
> distributions with tons of libraries--when Lisp has obvious and easily
> identifiable shortcomings in this area.
I agree with that bit. After all, I created CLiki mostly in order to
encourage the development (and visibility) of free libraries.
However, what you _said_ was
> If anything, the proliferation of free Common Lisp implementations is
> a sign of fragmentation and wasted effort
which is what I was objecting to
-dan
PS That may well be the first time I've heard anyone describe compiler
development as glamorous. I believe it's usually kernel hackers who
get the supermodels
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
On Mon, 20 May 2002 16:42:00 +0100, Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> wrote:
> can summarize by saying: as long as the cost of communication is
> non-zero, different development communities with different priorities
> will form. Even supposing they all start from the same code base, it
> would be somewhere in the range (very difficult, physically
> impossible) to keep the branches from proceeding at different speeds
> and in different directions.
A recent example: the Linux kernel, e.g. the issues about the "ac" patches
and Alan Cox--I hope I remember correctly.
> again ;-) In the absense of such, ragging on free Lisp developers for
> being wasteful is like ragging on legs for being overmuscled because
> we wouldn't need all that strength if only the Earth had 1/6th normal
> gravity.
This could be fixed by riding a Saturn V.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
[http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/]
Gabe Garza <·······@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> Python has no shortage of developers willing to contribute to the
> boring parts,
This is not true!
Cheers,
M.
--
Considering that this thread is completely on-topic in the way only
c.l.py threads can be, I think I can say that you should replace
"Oblivion" with "Gravity", and increase your Radiohead quotient.
-- Ben Wolfson, comp.lang.python
From: Mark Watson
Subject: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp, CLisp licensing, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <3CE91EA0.9020908@markwatson.com>
Gabe Garza wrote:
> If anything, the proliferation of free Common Lisp implementations is
> a sign of fragmentation and wasted effort--we have communities
> actively working on CMUCL, SBCL, CLISP, GCL, ECLS, and OpenMCL.
> Imagine what we'd have if the free Common Lisp community picked one
> implementation, and vested all their efforts into improving it and
> writing libraries for it. Considering that it takes a lot of work to
> write and maintain a Common Lisp implementation, and we'd have free'd
> up the resources to required to maintain 5 of them, I'd bet we'd even
> get some damn nice libraries.
It is interesting to be a historian for a while :-)
Probably, Smalltalk lost out to Java because of
licensing issues with Smalltalk (vendor problems
with Smalltalk, Java was 'free', etc.)
Sadly, I think that the large scale adoption of Lisp
could have happened if a few things had been different:
1. CLisp would have had a BSD or LGPL style license, or
was licensed like Swi-Prolog is now (GPL with a waiver
for cmmercial development).
2. If we had a commercial product like LispWorks Professional
15 years go. I remember at SAIC, my bosses liked how
quickly demos could be cranked out in Interlisp on my
old 1108 box, but there were not good deployment options.
Now, a product like LispWorks allows for free runtime
distribution on Windows and Linux - what I needed 15
years ago :-(
CLisp is very fine for development and I defend
Bruno Haible, Michael Stoll, Marcus Daniels,
Pierpaolo Bernardi, and Sam Steingold's right
to choose the kind of license they want for their
fine work (Sam makes great arguments for the
GPL license, BTW). For the entire Lisp
community however, I think that CLisp with
a more liberal license would end up being
the standard Lisp environment, and more people would
work on extending it.
-Mark
-- Mark Watson, author and Java consultant
-- www.markwatson.com - Open Source and Open Content
-- www.knowledgebooks.com - Commercial artificial intelligence software
On Mon, 20 May 2002, Mark Watson wrote:
[snip]
> It is interesting to be a historian for a while :-)
Let the revisionism begin!
> Probably, Smalltalk lost out to Java because of
> licensing issues with Smalltalk (vendor problems
> with Smalltalk, Java was 'free', etc.)
Er..this presumes that Smalltalk and Java were, in any sane way,
competiters for some "thing".
There were free Smalltalks available (Little Smalltalk, GNU Smalltalk).
Arguably, the Smalltalk community -- certainly several vendors -- damaged
themselves by trying to "beat" Java.
> Sadly, I think that the large scale adoption of Lisp
> could have happened if a few things had been different:
Ok, we're *way* beyond history and into speculation :) Fun, but not
necessarily productive.
> 1. CLisp would have had a BSD or LGPL style license, or
> was licensed like Swi-Prolog is now (GPL with a waiver
> for cmmercial development).
Really? If CLisp had had non-GPL licencing 5 years ago it would have beat
out Java?!?!
Ok, I'm reading a bit more into what you said than you actually said
:) But what's your supporting evidence? Java had TONS of money (tons, it
really can't be stressed how much money Java had), loads of good will
(almost as much as it had money), good press, a HUGE company pimping it
everywhere, the negative vibes against Microsoft, etc. etc. etc.
And it will probably "lose" to C# :)
[snip]
If a mere, tiny licence change to CLisp would have made Lisp "huge" then
we should all strongly bash the CLisp developers and all the people in the
community who didn't get enough money together to make them change it (or
to produces something equivalent with the right licence).
I just don't believe it. Not a whit.
Both your conditions seem more "What Lisp would have had to have done in
order for *YOU* to have been using it all this time, for most
everything." That's perhaps useful information, but let's not generalize
*too* quickly here :)
Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
From: Raymond Toy
Subject: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp, CLisp licensing, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <4nwuty8sgx.fsf@rtp.ericsson.se>
>>>>> "Bijan" == Bijan Parsia <·······@email.unc.edu> writes:
Bijan> On Mon, 20 May 2002, Mark Watson wrote:
>> 1. CLisp would have had a BSD or LGPL style license, or
>> was licensed like Swi-Prolog is now (GPL with a waiver
>> for cmmercial development).
[snip]
Bijan> If a mere, tiny licence change to CLisp would have made Lisp "huge" then
Bijan> we should all strongly bash the CLisp developers and all the people in the
Bijan> community who didn't get enough money together to make them change it (or
Bijan> to produces something equivalent with the right licence).
Bijan> I just don't believe it. Not a whit.
Indeed!
CMUCL is truly public domain so could gather it up and do whatever you
wanted to it, including making it proprietary.
CMUCL hasn't made Lisp a big hit either.
Ray
On 20 May 2002 16:38:54 -0400, Raymond Toy <···@rtp.ericsson.se> wrote:
> CMUCL is truly public domain so could gather it up and do whatever you
> wanted to it, including making it proprietary.
Those who do not subscribe to the CMUCL mailing lists may not know that
this--i.e. making CMUCL proprietary--happened at least twice within the
last couple of years.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
[http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/]
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> On 20 May 2002 16:38:54 -0400, Raymond Toy <···@rtp.ericsson.se> wrote:
>
> > CMUCL is truly public domain so could gather it up and do whatever
> > you wanted to it, including making it proprietary.
>
> Those who do not subscribe to the CMUCL mailing lists may not know
> that this--i.e. making CMUCL proprietary--happened at least twice
> within the last couple of years.
Do you know what happened with these versions? They evolved into
products that can be bought somewhere? Or they became part of a bigger
system used internally by some company?
Just curious,
Edi.
From: Tim Moore
Subject: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp, CLisp licensing, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <aclmo2$8st$0@216.39.145.192>
On 24 May 2002 16:27:10 +0200, Edi Weitz <···@agharta.de> wrote:
>Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
>
>> On 20 May 2002 16:38:54 -0400, Raymond Toy <···@rtp.ericsson.se> wrote:
>>
>> > CMUCL is truly public domain so could gather it up and do whatever
>> > you wanted to it, including making it proprietary.
>>
>> Those who do not subscribe to the CMUCL mailing lists may not know
>> that this--i.e. making CMUCL proprietary--happened at least twice
>> within the last couple of years.
>
>Do you know what happened with these versions? They evolved into
>products that can be bought somewhere? Or they became part of a bigger
>system used internally by some company?
>
I think Paolo is referring to Douglas Crosher's effort, a
commericalized CMUCL, and Thomas Burdick's system, which is a new
compiler paired with the CMUCL runtime. Apologies if I've
mischaracterized either of those works! I don't believe either is
commericially available yet.
Over the years, Spice Lisp / CMUCL has been the basis of, or
contributed a lot of code to, several commercial implementations. DEC
VAXLisp was basically Spice Lisp ported to the VAX. HP Common Lisp
(pre Lucid) was more or less the Spice Lisp runtime paired with the
Portable Standard Lisp (PSL) compiler. Spice Lisp code ended up in
the TI Explorer source base. I'm sure there are others I've missed.
Tim
On 24 May 2002 15:37:38 GMT, ······@sea-tmoore-l.dotcast.com (Tim Moore)
wrote:
> I think Paolo is referring to Douglas Crosher's effort, a
> commericalized CMUCL, and Thomas Burdick's system, which is a new
> compiler paired with the CMUCL runtime. Apologies if I've
Correct.
> mischaracterized either of those works! I don't believe either is
> commericially available yet.
I seem to understand that the products are for internal use, and that there
are no current plans for selling them.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
[http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/]
From: Pierre R. Mai
Subject: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp, CLisp licensing, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <87off2zvcv.fsf@orion.bln.pmsf.de>
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> On 24 May 2002 15:37:38 GMT, ······@sea-tmoore-l.dotcast.com (Tim Moore)
> wrote:
>
> > I think Paolo is referring to Douglas Crosher's effort, a
> > commericalized CMUCL, and Thomas Burdick's system, which is a new
> > compiler paired with the CMUCL runtime. Apologies if I've
>
> Correct.
>
>
> > mischaracterized either of those works! I don't believe either is
> > commericially available yet.
>
> I seem to understand that the products are for internal use, and that there
> are no current plans for selling them.
I think that this is only true (at the moment) for Thomas Burdick's
system. To the best of my knowledge it isn't true of Douglas
Crosher's system, whom you should probably contact directly for more
information (search the mailing list archives for Douglas' email
address, or contact me directly).
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: Raymond Toy
Subject: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp, CLisp licensing, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <4nhekurddb.fsf@rtp.ericsson.se>
>>>>> "Pierre" == Pierre R Mai <····@acm.org> writes:
Pierre> I think that this is only true (at the moment) for Thomas Burdick's
Pierre> system. To the best of my knowledge it isn't true of Douglas
Pierre> Crosher's system, whom you should probably contact directly for more
Pierre> information (search the mailing list archives for Douglas' email
Pierre> address, or contact me directly).
There is a website, but since Douglas hasn't announced anything,
I won't say. You could find it with a little guess work.
Ray
On 24 May 2002 15:37:38 GMT, ······@sea-tmoore-l.dotcast.com (Tim Moore)
wrote:
> I think Paolo is referring to Douglas Crosher's effort, a
> commericalized CMUCL, and Thomas Burdick's system, which is a new
> compiler paired with the CMUCL runtime. Apologies if I've
I also seem to remember that Thomas' system is intended for multiprocessor
machines.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
[http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/]
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> On 24 May 2002 15:37:38 GMT, ······@sea-tmoore-l.dotcast.com (Tim Moore)
> wrote:
>
> > I think Paolo is referring to Douglas Crosher's effort, a
> > commericalized CMUCL, and Thomas Burdick's system, which is a new
> > compiler paired with the CMUCL runtime. Apologies if I've
>
> I also seem to remember that Thomas' system is intended for multiprocessor
> machines.
Yeah. It should work fine on single-processor machines, but it's
easier to start developing in a new direction by ripping out massive
amounts of functionality, then adding them back into the new system as
needed, so a release anytime in the next year would probably be quite
disappointing for normal Lisp users. At some point it'll probably be
spun off into a generally-available product, but only once it looks
like a small enough amount of work to make the system sufficiently
ANSI for normal users.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: lin8080
Subject: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp, CLisp licensing, etc.
Date:
Message-ID: <3CED8272.6A5768AD@freenet.de>
Bijan Parsia schrieb:
> On Mon, 20 May 2002, Mark Watson wrote:
> Let the revisionism begin!
[...]
> And it will probably "lose" to C# :)
Let me say it like this:
C# runs under windows.
Java runs under .... (did I forget any?)
Lisp runs under .... "
... runs under .... "
What I mean is the OS the language is adapt to. And what I saw is that
Lisp will be nice on a Lisp-Machine. There is no compromise to pay
attention to. And this is an advantage that helps a lot.
stefan
lin8080 wrote:
>
>
> Bijan Parsia schrieb:
>
>> On Mon, 20 May 2002, Mark Watson wrote:
>
>> Let the revisionism begin!
>
> [...]
>> And it will probably "lose" to C# :)
>
> Let me say it like this:
>
> C# runs under windows.
Well - AFAIK it now runs under Linux too. See http://www.go-mono.com for
any details.
Whatever that helps...
ciao,
Jochen
--
http://www.dataheaven.de
Mark Watson <·····@markwatson.com> writes:
> Gabe Garza wrote:
>
> > If anything, the proliferation of free Common Lisp implementations is
> > a sign of fragmentation and wasted effort--we have communities
> > actively working on CMUCL, SBCL, CLISP, GCL, ECLS, and OpenMCL.
> > Imagine what we'd have if the free Common Lisp community picked one
> > implementation, and vested all their efforts into improving it and
> > writing libraries for it. Considering that it takes a lot of work to
> > write and maintain a Common Lisp implementation, and we'd have free'd
> > up the resources to required to maintain 5 of them, I'd bet we'd even
> > get some damn nice libraries.
>
>
> It is interesting to be a historian for a while :-)
>
> Probably, Smalltalk lost out to Java because of
> licensing issues with Smalltalk (vendor problems
> with Smalltalk, Java was 'free', etc.)
>
> Sadly, I think that the large scale adoption of Lisp
> could have happened if a few things had been different:
>
> 1. CLisp would have had a BSD or LGPL style license, or
> was licensed like Swi-Prolog is now (GPL with a waiver
> for cmmercial development).
CMUCL is "Public Domain" you cannot get more free than that save
having, say, Raymond Toy work on it full time without pay and
deferring to you as "domine". Somehow I do not follow your argument :)
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
> * In message <················@markwatson.com>
> * On the subject of "Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp, CLisp licensing, etc."
> * Sent on Mon, 20 May 2002 16:02:33 GMT
> * Honorable Mark Watson <·····@markwatson.com> writes:
>
> Sadly, I think that the large scale adoption of Lisp
> could have happened if a few things had been different:
I doubt that you are correct.
> 1. CLisp would have had a BSD or LGPL style license, or was licensed
> like Swi-Prolog is now (GPL with a waiver for cmmercial development).
as others have noted, CMUCL is public domain.
> CLisp is very fine for development and I defend Bruno Haible, Michael
> Stoll, Marcus Daniels, Pierpaolo Bernardi, and Sam Steingold's right
> to choose the kind of license they want for their fine work (Sam makes
> great arguments for the GPL license, BTW).
CLISP uses GNU readline and GNU libiconv, so it has to be under the GNU
GPL due to its "viral" nature.
> For the entire Lisp community however, I think that CLisp with a more
> liberal license would end up being the standard Lisp environment, and
> more people would work on extending it.
From CLISP COPYRIGHT:
...
This copyright does *not* cover user programs that run in CLISP and
third-party packages not part of CLISP, if they only reference external
symbols in CLISP's public packages (namely the packages COMMON-LISP,
COMMON-LISP-USER, KEYWORD, EXT), i.e. if they don't rely on CLISP
internals and would as well run in any other Common Lisp implementation.
Such user programs are not covered by the term "derived work" used in
the GNU GPL. Neither is their compiled code, i.e. the result of compiling
them by use of the function COMPILE-FILE. We refer to such user programs
as "independent work".
You may copy and distribute memory image files generated by the
function SAVEINITMEM, if it was generated only from CLISP and independent
work, and provided that you accompany them, in the sense of section 3
of the GNU GPL, with the source code of CLISP - precisely the same CLISP
version that was used to build the memory image -, the source or compiled
code of the user programs needed to rebuild the memory image (source
code for all the parts that are not independent work, see above), and
a precise description how to rebuild the memory image from these.
...
how much more liberal do you want?
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat7.2 GNU/Linux
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.palestine-central.com/links.html>
A professor is someone who talks in someone else's sleep.
Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
> From CLISP COPYRIGHT:
>
> ...
>
> This copyright does *not* cover user programs that run in CLISP and
> third-party packages not part of CLISP, if they only reference external
> symbols in CLISP's public packages (namely the packages COMMON-LISP,
> COMMON-LISP-USER, KEYWORD, EXT), i.e. if they don't rely on CLISP
> internals and would as well run in any other Common Lisp implementation.
Excuse my ignorance, but this part of the license has always baffled
me (I'm probably just missing something really obvious). There are a
lot of symbols in the EXT package that are not in all other Common
Lisp implementations: the weak pointer functions, the socket
functions, the process starting functions, I18N support, etc.
There seems to be a conflict between the "you can use any external symbol
in EXT" part and the "would as well run in any other Common Lisp
implementation."
Does "would as well run in any other Common Lisp implementation" mean:
"There exists another implementation of Common Lisp such that your
program would run"? Although even if it ment this, it still wouldn't
"run," strictly speaking, because the functionality is likely to have
a different API.
> You may copy and distribute memory image files generated by the
> function SAVEINITMEM, if it was generated only from CLISP and independent
Here's an example: strictly speaking, SAVEINITMEM won't run in all
other Common Lisp implementations (In fact, I don't know of any other
implementations with a function called SAVEINITMEM, much less any with
a function called SAVEINITMEM that does exactly what CLisp's does).
> how much more liberal do you want?
I don't use CLisp much, so I don't care either way. But even if I
did, it's your right to distribute CLisp under whatever terms you
wish. I just don't understand those terms (again, probably because
I'm looking at something the wrong way....)
Gabe Garza
> * In message <············@anubis.kynopolis.org>
> * On the subject of "Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp, CLisp licensing, etc."
> * Sent on Wed, 22 May 2002 23:07:19 GMT
> * Honorable Gabe Garza <·······@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > From CLISP COPYRIGHT:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > This copyright does *not* cover user programs that run in CLISP and
> > third-party packages not part of CLISP, if they only reference external
> > symbols in CLISP's public packages (namely the packages COMMON-LISP,
> > COMMON-LISP-USER, KEYWORD, EXT), i.e. if they don't rely on CLISP
> > internals and would as well run in any other Common Lisp implementation.
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but this part of the license has always baffled
> me (I'm probably just missing something really obvious). There are a
> lot of symbols in the EXT package that are not in all other Common
> Lisp implementations: the weak pointer functions, the socket
> functions, the process starting functions, I18N support, etc. There
> seems to be a conflict between the "you can use any external symbol in
> EXT" part and the "would as well run in any other Common Lisp
> implementation."
most other CL implementations provide equivalent functionality (except
for maybe i18n, which is not essential), i.e., you can base your
proprietary code on CLOCC/PORT (or similar) and load it into CLISP on
top of CLOCC/PORT, and you will be fine.
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat7.2 GNU/Linux
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.palestine-central.com/links.html>
nobody's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session
On Mon, 20 May 2002 01:18:23 GMT, Gabe Garza <·······@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> If anything, the proliferation of free Common Lisp implementations is
> a sign of fragmentation and wasted effort--we have communities
> actively working on CMUCL, SBCL, CLISP, GCL, ECLS, and OpenMCL.
Is GCL still supported? Is it still the primary platform for Maxima
deployment?
I seem to understand that the ECLS developer community includes a single
individual.
As for CMUCL and SBCL, both developer communities recently had and exchange
of ideas about merging back the projects. It looks like there may be
interest in this, and it may be technically possible. But don't hold your
breath.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
[http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/]
>>>>> "Paolo" == Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
Paolo> On Mon, 20 May 2002 01:18:23 GMT, Gabe Garza <·······@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> If anything, the proliferation of free Common Lisp implementations is
>> a sign of fragmentation and wasted effort--we have communities
>> actively working on CMUCL, SBCL, CLISP, GCL, ECLS, and OpenMCL.
Paolo> Is GCL still supported? Is it still the primary platform for Maxima
Yes. There's some new development work on gcl. See savannah.gnu.org.
Paolo> deployment?
Yes and no. The latest versions of Maxima will now run with Clisp and
CMUCL. The intent is for Maxima to run on any ANSI CL.
Ray
Bijan Parsia <·······@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On 19 May 2002, Peter Norvig wrote:
> [snip]
>> the points made in this thread. I agree that most of the libraries do
>> exist somewhere, but the fact that they are not standardized makes the
>> language harder to use, especially for a non-expert. By "standardized"
>> I mean available from one canonical location in a form that is
>> portable across implementations; I don't care whether they are part of
>> an ANSI standard or not.
> [snip]
> (I'm sure others will make this point, but...) Isn't this a rather
> hard, er, standard? I mean, a single implementation language often
> gets "portable across implementations" for free, there being only
> one implementation.
The fact that it's not easy doesn't make this an unacceptable standard
to hope for.
An important assumption throughout the CL standard is that quite a lot
of details are thrust at implementation since there will be relatively
few implementors in comparison with the number of folks _using_ the
implementations.
> Python has 3-7 XML kits. Some are in the base image. Some are not. Some
> require specific external parsers, some don't, some work with many,
> etc. etc. etc. I've worked with several Python systems that depend on
> specific versions of python (1.5.2, 1.6, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, etc.).
>
> BTW, where is the canoncial Python SOAP implementation?
>
> (Noting that SOAP is in a *fair* bit of flux at the moment and SOAP
> interopt is still rather dicey.)
I can be as authoritative on that as anyone can be; there are only two
implementations for Python worth speaking of, neither being totally
satisfactory, in different ways; only one, ZSI, is being actively
worked on anymore. But there are simple samples that it doesn't work
with. (I filed a bug report on this _tonight_, so I have some clue on
this :-).)
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ··········@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/languages.html
Eagles may soar, free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet
engines.
On 20 May 2002, Christopher Browne wrote:
> Bijan Parsia <·······@email.unc.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> The fact that it's not easy doesn't make this an unacceptable standard
> to hope for.
Of course not. I surely didn't say anything to the contrary (or even imply
any such thing). But if we're trying to be clear eyed about the situation
and possible solutions we, well, should be clear eyed :)
For example, wouldn't it "solve" the Python-competation problem for a
group of developers to rally around, say, CLisp and focus on making it
feature/bug competative with Python? Why *must* CLers solve the much
harder problem of making ALL implementations "Python competative"? Yet,
afaict, this is what Norvig calls for.
> An important assumption throughout the CL standard is that quite a lot
> of details are thrust at implementation since there will be relatively
> few implementors in comparison with the number of folks _using_ the
> implementations.
Sure. Uh. Ok. I'm not clear what this has to do with the current situation
:) Other important assumptions are that some things are *left* to
implemenations and that a posteriori standardization is good.
> > Python has 3-7 XML kits. Some are in the base image. Some are not. Some
> > require specific external parsers, some don't, some work with many,
> > etc. etc. etc. I've worked with several Python systems that depend on
> > specific versions of python (1.5.2, 1.6, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, etc.).
> >
> > BTW, where is the canoncial Python SOAP implementation?
> >
> > (Noting that SOAP is in a *fair* bit of flux at the moment and SOAP
> > interopt is still rather dicey.)
>
> I can be as authoritative on that as anyone can be; there are only two
> implementations for Python worth speaking of, neither being totally
> satisfactory, in different ways;
Right, so forget Lisp for a moment: *Python* doesn't meet Norvig's
criterion!! This makes me think that there's primarily a perception issue
at hand.
> only one, ZSI, is being actively worked on anymore. But there are
> simple samples that it doesn't work with. (I filed a bug report on
> this _tonight_, so I have some clue on this :-).)
[snip]
Indeed, this is as I suspected.
So, there are at least two points of criticism I meant to raise about
Norvig's criteria: 1) it's not clear that Python passes it, and 2) it's
not clear that one has to have cross-implemenation portability of every
little thing to be properly competative with Python and the like. Maybe a
third: It probably doesn't help to make things artifically harder :)
(And *of course* we'd all prefer to be able to have a wider range of
portable programs, so that we can pick and choose which implementation to
develop/deploy our programs based on nothing more than our whims. I
suspect that people in single implementation langauge communities tend to
move between *languages* (e.g., Python, Perl, Ruby, Tcl) the way Lisper &
Smalltalkers & Prologgers move between implemenations and dialects.)
Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
·····@norvig.com (Peter Norvig) writes:
> Here's a challenge for the Lisp community: give me the URL that I can
> point to and say
>
> "Lisp has a free, portable collection of libraries for threads, GUIs,
> HTML, HTTP, XML, SOAP, and many other things available at ?????."
http://ww.telent.net/cliki
That should contain pointers to all available, free libraries for CL,
and if it doesn't, users/implementors can/should add them on their
own.
That doesn't fully address portable, since not all libraries are
currently portable or ported across the popular implementations.
However the situation is improving all the time. E.g. Kevin
Rosenberg's UFFI effort has unified FFIs for the popular
implementations, and he has taken MaiSQL to all those platforms in the
form of CLSQL, using UFFI. Merging the driver parts of UncommonSQL
(also derived from MaiSQL) with CLSQL is on the way, AFAIK, so that
shortly UncommonSQL+CLSQL should give you fairly powerful,
"standardized" access to RDBMSes across the board.
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
Once upon a time, "Pierre R. Mai" <····@acm.org> wrote:
> ·····@norvig.com (Peter Norvig) writes:
>
>> Here's a challenge for the Lisp community: give me the URL that I can
>> point to and say
>>
>> "Lisp has a free, portable collection of libraries for threads, GUIs,
>> HTML, HTTP, XML, SOAP, and many other things available at ?????."
>
> http://ww.telent.net/cliki
>
> That should contain pointers to all available, free libraries for CL,
> and if it doesn't, users/implementors can/should add them on their
> own.
For what it's worth, then, I have added a couple of convenience
features to CLiki such that you can now go to the URL
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/some-page-name?download
and (if the download location is correctly marked up) it will redirect
you directly to the download package. That should decrease the number
of steps involved in finding libraries: you could even write shell
scripts and stuff to wrap it.
(It doesn't directly dictate the format of the downloaded package.
Personally I'd like them to all be ASDF Systems, which is basically a
tar.gz with an asdf system definition file, but there's nothing in
there to force this)
For more information (so that you can go and add download urls to your
package's CLiki page) see
<url:http://ww.telent.net/cliki/CLiki%20News>
and
(with-asdf-plug (:necessity :entirely-gratuitious)
<url:http://ww.telent.net/cliki/vn-cCLan>
<url:http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ASDF%20System>)
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
Peter Norvig wrote:
> One thing I regret about my page is the emphasis on popularity.
...
> Here's a challenge for the Lisp community: give me the URL that I can
> point to and say
>
> "Lisp has a free, portable collection of libraries for threads, GUIs,
> HTML, HTTP, XML, SOAP, and many other things available at ?????."
That still emphasizes popularity.
BTW, show me a URL to a Python with good GC, macros, C+20% performance,
generic methods, special variables, an ANSI standard, and which has the
stability of a forty-plus year old language.
Now which is harder, whipping up interfaces to the latest toys or
finishing Python?
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Harvey has overcome not only time and space but any objections."
Elwood P. Dowd
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> BTW, show me a URL to a Python with good GC, macros, C+20% performance,
> generic methods, special variables, an ANSI standard, and which has the
> stability of a forty-plus year old language.
>
> Now which is harder, whipping up interfaces to the latest toys or
> finishing Python?
Yeah, Lisp is the greatest language in the world. No one here, myself
included, is going to disagree with you.
That doesn't change the fact that, to many users, those things are all
completely irrelevant if they can't easily open a socket, connect to a
database, spawn a process, stat a file, open a pipe, send a datagram,
throw a window on the screen, match a string against a regular
expression, encrypt a string, use the syslog facility, parse CGI
environment variable values, parse urls, send mail, read mail, send a
file via ftp, read a file via ftp, start an nntp session, parse an xml
file, manipulate image files, manipulate sound files, ...
Different people are going to judge languages based on different sets
of criteria. Lisp is tops by my criteria, but only because I know
enough about computers to either roll my own support for the above if
I have to or write ffi bindings. Could you honestly recommend Lisp to
someone to whom being able to easily do some of those things was
important? What about someone who was just begining to program, but
needed to be able to write useful programs fairly soon?
If you want Lisp to appeal to more people--and I'm not saying that you
should, or that I do, or that it's even a worthy goal--there are more
helpful things then being disdainful of criticism (and it was actually
pretty *light* criticism).
Gabe Garza
Gabe Garza wrote:
>
> there are more
> helpful things then being disdainful of criticism...
Look, the criticism sucks, what can I do? :)
There are two questions. (a) How good is a language? (2) How much glue
is there to today's hot toys? All this yammering lumps the two together.
That is a godawful mistake. Good languages are hard, glue is easy. Also,
popularity generates glue as much as glue generates popularity. if glue
is your design goal you should end up with glue but unless you are
extending CL the language invented to provide the glue will likely be a
slow, unstable hack in need of years of refinement.
the criticism reaches for finality based on a few years' history.
"Wouldn't it be great if CL had seamless access to VSAM, JCL, RMS, DCL,
and Pascal?!" oops... what is that rule of thumb about how long one has
to wait before writing the history of something? What really gives me a
pain where I sit is folks like Norvig and Graham pulling their chins and
pronouncing "what's wrong" with a language which kicked ass before they
had written a line of code and will continue to kick ass long after they
are pushing up daisies, all because of a little excitement this week (in
geological time) over a few toy languages.
This is like dissecting the general manager's off-season trades when the
division leader loses five games in a row.
If they are through with CL, fine, they can have Python or Arc and leave
CL to the young tigers who are picking up the flag. I just wish they'd
spare us the lame 30-second-history parting shots at the language that
made them.
:)
Here is what would be helpful: if the fanatics sawing away at extending
Python, Perl and Ruby would close up shop and learn CL. Helpful also
would be Graham or Norvig coding up the CL interfaces they miss. Helpful
in actuality are the people starting to share CL stuff.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Harvey has overcome not only time and space but any objections."
Elwood P. Dowd
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> There are two questions. (a) How good is a language? (2) How much
> glue is there to today's hot toys? All this yammering lumps the two
> together.
Yes, and I think Norvig did a good job of describing what the issues
were, and keeping them separate. Both are pretty important when you
want to write code.
I just noticed this, and it's kinda relevant, so I'll quote Paul
Graham (<http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html>):
As for libraries, their importance also depends on the
application. For less demanding problems, the availability of
libraries can outweigh the intrinsic power of the language. Where is
the breakeven point? Hard to say exactly, but wherever it is, it is
short of anything you'd be likely to call an application. If a
company considers itself to be in the software business, and they're
writing an application that will be one of their products, then it
will probably involve several hackers and take at least six months
to write. In a project of that size, powerful languages probably
start to outweigh the convenience of pre-existing libraries.
I think the following statement is hard for anyone in comp.lang.lisp
to deny (but I sure expect to be surprised):
Lisp is definitely a better language than most (though it's not as far
ahead as it once was) and the state of lisp libraries is definitely
not as good as that of many other languages.
Let's just admit it's a problem (for some, maybe not for everyone) and
work on it.
Actually, people are *working* on the problem of making it easy to
create, distribute, find and install lisp libraries right now--the
Comprehensive Common Lisp Archive Network (CCLAN) is developing the
required infrastructure, which is a lot of work.
There's also the issue of writing good, portable libraries, which is a
lot of work. I believe that common interfaces for sockets and threads
(and maybe user-extensible streams) would make it *much* easier to
write portable versions of a certain class of library that happens to
be popular right now.
For myself, I'm close to deciding that anything I write will use the
APIs for these things as defined by Allegro Common Lisp, mostly
because they're the best I've seen, but also because it seems like
there's some movement toward accepting them as de facto standards
(E.g., OpenMCL's implementing the ACL socket API, the Portable
AllegroServe project's acl-compat files, maybe even some recent cmucl
and sbcl development.)
John Wiseman
On Tue, 21 May 2002, John Wiseman wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> > There are two questions. (a) How good is a language? (2) How much
> > glue is there to today's hot toys? All this yammering lumps the two
> > together.
>
> Yes, and I think Norvig did a good job of describing what the issues
> were, and keeping them separate.
If you go back in this three, you'll see that I think almost exactly the
opposite. I think Kenny's formulation hides that (a) generally is a feater
of the *langauge* whereas (2) [weird numbering scheme Kenny!] is generally
a feature of implementations.
It may sound like a Schemely reponse to say, "Oh, but the there are
*implementations* that have what you need." but I'm not clear that
is. But, in point of fact, it's *much* harder to get
portable-over-all-implementation libs than to get *one* implementation
with all the functionality. If the latter is what's *really* needed for
success, pursuing the former will slow things down. A lot.
That's what I mean by Norvig's "double standard". *No one* disputes the
use of being able to take socket or thread or...code and drop it into
almost any CL implementation and have it just work. I do dispute that
*that's* what makes CL "lose ground" to Python (for the most part).
Finally, I think a *lot* of care must be taken when claiming that the
Python (or better, the Ruby) standard libs are so great. Ruby's a very
young language. Very young. But, afaict, it's *never* had this sort of
whinging thrown at it.
A lot of the issues of between implementation porting crop up (though
perhaps not as serverely) for between version of Python.
> Both are pretty important when you
> want to write code.
Sure. As no one denies. But when python is lacking in some area (SVG
support anyone?) folks just code it up.
[snip]
> I think the following statement is hard for anyone in comp.lang.lisp
> to deny (but I sure expect to be surprised):
>
> Lisp is definitely a better language than most (though it's not as far
> ahead as it once was) and the state of lisp libraries is definitely
> not as good as that of many other languages.
I don't know why you thing this is hard. The real question is *which*
libraries? AFAICT, LispWorks has *excellent* libraries (for *lots* of
things). As does Allegro. As does MCL. Etc.
Try to replicate the KnowledgeWorks stuff in Python!
Ok, maybe not everyone needs that, but that's at least part of the point,
yes?
Sure, there's no *standard* for sockets...but there's not *standard* for
sockets in python, just a canonical implemenation.
> Let's just admit it's a problem (for some, maybe not for everyone) and
> work on it.
Well, let's admit the *right* problem.
Or better, let's just work on useful, portable libraries. Since we *all*
admit they're a good, we can be positively driven rather than negatively.
*But*, given scare resources, it makes sense to prioritize, yes?
> Actually, people are *working* on the problem of making it easy to
> create, distribute, find and install lisp libraries right now--the
> Comprehensive Common Lisp Archive Network (CCLAN) is developing the
> required infrastructure, which is a lot of work.
Yep. Yay for them.
But the Vendors do good too.
[snip]
> For myself, I'm close to deciding that anything I write will use the
> APIs for these things as defined by Allegro Common Lisp, mostly
> because they're the best I've seen, but also because it seems like
> there's some movement toward accepting them as de facto standards
> (E.g., OpenMCL's implementing the ACL socket API, the Portable
> AllegroServe project's acl-compat files, maybe even some recent cmucl
> and sbcl development.)
Sounds like an excellent plan to me, FWIW.
Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <kk9n0uu86hw.fsf@glug.org>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Helpful in actuality are the people starting to share CL stuff.
sharing was around even before CL, dude.
thi
Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
>
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> > Helpful in actuality are the people starting to share CL stuff.
>
> sharing was around even before CL, dude.
? You must have misparsed my godawful sentence.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Harvey has overcome not only time and space but any objections."
Elwood P. Dowd
In article <·················@nyc.rr.com>,
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Here is what would be helpful: if the fanatics sawing away at extending
> Python, Perl and Ruby would close up shop and learn CL.
That's not going to happen as long as people with experience in said
languages (and other not mentioned, such as Smalltalk, Dylan, Scheme,
OCaml) who come to this newsgroup get as chilly a reception as they do
at present.
-- Bruce
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: c.l.l. as a language adoption inhibitor [was Norvig's paper]
Date:
Message-ID: <3CE9E003.36B84402@nyc.rr.com>
Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> In article <·················@nyc.rr.com>,
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Here is what would be helpful: if the fanatics sawing away at extending
> > Python, Perl and Ruby would close up shop and learn CL.
>
> That's not going to happen as long as people with experience in said
> languages ... who come to this newsgroup get as chilly a reception
I have heard that theory before, but I am not sure it holds water. I try
to imagine myself getting stoked over some new language but then
abandoning it because of a feisty NG... nahhhh.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Harvey has overcome not only time and space but any objections."
Elwood P. Dowd
In article <·················@nyc.rr.com>,
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Bruce Hoult wrote:
> >
> > In article <·················@nyc.rr.com>,
> > Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Here is what would be helpful: if the fanatics sawing away at extending
> > > Python, Perl and Ruby would close up shop and learn CL.
> >
> > That's not going to happen as long as people with experience in said
> > languages ... who come to this newsgroup get as chilly a reception
>
> I have heard that theory before, but I am not sure it holds water. I try
> to imagine myself getting stoked over some new language but then
> abandoning it because of a feisty NG... nahhhh.
Well you might not, and I clearly aren't, but I see plenty of people pop
up here, get abused and insulted, and they're never seen again. Which,
apparently, the long term Lisp people here are happy to see happen.
-- Bruce
In <···························@copper.ipg.tsnz.net>,
Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> wrote:
| but I see plenty of people pop up here,
[raises hand]
| get abused and insulted,
Well, I wasn't. Or, at least, not that I could tell (since I could be
supremely oblivious.)
| and they're never seen again.
Okay, it must be time for someone to chase me away.
| Which, apparently, the long term Lisp people here are happy to see
| happen.
This strikes me as a canard. They are ultimately much more devastating
than abuse or insults.
From: David Golden
Subject: Re: c.l.l. as a language adoption inhibitor [was Norvig's paper]
Date:
Message-ID: <yBmG8.7372$04.21415@news.iol.ie>
Bruce Hoult wrote:
> Well you might not, and I clearly aren't, but I see plenty of people pop
> up here, get abused and insulted, and they're never seen again. Which,
> apparently, the long term Lisp people here are happy to see happen.
>
I suspect a major problem is that the "new generation" of news readers
don't know what a killfile is.
David Golden
--
Don't eat yellow snow.
In article <···················@news.iol.ie>,
David Golden <············@oceanfree.net> wrote:
> Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> > Well you might not, and I clearly aren't, but I see plenty of people pop
> > up here, get abused and insulted, and they're never seen again. Which,
> > apparently, the long term Lisp people here are happy to see happen.
>
> I suspect a major problem is that the "new generation" of news readers
> don't know what a killfile is.
Who do you suggest should be killfiling whom?
Besides, what does a "new generation" have to do with anything? I've
been on usenet for more than a decade, I've always used software with a
killfile ([[s]t]rn, then NewsWatcher) but have never killfiled anyone,
and I'm not about to start now.
-- Bruce
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: c.l.l. as a language adoption inhibitor [was Norvig's paper]
Date:
Message-ID: <3230965513765097@naggum.net>
* Bruce Hoult
| Well you might not, and I clearly aren't, but I see plenty of people pop
| up here, get abused and insulted, and they're never seen again.
You do? You see, to people who observe _before_ they judge, this is
simply not in the evidence. Just because you feel like it _should_ be
true, because that would be much more fun for you, for whatever perverse
reason, does not _make_ it true. However, there is some truth to the
idea that perception makes reality. In this sense, you are the one who
keeps making this story stick to people's memory, much to the annoyance
of other people. Could you please stop? You are scaring the newbies.
--
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:
> * Bruce Hoult
> | Well you might not, and I clearly aren't, but I see plenty of people pop
> | up here, get abused and insulted, and they're never seen again.
>
> You do? You see, to people who observe _before_ they judge, this is
> simply not in the evidence. Just because you feel like it _should_ be
> true, because that would be much more fun for you, for whatever perverse
> reason, does not _make_ it true. However, there is some truth to the
> idea that perception makes reality. In this sense, you are the one who
> keeps making this story stick to people's memory, much to the annoyance
> of other people. Could you please stop? You are scaring the newbies.
You might have some sort of point if there was a factual basis to your
claims. As usual there isn't. I have never before made the observation
that people pop up here, get abused and insulted, and are never seen
again. Not once. Check the archive on google.
I suggest you read what you wrote above and understand that it applies
best to youself.
-- Bruce
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: c.l.l. as a language adoption inhibitor [was Norvig's paper]
Date:
Message-ID: <3230969064152955@naggum.net>
* Bruce Hoult
| You might have some sort of point if there was a factual basis to your
| claims. As usual there isn't.
Christ, dude. So you had no arguments. Just checking.
| I have never before made the observation that people pop up here, get
| abused and insulted, and are never seen again. Not once. Check the
| archive on google.
The point, Bruce, was that you have never made that observation at all.
| I suggest you read what you wrote above and understand that it applies
| best to youself.
Yeah, yeah. Apply to yourself. Yadayada. How much RAM do you really
need to do that thing?
Incidentally, have you considered how much the first two sentences above
might apply to yourself? I guess not. "Apply to myself" does not compute.
Just for the record: You are not a newbie. You are only incredibly
annoying and won't go away, and you feel abused much more than you are,
and then you abuse in return. This is doubly annoying. Usually, this
kind of behavior is associated with newbiehood, but you have been around
a long time, so you cannot use yourself as evidence of your claim, OK?
--
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.
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> In article <·················@nyc.rr.com>,
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Here is what would be helpful: if the fanatics sawing away at extending
> > Python, Perl and Ruby would close up shop and learn CL.
>
> That's not going to happen as long as people with experience in said
> languages (and other not mentioned, such as Smalltalk, Dylan, Scheme,
> OCaml) who come to this newsgroup get as chilly a reception as they do
> at present.
Just to provide a counter-data-point, I come to this newsgroup with
experience in Smalltalk, and I fairly often mention Smalltalk and
Smalltalk issues, and I don't feel that I've gotten a very chilly
reception.
OTOH, I don't think people will give up on Perl, Python, Ruby, etc. just
because they get a warmer reception in comp.lang.lisp. I mean *really*.
Even if you just meant that it's a *necessary* condition (which wasn't
obvious from your rhetoric), I would think that tarting out comp.lang.lisp
is *far* down the list of things to be accomplished ;)
Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> BTW, show me a URL to a Python with good GC, macros, C+20%
> performance, generic methods, special variables, an ANSI
> standard, and which has the stability of a forty-plus year old
> language.
Which one of those things are required for writing, for example,
a simple web server? You can do it in Python using a few lines
of code. The same code will work with Jython was well. How
many lines of CL does it take?
Yes, the GC in sucks. I know. I wrote it. Yes, Python is
agonizingly slow when compared to C++ or compiled CL. You know
what else? It doesn't matter. Python gets the job done. It's
got a large, well documented stardard library. It's got a free,
very portable, fairly bug free implementation. It plays well
with other languages and libraries.
> Now which is harder, whipping up interfaces to the latest toys or
> finishing Python?
Harder is not the question. The question is will anyone do it?
Lots of CL users seem to have the attitude that CL is king and
all other languages are inferior. They seem to think that no
advancement of the language is necessary. The ANSI CL standard
was an awesome technical feat but progress cannot stop there. A
standard network socket interface would be nice, for example. Is
the CL community working on one?
I feel sad. CL is a great language. However, if it doesn't grow
its standard library (even if it's only a de facto standard) then
it's going to eventually die. The community needs to realize
this and start working on it. Denying the problem does not help.
Neil
Neil Schemenauer wrote:
>
> However, if it doesn't grow
> its standard library (even if it's only a de facto standard) then
> it's going to eventually die.
The only way Lisp will die is the same way the mac gui lost to the
microsoft dos command line, ie when some other language matches Lisp and
goes it one better. That would be fine by me, if not CL vendors. :)
> The community needs to realize
> this and start working on it. Denying the problem does not help.
Hey, I'd like lotsa libraries, I just do not see it as a problem. Then
again, I tend to develop applications in which what I write is the beef.
Sounds like these other languages are more like scripting languages,
connecting libraries that supply the beef.
These scripting languages are not technical threats to CL. As for the
popularity threat, well, unpopularity may be fatal to some languages,
but Lisp clearly is not one of them, precisely because it is so
fundamentally excellent. COBOL was popular, Pascal was popular, C++ was
popular... live by popularity, die by popularity.
My crystal ball says: The explosion of new languages means C++ is spent
and is falling back to Earth. CL is the answer, witness the excitement
over CL features reintroduced by the new languages. These new languages
will serve as stepping stones for a few refugees from C++ to CL. This
new blood needs reach only a very low threshhold before the old blood,
discouraged by years of unpopularity, takes heart and returns to action.
In /very/ short order CL has more libraries than anyone, precisely
because of CL's fundamental strength. Popularity follows incidentally,
not vitally.
You heard it here first. Now where's my fiddle...
:)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Harvey has overcome not only time and space but any objections."
Elwood P. Dowd
Neil Schemenauer <··········@arctrix.com> writes:
> [..] Lots of CL users seem to have the attitude that CL is king and
> all other languages are inferior. They seem to think that no
> advancement of the language is necessary. The ANSI CL standard was
> an awesome technical feat but progress cannot stop there.
Actually I don't think most CL users (at least not myself) believe CL
to be the end of history, only that most emerging competitors are
giant leaps backwards rather than steps forward. The Python language
certainly is a leap backwards in every respect, with the possible
exception of C-world integration (and some might count the whitespace
syntax a win, but I at least consider it a failed experiment).
So no advancement of the CL language would be necessary to outclass
the competition, which of course is not to say that advancement
wouldn't be a good thing.
I agree that having loads of defacto-standardized libraries would be
nice, but in actuality I personally don't have any great need for any
library functionality in particular, which again is probably why I
haven't contributed much to any such library. And this might be the
case for others too.
--
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
Neil Schemenauer <··········@arctrix.com> writes:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> > Now which is harder, whipping up interfaces to the latest toys or
> > finishing Python?
>
> Harder is not the question. The question is will anyone do it?
This reminds me of a psychology experiment to find the difference
between the problem-solving approaches of physicists and
mathematicians.
They set up a room with a wastebasket in the middle, and a chair on the
side with a fire extinguisher underneath. They set fire to the
wastebasket and then sent the physicist in the door. She looked at the
fire, looked at the extinguisher, went over to the chair, picked up the
extinguisher and put out the fire.
They repeated the same experiment with a mathematician. He exhibited
the exact same behavior.
For the next experiment, they moved the wastebasket between the doorway
and the chair. They set it on fire and sent in the physicist. She
looked at the fire, saw the chair on the other side, and walked around
to get the extinguisher. Then she put out the fire.
They set up the experiment again, but this time sent in the
mathematician. He looked at the fire, saw the chair on the other side,
and walked over to the wastebasket. Using his foot, he shoved the
burning wastebasket into the center of the room. Then he sat in the
chair and did nothing.
When the psychologists interviewed him, he explained, "I saw that the
new problem was similar to the one I'd previously solved, so I reduced
the new to the old problem and was done."
This is experiment is, of course, fictional. However, the mode of
thinking is real. As long as the CL community ignores problems that are
boring and straightforward, they won't get solved. Standardizing
interfaces is one such problem. It involves working with people, not
just code, so it's not as fun as the usual things you do with CL.
Those of you who just want to see CL not die have nothing to worry
about. But those of you who want to use CL more in your day jobs will
have to see some boring, straightforward problems solved before it will
happen.
--
<·······@[(if (brl-related? message) ; Bruce R. Lewis
"users.sourceforge.net" ; http://brl.codesimply.net/
"alum.mit.edu")]>
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3off94o9f.fsf@cley.com>
* Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Which one of those things are required for writing, for example,
> a simple web server? You can do it in Python using a few lines
> of code. The same code will work with Jython was well. How
> many lines of CL does it take?
I think my original one was about 60 - its current descendent is 250
or something (of profusely commented code) but it has lots more stuff
(most of which is over-design I never used, sigh). The original one
never made it into CVS so I'm working from memory. I do know that it
took under an hour to write, including learning about the socket
interface in the implementation I'm using. The current one has 25 or
30 lines of implementation-dependent code depending on which
implementation you're using. Porting it took less long than I've
spent on this article.
If people are put off by the effort required to do this, then, well,
they're probably going to be put off by getting up in the morning. In
the application that used (uses) this little web server I spent
*hundreds of times* longer doing application-specific HTML-generating
code than I ever did in the web server.
I think most of the `not standard so I can't use it' complaints are
work avoidance. So there's a standard interface to
HugeComplicatedInteroperabilityStandard, say. What has this bought
you, since you are still two years away from understanding
HugeComplicatedInteroperabilityStandard well enough to use it, and in
that time it will either have died, or spawned four new versions and
fifteen other things you need to understand to use it. Look at XML:
can anyone *read* fast enough to keep up with the new standards it's
spawning?
--tim (please CC any followups to me if you want me to see them, I
don't read news very often, sorry to be rude.)
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
[snip]
> I think most of the `not standard so I can't use it' complaints are
> work avoidance. So there's a standard interface to
> HugeComplicatedInteroperabilityStandard, say. What has this bought
> you, since you are still two years away from understanding
> HugeComplicatedInteroperabilityStandard well enough to use it, and in
> that time it will either have died, or spawned four new versions and
> fifteen other things you need to understand to use it. Look at XML:
> can anyone *read* fast enough to keep up with the new standards it's
> spawning?
>
If i would try to understand every detail of anything i would end up
wise
(maybe) and pour (shure). So what i need is an abstraction of things
like
HCIS to use it.
Thats what interfaces for (or do you know what CBE cmd your PCI bus uses
to write into your ethernet card ;-). Simple look at the definition of
the
interface, understand the model, use the interface and don't bother
about
whats behind the door. Ok, this rarly works like this. But if i want
to program a web site then i want to start with a tool like araneida or
any
other tool that hides the bloody rfc2616 details way from
me as far as possible. And i think this is true not only for lisp but
for each
language that one want to use.
On the other side, i found a lot of tools and libraries that are
available
for lisp on the web. And most of them works fine and are well
documented. That
is a big difference to a lot of libs for other languages. Sometimes the
libs
don't work correctly or the documentation is bad or wrong. So for my
feeling
the available tools are first quality. This might come from lisp but i
think
it comes more from the quality of there authors.
So all what is needed is some kind of goodwill from the comunity. If one
makes
a tool for a project that can be usefull to other one should publish and
support
it. A lot of the readers of these newsgroup do so and i hope the others
will
think about these trivial call.
Since the lisp community is a small one it is a big difference if one
percent or
fifty percent of the community will contribute. I will do (when i'm
ready for
doing anything usefull with lisp ;-)
Best regards
AHz
P.S: Anyone said this NG crouwls out new members. I'm a newbie. I'm
still here
and i like it.
A.
Andy <···@smi.de> writes:
> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> HugeComplicatedInteroperabilityStandard, say. What has this bought
>> you, since you are still two years away from understanding
>> HugeComplicatedInteroperabilityStandard well enough to use it, and in
> If i would try to understand every detail of anything i would end up
> wise (maybe) and pour (shure). So what i need is an abstraction of
> things like HCIS to use it.
There's a difference between "well enough to use" and "every detail"
For example, for all that CORBA goes to great lengths to hide the
difference between a call to a library in the same address space and
an RPC call across the internet, at some point you still need to know
what's local and what's remote, because latency will flay you alive if
you don't. That's "well enough to use".
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
"Neil Schemenauer" <··········@arctrix.com> wrote
> Which one of those things are required for writing, for example,
> a simple web server? You can do it in Python using a few lines
> of code. The same code will work with Jython was well. How
> many lines of CL does it take?
Zero if you use mod_lisp. Less than 100 if you write it from scratch.
Well you still have to generate the HTML you want to reply, but for this the
advantage is definitively on the Common Lisp side with its macros.
> Yes, the GC in sucks. I know. I wrote it. Yes, Python is
> agonizingly slow when compared to C++ or compiled CL. You know
> what else? It doesn't matter. Python gets the job done. It's
> got a large, well documented stardard library. It's got a free,
> very portable, fairly bug free implementation. It plays well
> with other languages and libraries.
OK.
> > Now which is harder, whipping up interfaces to the latest toys or
> > finishing Python?
>
> Harder is not the question. The question is will anyone do it?
> Lots of CL users seem to have the attitude that CL is king and
> all other languages are inferior.
:)
> They seem to think that no
> advancement of the language is necessary. The ANSI CL standard
> was an awesome technical feat but progress cannot stop there. A
> standard network socket interface would be nice, for example. Is
> the CL community working on one?
There are various ACL sockets compatibility layers so maybe we can assume
that the ACL socket interface is the de facto standard.
I've created a compatibility layers page on CLiki to put these kind of
libraries.
> I feel sad. CL is a great language. However, if it doesn't grow
> its standard library (even if it's only a de facto standard) then
> it's going to eventually die. The community needs to realize
> this and start working on it. Denying the problem does not help.
This thread is precisely here for debating this.
As I posted before I'm not for standardizing anything but the lower level
layers and only when they are obvious. ie : yes for standardizing the socket
layer but no for standardizing a web server.
Marc
On Tue, 21 May 2002 03:51:31 GMT, Neil Schemenauer <··········@arctrix.com>
wrote:
> was an awesome technical feat but progress cannot stop there. A
> standard network socket interface would be nice, for example. Is
> the CL community working on one?
Yes. Which ones? Left as an exercise for the reader.
> I feel sad. CL is a great language. However, if it doesn't grow
> its standard library (even if it's only a de facto standard) then
> it's going to eventually die. The community needs to realize
> this and start working on it. Denying the problem does not help.
May I ask you about your own contribution?
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
[http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/]
Paolo Amoroso wrote:
>
> > I feel sad. CL is a great language. However, if it doesn't grow
> > its standard library (even if it's only a de facto standard) then
> > it's going to eventually die. The community needs to realize
> > this and start working on it. Denying the problem does not help.
>
> May I ask you about your own contribution?
>
For my feeling that question is not fair. It will kill everything.
Everyone might give criticism without contributing his own stuff
(even when it is that kind of criticism ;-).
Best regards
AHz
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when Andy <···@smi.de> would write:
> Paolo Amoroso wrote:
>>
>> > I feel sad. CL is a great language. However, if it doesn't grow
>> > its standard library (even if it's only a de facto standard) then
>> > it's going to eventually die. The community needs to realize
>> > this and start working on it. Denying the problem does not help.
>>
>> May I ask you about your own contribution?
>>
> For my feeling that question is not fair. It will kill everything.
> Everyone might give criticism without contributing his own stuff
> (even when it is that kind of criticism ;-).
No, it's quite fair when somebody is saying:
"The community needs to realize this and start working on it."
When someone claims that "the community" needs to work on something,
it seems not at all outrageous to ask what part they consider they are
playing in that community.
It _would_ be a tad unjust for someone to say:
"Franz should be giving away a lot more code."
But when the issue is of the rather more nebulous "community
contributions," the question fits.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ·············@" "sirhc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linux.html
"A statement is either correct or incorrect. To be *very* incorrect is
like being *very* dead ... "
-- Herbert F. Spirer
Professor of Information Management
University of Conn.
(DATAMATION Letters, Sept. 1, 1984)
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when Andy <···@smi.de> would write:
^^^^ ^^^ ^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From where do you get these cute intro's ?
>
> No, it's quite fair when somebody is saying:
> "The community needs to realize this and start working on it."
>
> When someone claims that "the community" needs to work on something,
> it seems not at all outrageous to ask what part they consider they are
> playing in that community.
>
Maybe i'm thinking to positive about other peoples motivation but what i
read from his mail is just a request to discuss. IMHO he asked for that
in
the context of making CL more popular. OK, the style was not realy smart
but
we all have odd days ;-)
I can understand Paolo very well and also the responses to my mail but,
for me, the
more interesting question is: "Is that guy right ?" and if so then
"Wan't we to
change the situation and howto ?" (Sorry, i know i sound like a buisness
consultant :-).
And finally lets assume that he can not contribute. Maybe he is not able
to write
advanced code (i don't know him so i can't say). Then what should he
answer on that
question ? I fear he will turn around and go away. And that's what i
mean when i wrote
that it is not fair to ask for his contribution.
Best regards
AHz
On Thu, 23 May 2002 17:52:12 +0200, Andy <···@smi.de> wrote:
>Paolo Amoroso wrote:
>>
>> > I feel sad. CL is a great language. However, if it doesn't grow
>> > its standard library (even if it's only a de facto standard) then
>> > it's going to eventually die. The community needs to realize
>> > this and start working on it. Denying the problem does not help.
>>
>> May I ask you about your own contribution?
>>
>For my feeling that question is not fair. It will kill everything.
>Everyone might give criticism without contributing his own stuff
>(even when it is that kind of criticism ;-).
The question is fair when the criticism amounts to "you're not giving
me enough free stuff."
Tim
Tim Moore wrote:
>
> The question is fair when the criticism amounts to "you're not giving
> me enough free stuff."
>
Thats true. But i did he ask for that ? I read Neil's mail more like a
request
to the comunity to supply more tools and standardisation.
I don't think he's right but thats not the question. All i wanted to say
that
with a argument like contribution you can still kill any criticism.
Best regards
AHz
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <kk97klu35zf.fsf@glug.org>
Andy <···@smi.de> writes:
> with a argument like contribution you can still kill any criticism.
it's possible to kill criticism in many ways (like removing someone's write
privs from a cvs repo ;-). asking one's contribution is a way of explaining
that the context of the critique must be rooted in the community to be valid,
and points to the proper way of redress. (get involved w/ the community and
share some code so that you can move onto more interesting criticisms. :-)
thi
Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
>
> it's possible to kill criticism in many ways (like removing someone's write
> privs from a cvs repo ;-).
Since there are typical more users than contributors on a project it
might
be a "shoot-in-your-own-foot" ;-)
Best regards
AHz
Tim Moore <······@sea-tmoore-l.dotcast.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2002 17:52:12 +0200, Andy <···@smi.de> wrote:
>>Paolo Amoroso wrote:
>>> May I ask you about your own contribution?
>>>
>>For my feeling that question is not fair.
>
> The question is fair when the criticism amounts to "you're not giving
> me enough free stuff."
I agree the question is fair. The answer is not much. I'm still
learning Common Lisp (I read Paul Graham's books and I working on
Steele's CLTL). It would be arrogant and foolish of me to assume
that I could design standard libraries. I've been studying and
trying to improve a simple CGI script package written by someone
else. I've also been trying to learn some of the internals of
SBCL with the goal of eventually contributing to that project
(I believe stardards compliance and maintainability are good
principles).
The fact the I haven't done anything notable for the CL community
makes my opinion lack credibility. However, I find it hard to
believe that other people don't find it troublesome that Common
Lisp does not provide standard libraries for dealing with such
basic things as sockets and ASCII character sets. Those are just
two examples that I ran into because I was playing with web
related things.
I find it amusing that Tim Moore assumes I'm looking for free
stuff. If I thought I could write a standard sockets interface
for CL and get a significant number of implementations to use it
I would gladly spend part of my free time working on it. I'm
sure it would be an entertaining and fulfilling hobby project.
What do I know though? There is no problem. All those other
people are idiots for not using Common Lisp, right?
Neil
On Fri, 24 May 2002 03:33:56 GMT, Neil Schemenauer <··········@arctrix.com>
wrote:
>Tim Moore <······@sea-tmoore-l.dotcast.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2002 17:52:12 +0200, Andy <···@smi.de> wrote:
>>>Paolo Amoroso wrote:
>>>> May I ask you about your own contribution?
>>>>
>>>For my feeling that question is not fair.
>>
>> The question is fair when the criticism amounts to "you're not giving
>> me enough free stuff."
>
...
>
>The fact the I haven't done anything notable for the CL community
>makes my opinion lack credibility. However, I find it hard to
>believe that other people don't find it troublesome that Common
>Lisp does not provide standard libraries for dealing with such
>basic things as sockets and ASCII character sets. Those are just
>two examples that I ran into because I was playing with web
>related things.
Until recently no one has been so troubled by the state of affairs
that they've felt compelled to write a standard sockets layer. Today
I'd say that ACL-COMPAT does a reasonable job of emulating ACL's
sockets interface on several Lisps. Some people had an itch -- they
wanted to port the AServe webserver to other Lisps than ACL -- so they
scratched it. There are several others too.
Who else would you expect to do this, or how else would you expect
this to get done? In the free software world, code gets written
because it satisfies a need or provides an ego boost. A standard
socket library apparently provides little of the latter, and we could
surmise the former need wasn't collectively so great that standard socket
libraries sprang into existance.
In the commercial side of the house, the dominant Lisp vendor (Franz)
has been generous with their code and documentation, which may be why
people are cloning their interfaces. But it's not in their best
interest to write a standard socket interface for everyone else.
>I find it amusing that Tim Moore assumes I'm looking for free
>stuff. If I thought I could write a standard sockets interface
>for CL and get a significant number of implementations to use it
>I would gladly spend part of my free time working on it. I'm
>sure it would be an entertaining and fulfilling hobby project.
You've been generous with your contributions to Python so you must
know the score on some level... did you write the things you did
because the Python community thought they were necessary?
Some in this newsgroup might suggest that if you need a standard
socket library and can't write one yourself you should pay someone
else to do it.
>What do I know though? There is no problem. All those other
>people are idiots for not using Common Lisp, right?
Pretty much.
Tim
Neil Schemenauer wrote:
>
> I find it amusing that Tim Moore assumes I'm looking for free
> stuff. If I thought I could write a standard sockets interface
> for CL and get a significant number of implementations to use it
> I would gladly spend part of my free time working on it. I'm
> sure it would be an entertaining and fulfilling hobby project.
>
I think there are some nice package for sockets. Visiting cliki or
cl cookbook @ sourceforge will give you some pointers.
But i'm shure you will find plenty of other tools to write :-) And that
you are new to lisp is IMHO not a problem. If you have a particular
problem with lisp then ask in the newsgroup. If the question is clear
then you will get clear answers.
Best regards
AHz
Andy <···@smi.de> writes:
> Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> >
> > I find it amusing that Tim Moore assumes I'm looking for free
> > stuff. If I thought I could write a standard sockets interface
> > for CL and get a significant number of implementations to use it
> > I would gladly spend part of my free time working on it. I'm
> > sure it would be an entertaining and fulfilling hobby project.
> >
> I think there are some nice package for sockets. Visiting cliki or
> cl cookbook @ sourceforge will give you some pointers.
<http://cl-cookbook.sourceforge.net/sockets.html>
(by Alberto Riva)
Edi.
On Fri, 24 May 2002 03:33:56 GMT, Neil Schemenauer <··········@arctrix.com>
wrote:
> Tim Moore <······@sea-tmoore-l.dotcast.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 May 2002 17:52:12 +0200, Andy <···@smi.de> wrote:
> >>Paolo Amoroso wrote:
> >>> May I ask you about your own contribution?
> >>>
> >>For my feeling that question is not fair.
> >
> > The question is fair when the criticism amounts to "you're not giving
> > me enough free stuff."
>
> I agree the question is fair. The answer is not much. I'm still
> learning Common Lisp (I read Paul Graham's books and I working on
> Steele's CLTL). It would be arrogant and foolish of me to assume
> that I could design standard libraries. I've been studying and
I include below the text of my email reply to Andy. In short, most useful
ways of contributing do not involve rocket science.
Paolo
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This may be because, when this issue is raised, it is usually assumed that
a "contribution" is something extremely difficult and time-consuming as
writing several tens of thousands lines of code, which only a skilled
programmer could do.
The contribution I mean is more mundane, humble, simple, less
time-consuming and visible but equally important. It includes, but is not
limited to, reporting compilation and usage problems/bugs in existing
applications and libraries, commenting on proposed standards, fixing typos
and suggesting improvements in documentation, writing small chunks of new
documentation or tutorials (e.g. for the Common Lisp Cookbook or Yadda
Lambda, etc.), reviewing code, adding information and links to CLiki,
providing developers with feedback on new features, translating
documentation or user interface messages into another language, maintaining
a small Web site for a project whose developers are busy with writing code,
collect and package existing documentation, etc. And, last but not least,
writing small applications/tools or providing code patches to existing
ones.
In other words, just do anything, but really do it. What I object to is
doing absolutely nothing of what I have mentioned _and_ complaining about
Lisp's popularity or availability of usable tools/libraries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
[http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/]
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> In other words, just do anything, but really do it. What I object to
> is doing absolutely nothing of what I have mentioned _and_
> complaining about Lisp's popularity or availability of usable
> tools/libraries.
I agree with this.
When I started doing lisp here at work, I decided I'd just get my feet
wet by updating some contrib code that came with CMUCL so it would
work under X11. I updated the `feebs' program so it would run under
X11. Big deal, right? But it got me started. I found out how a few
things worked, found some bugs, sent in some fixes, got more
ambitious, got Garnet working on modern systems, did a patch to the
FreeBSD kernel so it would run ACL 4 in Linux emulation mode, and now
I'm world-famous!! :-)
One big advantage of having a relatively small community is that it is
easy to find something to do, and easy to become known for doing it.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com || Progressive (adj): Value-free;
tolerant; non-judgemental. E.g. traditional archery instruction
methods spent tedious hours teaching the archer to hit a bulls-eye.
Progressive methods achieved better results by telling the student
archer to shoot in the manner he or she found most comfortable, then
calling whatever the arrow hit the bulls-eye.
>>>>> "Fred" == Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
Fred> Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
>> In other words, just do anything, but really do it. What I object to
>> is doing absolutely nothing of what I have mentioned _and_
>> complaining about Lisp's popularity or availability of usable
>> tools/libraries.
Fred> I agree with this.
Fred> When I started doing lisp here at work, I decided I'd just get my feet
Fred> wet by updating some contrib code that came with CMUCL so it would
Fred> work under X11. I updated the `feebs' program so it would run under
Fred> X11. Big deal, right? But it got me started. I found out how a few
Fred> things worked, found some bugs, sent in some fixes, got more
Fred> ambitious, got Garnet working on modern systems, did a patch to the
Fred> FreeBSD kernel so it would run ACL 4 in Linux emulation mode, and now
Fred> I'm world-famous!! :-)
Let me second this. Fred's experience is exactly how I got started.
Well, except I'm not world-famous. Just Do It and fame and fortune
could be yours too! :-)
Ray
On 30 May 2002 14:02:14 -0400, Raymond Toy <···@rtp.ericsson.se> wrote:
> Let me second this. Fred's experience is exactly how I got started.
> Well, except I'm not world-famous. Just Do It and fame and fortune
> could be yours too! :-)
The journey is the reward :-)
Paolo
P.S.
Do I have any hopes for a marketing career?
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
[http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/]
"Peter Norvig" <·····@norvig.com> wrote in message
·································@posting.google.com...
> Thanks for the comments on my retrospective update. I stand by my
> conclusion "Lisp experts are still as productive as ever, but newer
> programmers are less likely to pick up Lisp". I do agree with many of
> the points made in this thread. I agree that most of the libraries do
> exist somewhere, but the fact that they are not standardized makes the
> language harder to use, especially for a non-expert. By "standardized"
> I mean available from one canonical location in a form that is
> portable across implementations; I don't care whether they are part of
> an ANSI standard or not.
>
> One thing I regret about my page is the emphasis on popularity. Of
> course it is true that popular does not equate to better. And the
> measures I cite were the ones that were available to me, and are not
> the most scientific or useful. The only number that I think really
> counts is number of jobs offered. Even that number is unreliable; I
> know there are more than 4 openings for Lisp programmers.
>
> I've updated my page to de-emphasize popularity and stress the
> features that once made Lisp unique, and to incorporate some of the
> points made in this thread. Now I want the take-home message to be
> "Overall, Lisp does very well on the nine features. Anyone making an
> objective choice based on these features would continue to find Lisp
> the best choice for a wide range of applications. But there are now
> viable contenders that did not exist in 1991." In other words, using
> Lisp was a no-brainer in 1990, but now it depends on how you
> prioritize a number of factors.
I've looked at the latest version of your page (the one with coulours :))
and IMHO it's much better !
Thanks for modifying it.
Marc
On 19 May 2002 08:48:56 -0700, ·····@norvig.com (Peter Norvig) wrote:
> Thanks for the comments on my retrospective update. I stand by my
> conclusion "Lisp experts are still as productive as ever, but newer
^^^^^
> programmers are less likely to pick up Lisp". I do agree with many of
This may not be a disadvantage. Mature programmers are more likely to
appreciate mature languages.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
[http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/]
From: David Combs
Subject: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <aemnrd$52m$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
Peter Norvig <·····@norvig.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the comments on my retrospective update. I stand by my
>conclusion "Lisp experts are still as productive as ever, but newer
>programmers are less likely to pick up Lisp". I do agree with many of
...
That's really too bad *for them*.
First, you've got to learn the language (and a bit
of its history, fexprs, 100% dynamic binding, ...)
just to be able to better able to understand
some of the features (*grossly misnamed* features)
like in perl, esp what they call "local".
Second, and much more important, there are so many
*algorithms* ( and approaches and ways of thinking)
that are presented *only* in lisp (eg in books
*on* lisp), eg like generalized (not just character
strings) matching and unification.
And those AI search strategies.
And macros as ways to add new features
so much easier than trying to do it
via functions.
And the whole idea of no dividing
line between source-code and the data
it operates on.
Without at least some exposure (nontrivial)
to lisp, one is cheated out of substantial
chunk of what *should* have been his/her
(cs) education.
-----
Seems to me that arguments similar to the
above could, if done right, provide a
an *effective* way of insuring that
lisp (again?) be a mandatory part of
a major or minor in c.s.
Of course, they'd need access to the *best*
implementations of the language, the *least*
buggy, and the *most* easy to use (*must* come
with the best *industrial-strength* tools) -- none
of this "beginners-version" of the language.
Further, they must be provided, at least
fairly soon in the course(s), with libraries
of most of the things you'd have to
write for yourself, to make your
own efforts proceed much faster.
Perhaps some of those things that Peter
was berating lisp (and its community!) for
not have added (as much needed marketing strategy!)
to lisp.
---
David
PS: I continue this, but re selling someone to
approve the use of lisp for getting some big
project accomplished, that's to be used
company wide.
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3D0F1427.21EEAD12@smi.de>
David Combs wrote:
>
> In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
> Peter Norvig <·····@norvig.com> wrote:
> >Thanks for the comments on my retrospective update. I stand by my
> >conclusion "Lisp experts are still as productive as ever, but newer
> >programmers are less likely to pick up Lisp". I do agree with many of
> ...
>
> That's really too bad *for them*.
>
It's bad for all of us. I.e. if there are not enough users the manufacurer
of your lisp compiler can't pay his employees.
Do you really want to maintain all your tools by yourself ?
Best
AHz
From: Samantha Atkins
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3D1034B0.5080305@objectent.com>
Andreas Hinze wrote:
> David Combs wrote:
>
>>In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
>>Peter Norvig <·····@norvig.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks for the comments on my retrospective update. I stand by my
>>>conclusion "Lisp experts are still as productive as ever, but newer
>>>programmers are less likely to pick up Lisp". I do agree with many of
>>
>>...
>>
>>That's really too bad *for them*.
>>
>
> It's bad for all of us. I.e. if there are not enough users the manufacurer
> of your lisp compiler can't pay his employees.
> Do you really want to maintain all your tools by yourself ?
>
> Best
> AHz
I believe that the community can maintain its own tools if
necessary. I certainly don't believe we are served by
proprietary tools as well as by open ones. But tools can be
open without having to be free as in beer. Organizations and
companies can have a stake in such tools and support development
of them while making their money from something somewhat
different but partially enabled by the tools also.
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3D105E31.D72E363A@smi.de>
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> I believe that the community can maintain its own tools if
> necessary. I certainly don't believe we are served by
> proprietary tools as well as by open ones. But tools can be
> open without having to be free as in beer. Organizations and
> companies can have a stake in such tools and support development
> of them while making their money from something somewhat
> different but partially enabled by the tools also.
Yes, but only when there is a community that is large enough ( Did you know
of any RPG II or APL systems that are maintained by a community ? ). So
it is still not good for the communitiy if newer programmers avoid lisp.
Fortunally there are lots of lisp users currently. And i hope it will
be more in the future.
Best
AHz
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Andreas Hinze wrote:
> it is still not good for the communitiy if newer programmers avoid lisp.
>
> Fortunally there are lots of lisp users currently. And i hope it will
> be more in the future.
Actually you lispers do a lot advocation of your language. Paul Graham's
"Beating the averages" was quite an impressive read. Also other texts
I found tell me lisp is the most powerful programming language that ever
hit a computer.
And then there is still Eric Raymonds text that recommends learning lisp
just to widen one's horizen.
And this is where I notice a discrepancy. I know that there are people who
have actually learned lisp, and yet prefer to use (or even design) some
other programming language. This does not fit into the picture that some
lisp-advocates draw (the most powerful language ever, not wanting to use
anything else erverafter).
Now the only way that I can judge for myself is to learn lisp, and I'm
actually doing that. I started with Davit Touretzky's "Gentle
Introduction", but this is actually a bit too gentle for me, and thus
boring. Having worked the book more than halfway through, I have
discovered Paul Graham's "On Lisp", but this book is still too advanced
for me. So I will work my way through the rest of the "Introduction", and
then see if I want to look further into lisp (= the "On Lisp" book) or
not.
Tobias
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <47kkvcpz4.fsf@beta.franz.com>
Tobias Peters <······@medi.physik.uni-oldenburg.de> writes:
> And this is where I notice a discrepancy. I know that there are people who
> have actually learned lisp, and yet prefer to use (or even design) some
> other programming language. This does not fit into the picture that some
> lisp-advocates draw (the most powerful language ever, not wanting to use
> anything else erverafter).
Ah, but CL has a Dark Side, my young padewan, and you must take care
not to give yourself over to it.
CL's Force is the fact that it is a language-building language. For any
application domain, there may be a way of expressing that domain in such
a way that it becomes natural to solve problems in that domain. CL
shows itself most worthy in building those language domains.
But alas, many times a student of CL will become enamoured with his
own domain, thinking it is the best or only domain and thus his little
language that he has created is a better language than CL. Thus starts
the flirtation with the Dark Side: "if my little language suits me better
than just CL, then my little language must be better than CL and I should
promote it".
Use the Force, young padewan; feel its power. But beware the Dark Side;
many strong Jedi have given themselves over to it...
--
Duane Rettig Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/ (www)
1995 University Ave Suite 275 Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone: (510) 548-3600; FAX: (510) 548-8253 ·····@Franz.COM (internet)
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> But alas, many times a student of CL will become enamoured with his
> own domain, thinking it is the best or only domain and thus his little
> language that he has created is a better language than CL. Thus starts
> the flirtation with the Dark Side: "if my little language suits me better
> than just CL, then my little language must be better than CL and I should
> promote it".
And there's always the wish to bring some specific technique into the
mainstream. I don't know if there are other examples, but Gragor
Kiczales left Lisp for AspectJ (a Java dialect he's invented with
others). As far as I can tell, not because he feels he can't work
with Lisp, but so that he can bring the power of metaobject
programming to the masses, in an appropriately refined form. That
doesn't say anything about CL except that the Java masses aren't using
it (well, no kidding) -- it only shows his priorities.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <4bsa59ay7.fsf@beta.franz.com>
···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>
> > But alas, many times a student of CL will become enamoured with his
> > own domain, thinking it is the best or only domain and thus his little
> > language that he has created is a better language than CL. Thus starts
> > the flirtation with the Dark Side: "if my little language suits me better
> > than just CL, then my little language must be better than CL and I should
> > promote it".
>
> And there's always the wish to bring some specific technique into the
> mainstream. I don't know if there are other examples, but Gragor
> Kiczales left Lisp for AspectJ (a Java dialect he's invented with
> others). As far as I can tell, not because he feels he can't work
> with Lisp, but so that he can bring the power of metaobject
> programming to the masses, in an appropriately refined form. That
> doesn't say anything about CL except that the Java masses aren't using
> it (well, no kidding) -- it only shows his priorities.
Teaching the masses the Way of the Jedi may be a noble pursuit, but if
a Jedi knight takes on a padewan who has no mitticlors (sp?) populating
his blood, then he has no connection to the Force, and thus no amount
of teaching is going to get him to levitate an object or to use a light
saber without getting himself killed.
(translation available upon request)
--
Duane Rettig Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/ (www)
1995 University Ave Suite 275 Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone: (510) 548-3600; FAX: (510) 548-8253 ·····@Franz.COM (internet)
From: Ed L Cashin
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87wusuy7vn.fsf@cs.uga.edu>
Tobias Peters <······@medi.physik.uni-oldenburg.de> writes:
...
> Now the only way that I can judge for myself is to learn lisp, and I'm
> actually doing that. I started with Davit Touretzky's "Gentle
> Introduction", but this is actually a bit too gentle for me, and thus
> boring. Having worked the book more than halfway through, I have
> discovered Paul Graham's "On Lisp", but this book is still too advanced
> for me.
Maybe his _ANSI Common Lisp_ is what you're looking for. I can't help
mentioning that I recently picked up a used copy of Steele's _Common
Lisp the Language_, 2nd edition, and it's a reference that has helped
my beginning lisp programming take off.
The Hyperspec is great for reference, but it's online documentation --
sometimes I prefer a book, and it's sometimes a bit sparse for this
beginner. CLTL2 gives me enough meat (examples, explanation, etc.)
for me to thoroughly understand things.
> So I will work my way through the rest of the "Introduction", and
> then see if I want to look further into lisp (= the "On Lisp" book)
> or not.
Good luck. I'm happy so far. Some people diss the "loop" macro, but
I've been delighted by it. This kind of thing is a real treat for me
(it was ugly as sin when I did it in Java):
(loop for c in player-cards
sum (card-blackjack-value c) into n
count (is-ace c) into n-aces
finally (return (if (and (> n-aces 0) (< n 12))
(+ n 10)
n)))))
--
--Ed L Cashin | PGP public key:
·······@uga.edu | http://noserose.net/e/pgp/
From: James A. Crippen
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3it4ee9ww.fsf@kappa.unlambda.com>
Ed L Cashin <·······@uga.edu> writes:
> Maybe his _ANSI Common Lisp_ is what you're looking for. I can't help
> mentioning that I recently picked up a used copy of Steele's _Common
> Lisp the Language_, 2nd edition, and it's a reference that has helped
> my beginning lisp programming take off.
Although I've never read PG's _ANSI Common Lisp_ I've heard so many
good things about it that I never hesitate to recommend it, which goes
against my not recommending books I've not read personally.
I just learned Lisp straight from CLtL1 and CLtL2. I started with the
former because that's all the university library had at the time.
When I discovered CLtL2 I saved up my pennies and bought a copy. I
used it so much the pages started falling out (damned perfect
binding...).
Then I heard about KMP's HyperSpec, which was around the time it first
became available. Honestly I'd love to have a printed version of the
HyperSpec, but I just can't bring myself to burn that much toner and
paper.
I thought about getting the official ANSI spec, and bought it in
electronic form (which of course gives you every right to print it, so
I wouldn't feel bad). It turned out to be the shittiest 150 dpi scan
I'd seen, even worse than the old MIT AI Lab memos, and even worse
than what the USPTO puts out for old patents. A waste of my money.
> The Hyperspec is great for reference, but it's online documentation --
> sometimes I prefer a book, and it's sometimes a bit sparse for this
> beginner. CLTL2 gives me enough meat (examples, explanation, etc.)
> for me to thoroughly understand things.
I keep hoping that maybe someday someone will inspire GLS enough to
write a CLtL3. Or that some adventureous soul will take on the task
of updating it themselves (since the TeX sources are publically
available).
Even further, I keep hoping that maybe someday that someone will be
me. I really want to do it, but every time I look at the thousands of
pages involved and the huge effort it would take I am daunted and give
up to go hack on something smaller. And more rewarding.
The other option is to update the TeX sources to the draft version of
the ANSI spec and put it out. But I'm not sure about the copyright on
it... Whether redistributing a modified form would be legal...
> Good luck. I'm happy so far. Some people diss the "loop" macro, but
> I've been delighted by it. This kind of thing is a real treat for me
> (it was ugly as sin when I did it in Java):
The only complaint people really have about the LOOP macro is that
even though what you had was as ugly as sin in Java, what you end up
with in Lisp is *still* ugly.
JONL's suggestion (and others have made the same) is that parentheses
be included into it. Thus
> (loop for c in player-cards
> sum (card-blackjack-value c) into n
> count (is-ace c) into n-aces
> finally (return (if (and (> n-aces 0) (< n 12))
> (+ n 10)
> n)))
becomes something like
(loop (for c in player-cards)
(sum (card-blackjack-value c) into n)
(count (is-ace c) into n-aces)
(finally (return (if (and (> n-aces 0) (< n 12))
(+ n 10)
n))))
There are other variations as well, of course. I'd like to see all
the keywords in LOOP become KEYWORDS, that is become symbols interned
in the KEYWORD package. Then their status as LOOP keywords would be
more obvious in comparison to the other symbols used in any given
LOOP. This would give you
(loop :for c :in player-cards
:sum (card-blackjack-value c) :into n
:count (is-ace c) :into n-aces
:finally (return (if (and (> n-aces 0) (< n 12))
(+ n 10)
n)))
This would at least obviate the need for more parens, like Lisp
doesn't have enough already. ^_^ And it would make sense with LOOP
considered something like a function and its keyword arguments.
(BTW, I removed the two extra parens you had in your original example.
They were probably from some greater DEFUN, I guessed.)
'james
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <y6cbsa6doxq.fsf@octagon.mrl.nyu.edu>
·····@unlambda.com (James A. Crippen) writes:
...
> There are other variations as well, of course. I'd like to see all
> the keywords in LOOP become KEYWORDS, that is become symbols interned
> in the KEYWORD package. Then their status as LOOP keywords would be
> more obvious in comparison to the other symbols used in any given
> LOOP. This would give you
>
> (loop :for c :in player-cards
> :sum (card-blackjack-value c) :into n
> :count (is-ace c) :into n-aces
> :finally (return (if (and (> n-aces 0) (< n 12))
> (+ n 10)
> n)))
Have you tried this? Do you know that it is allowed? ...and that it
works in a conforming CL implementation? :)
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
From: James A. Crippen
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3hejxdhui.fsf@kappa.unlambda.com>
Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> ·····@unlambda.com (James A. Crippen) writes:
>
> ...
>
> > There are other variations as well, of course. I'd like to see all
> > the keywords in LOOP become KEYWORDS, that is become symbols interned
> > in the KEYWORD package. Then their status as LOOP keywords would be
> > more obvious in comparison to the other symbols used in any given
> > LOOP. This would give you
> >
> > (loop :for c :in player-cards
> > :sum (card-blackjack-value c) :into n
> > :count (is-ace c) :into n-aces
> > :finally (return (if (and (> n-aces 0) (< n 12))
> > (+ n 10)
> > n)))
>
> Have you tried this? Do you know that it is allowed? ...and that it
> works in a conforming CL implementation? :)
I didn't know that. I've *never* seen a use of LOOP with keywords. I
didn't know that it was standardized. But I've never read the LOOP
standard very closely -- not being particularly interested in
self-abuse. Huh, great minds think alike, I guess?
From now on all my LOOPs will use keywords. It sure makes it a hell
of a lot easier to read.
'james
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
·····@unlambda.com (James A. Crippen) writes:
> I didn't know that. I've *never* seen a use of LOOP with keywords. I
> didn't know that it was standardized. But I've never read the LOOP
> standard very closely -- not being particularly interested in
> self-abuse.
Try it, it's really not painful.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233586068172510@naggum.net>
* James A. Crippen
| I thought about getting the official ANSI spec, and bought it in electronic
| form (which of course gives you every right to print it, so I wouldn't feel
| bad). It turned out to be the shittiest 150 dpi scan I'd seen, even worse
| than the old MIT AI Lab memos, and even worse than what the USPTO puts out
| for old patents. A waste of my money.
Indeed. A rip-off. Especially since they have the postscript files.
| The other option is to update the TeX sources to the draft version of the
| ANSI spec and put it out. But I'm not sure about the copyright on it...
| Whether redistributing a modified form would be legal...
As far as I can tell, the standard was printed from them.
| The only complaint people really have about the LOOP macro is that even
| though what you had was as ugly as sin in Java, what you end up with in Lisp
| is *still* ugly.
And I would _really_ like to see fewer aesthetic judgments sold as facts.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Pierpaolo BERNARDI
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <gpFQ8.56368$TS.1551266@news1.tin.it>
"James A. Crippen" <·····@unlambda.com> ha scritto nel messaggio ···················@kappa.unlambda.com...
> I thought about getting the official ANSI spec, and bought it in
> electronic form (which of course gives you every right to print it, so
> I wouldn't feel bad). It turned out to be the shittiest 150 dpi scan
> I'd seen, even worse than the old MIT AI Lab memos, and even worse
> than what the USPTO puts out for old patents. A waste of my money.
Are you aware that the latest public draft of the ANSI spec is
available on the net in dvi format?
According to kmp the only difference between this draft and the real
standard lies in whitespace (he reduced the amount of whitespace in
the final standard so it could be somewhat cheaper).
P.
From: Frederic Brunel
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <lak7ou814b.fsf@buzz.in-fusio.com>
Ed L Cashin <·······@uga.edu> writes:
> Good luck. I'm happy so far. Some people diss the "loop" macro, but
> I've been delighted by it. This kind of thing is a real treat for me
> (it was ugly as sin when I did it in Java):
>
> (loop for c in player-cards
> sum (card-blackjack-value c) into n
> count (is-ace c) into n-aces
> finally (return (if (and (> n-aces 0) (< n 12))
> (+ n 10)
> n)))))
This macro is certainly is great demonstration of embedded languages
build upon Lisp. It really worth to try. Succinctness is also a big
win with this macro, you can express very complex situations in few
lines of code.
--
Frederic Brunel
Software Engineer
In-Fusio - Mobile Game Connections
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233585611763382@naggum.net>
* Ed L Cashin
| The Hyperspec is great for reference, but it's online documentation --
| sometimes I prefer a book, and it's sometimes a bit sparse for this
| beginner. CLTL2 gives me enough meat (examples, explanation, etc.)
| for me to thoroughly understand things.
It is also a book. It is the _real_ ANSI Common Lisp book, actually.
Order from ANSI og Global Engineering Documents.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.net> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.net...
> * Ed L Cashin
> | The Hyperspec is great for reference, but it's online
> | documentation -- | sometimes I prefer a book, and it's
> | sometimes a bit sparse for this beginner. CLTL2 gives me
> | enough meat (examples, explanation, etc.) for me to
> | thoroughly understand things.
>
> It is also a book. It is the _real_ ANSI Common Lisp book,
> actually. Order from ANSI og Global Engineering Documents.
A warning:
I bought a copy (from Global Engineering) a few months ago. I was
hugely pissed off because it costs something like $400, and:
(1) It is a printed version of the low-resolution scan which
is available for $18 from ANSI (and which has been condemned
on this newsgroup for being lousy).
(2) It is a set of loose-leaf sheets punched with holes ready for
filing. (I was expecting a book.)
(3) On many of the odd-numbered pages the holes go through the
text. This is because the scan has been done with all the
odd-numbered pages off-centre.
(Annoying, but in most cases it's easy to work out what the
missing text is; if it's not easy there's the Hyperspec.)
(4) The recto (right-side, on the front of a leaf) pages are
even-numbered and the verso (left-side, on the back of a
leaf) pages are odd-numbered. It is clear that the original
was the other (normal) way round. In many cases the end
of one chapter and the start of the next are on the same
leaf. This may not be a big deal, but it does mean that
I can't properly separate the chapters with a subject
divider unless I make copies of these pages.
Has anyone bought a decent copy recently?
From: James A. Crippen
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3660d6zf8.fsf@kappa.unlambda.com>
"Simon Katz" <·····@nomistech.com> writes:
> A warning:
>
> I bought a copy (from Global Engineering) a few months ago. I was
> hugely pissed off because it costs something like $400, and:
>
> (1) It is a printed version of the low-resolution scan which
> is available for $18 from ANSI (and which has been condemned
> on this newsgroup for being lousy).
>
> (2) It is a set of loose-leaf sheets punched with holes ready for
> filing. (I was expecting a book.)
>
> (3) On many of the odd-numbered pages the holes go through the
> text. This is because the scan has been done with all the
> odd-numbered pages off-centre.
> (Annoying, but in most cases it's easy to work out what the
> missing text is; if it's not easy there's the Hyperspec.)
>
> (4) The recto (right-side, on the front of a leaf) pages are
> even-numbered and the verso (left-side, on the back of a
> leaf) pages are odd-numbered. It is clear that the original
> was the other (normal) way round. In many cases the end
> of one chapter and the start of the next are on the same
> leaf. This may not be a big deal, but it does mean that
> I can't properly separate the chapters with a subject
> divider unless I make copies of these pages.
No shit. Why am I not surprised by this at all? You should quite
rightly ask for a refund, even if it's only partial. I'd abuse them
loudly until they paid you back. That's basically worthless. Use the
hyperbolic argument that applies to all standards -- misreading one
word could be a matter of life and death (if it wasn't it wouldn't be
a standard, now would it?).
$300 could have been spent on more memory or disk for your desktop.
To get the thing printed and well bound from the horrible scans would
have cost you under $60, I'd bet, with the change spent on gas, beer,
and dinner. I bothered printing the entire manual for the GNU C
Library a year ago (and I'm still using that manual, it's a lot more
convenient than 'info' is). It didn't cost me much more than $30 to
print and bind at the local print-and-copy shop, and it'd be about
half the length of the ANSI spec.
'james
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233617534657692@naggum.net>
* Simon Katz
| A warning:
| I bought a copy (from Global Engineering) a few months ago. I was
| hugely pissed off because it costs something like $400, and:
Complain vociferously. I got a real book, well bound, and very nicely
printed on fairly thin, high-quality, and acid-free paper. Except for the
always poor choice of not overriding Don Knuth's aesthetic taste in fonts, it
is a very nicely formatted text. (Yeah, I also bought the PDF version, which
is a cruel joke. No wonder Common Lisp is not more popular! The stupid ANSI
Catalog does not even list it correctly, so it is very hard to order.)
| Has anyone bought a decent copy recently?
Not recently. I bought mine directly from ANSI. I have received mail to the
effect that Global only does loose-leaf copies and should be avoided, but it
seems hard to do just that given their relationship with ANSI. I also cannot
verify this information except to say that when I bought my first copy of
ANSI C from Global mere weeks after it was published, the front page was a
color copy and the rest was loose-leaf on crappy paper.
If I were in your shoes, I would take this up with ANSI and demand a real
copy for the money you had paid Global.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Frank A. Adrian
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <u4AQ8.132$7p5.253574@news.uswest.net>
Ed L Cashin wrote:
> (loop for c in player-cards
> sum (card-blackjack-value c) into n
> count (is-ace c) into n-aces
> finally (return (if (and (> n-aces 0) (< n 12))
> (+ n 10)
> n)))))
Not to be a nag, but this doesn't seem to handle cases like a hand of '(A 2
A) correctly. This hand is either a 4 or a 14, and your code assumes it's
always a 14. Actually for strategic purposes, it should be thought of as a
soft A,3 hand.
Why did I notice this? Well, I'm planning a trip to Vegas later this year
and before I go, I thought I'd try to find a good system for playing
blackjack using a genetic algorithm. I also want to include lightness /
heaviness of the deck and which cards are cutoffs for this measure, as well
as what the value limits for heavy / light actually are. So far I have my
hand, card, deck, and strategy chromosome object designed and am working on
the code that actually does the genetic work.
Wish me luck, but something tells me I'm putting in a lot of work trying to
find a simple variant of the "basic system". But the programming is fun!
faa
From: Ed L Cashin
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87it4c5ug8.fsf@cs.uga.edu>
"Frank A. Adrian" <·······@ancar.org> writes:
> Ed L Cashin wrote:
>
> > (loop for c in player-cards
> > sum (card-blackjack-value c) into n
> > count (is-ace c) into n-aces
> > finally (return (if (and (> n-aces 0) (< n 12))
> > (+ n 10)
> > n)))))
>
> Not to be a nag, but this doesn't seem to handle cases like a hand of '(A 2
> A) correctly. This hand is either a 4 or a 14, and your code assumes it's
> always a 14. Actually for strategic purposes, it should be thought of as a
> soft A,3 hand.
It's for a general basic strategy drill. In the general basic
strategy, a soft fourteen is always a soft fourteen; thinking of it as
a hard four isn't relevant to the drill.
Really, I'm not sure when it would be helpful to think of it as a hard
four and not a soft fourteen.
> Why did I notice this? Well, I'm planning a trip to Vegas later this year
> and before I go, I thought I'd try to find a good system for playing
> blackjack using a genetic algorithm. I also want to include lightness /
> heaviness of the deck and which cards are cutoffs for this measure, as well
> as what the value limits for heavy / light actually are. So far I have my
> hand, card, deck, and strategy chromosome object designed and am working on
> the code that actually does the genetic work.
There has been an awful lot of work in this area. See, e.g., Peter
Griffin's _The Theory of Blackjack_, 1979.
> Wish me luck, but something tells me I'm putting in a lot of work
> trying to find a simple variant of the "basic system". But the
> programming is fun!
Yes, casino gambling has statistics and probability calculations that
make for fun programming. :)
--
--Ed L Cashin | PGP public key:
·······@uga.edu | http://noserose.net/e/pgp/
"Frank A. Adrian" <·······@ancar.org> wrote in message
·························@news.uswest.net...
> Ed L Cashin wrote:
>
> > (loop for c in player-cards
> > sum (card-blackjack-value c) into n
> > count (is-ace c) into n-aces
> > finally (return (if (and (> n-aces 0) (< n 12))
> > (+ n 10)
> > n)))))
>
> Not to be a nag, but this doesn't seem to handle cases like a hand of '(A 2
> A) correctly. This hand is either a 4 or a 14, and your code assumes it's
> always a 14. Actually for strategic purposes, it should be thought of as a
> soft A,3 hand.
>
*tweak*
(if (and (> n-aces 0) (< n 12))
(values (+ n 10) n)
n)))
--
Geoff
In article <········································@andromeda>, Tobias Peters
<······@medi.physik.uni-oldenburg.de> writes:
>I started with Davit Touretzky's "Gentle
>Introduction", but this is actually a bit too gentle for me, and thus
>boring. Having worked the book more than halfway through, I have
>discovered Paul Graham's "On Lisp", but this book is still too advanced
>for me.
I found Graham's first book, ANSI Common Lisp, an excellent introduction. As I
was reading it, I found my style in the language I was using for pay changing
to be more bottom-up. It's not that I had been unaware of bottom-up concepts,
but that Graham's examples are compelling and addictive.
-- Attaining and helping others attain "Aha!" experiences, as satisfying as
attaining and helping others attain orgasms.
From: Robert Folland
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <ud6umvsaz.fsf@circinus.no>
Tobias Peters <······@medi.physik.uni-oldenburg.de> writes:
> And this is where I notice a discrepancy. I know that there are people who
> have actually learned lisp, and yet prefer to use (or even design) some
> other programming language. This does not fit into the picture that some
> lisp-advocates draw (the most powerful language ever, not wanting to use
> anything else erverafter).
I think this is mostly a case of having to do it because of the work
environment. I would have preferred to use CL, but cannot because of
projects I am working in, in other languages.
> Now the only way that I can judge for myself is to learn lisp, and I'm
> actually doing that. I started with Davit Touretzky's "Gentle
> Introduction", but this is actually a bit too gentle for me, and thus
> boring. Having worked the book more than halfway through, I have
> discovered Paul Graham's "On Lisp", but this book is still too advanced
> for me. So I will work my way through the rest of the "Introduction", and
> then see if I want to look further into lisp (= the "On Lisp" book) or
> not.
Like you I at first glance found Touretzky's book much too gentle for
quite a large number of pages, so I put it aside. I later picked it up
again and worked through all the later chapters. They were great, and
working through all the exercises gives a good start with CL I
think. I recommend that.
-Robert
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <ufzzj6whs.fsf@grant.org>
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:34:25 +0200, Andreas Hinze ("Andreas") writes:
Andreas> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>> I believe that the community can maintain its own tools if necessary.
Andreas> Yes, but only when there is a community that is large enough ( Did you know
Andreas> of any RPG II or APL systems that are maintained by a community ? ).
Andreas> So it is still not good for the communitiy if newer programmers avoid lisp.
FYI, APL has a very active user community.
From: James A. Crippen
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3elf2e9vz.fsf@kappa.unlambda.com>
······@grant.org (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> >>>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:34:25 +0200, Andreas Hinze ("Andreas") writes:
> Andreas> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >> I believe that the community can maintain its own tools if necessary.
>
> Andreas> Yes, but only when there is a community that is large enough ( Did you know
> Andreas> of any RPG II or APL systems that are maintained by a community ? ).
> Andreas> So it is still not good for the communitiy if newer programmers avoid lisp.
>
> FYI, APL has a very active user community.
But RPG II (or III, or IV for that matter) doesn't.
Thought I'd share.
'james
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
From: Kragen Sitaker
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <83znxqlgra.fsf@panacea.canonical.org>
Andreas Hinze <···@smi.de> writes:
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > I believe that the community can maintain its own tools if
> > necessary. I certainly don't believe we are served by
> > proprietary tools as well as by open ones.
>
> Yes, but only when there is a community that is large enough ( Did you know
> of any RPG II or APL systems that are maintained by a community ? ).
Large enough and experienced in maintaining programming environments.
There were and are no free (as in speech) RPG II or APL systems, as
far as I know. Consequently there are no RPG II or APL systems that a
community could maintain. Someone would have to write one from
scratch, and like the authors of the systems they learned on, they'd
probably make it proprietary.
By contrast, there are a number of community-maintained FORTH and
MUMPS programming environments.
In the last exciting episode, Kragen Sitaker <······@pobox.com> wrote::
> Andreas Hinze <···@smi.de> writes:
>> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>> > I believe that the community can maintain its own tools if
>> > necessary. I certainly don't believe we are served by
>> > proprietary tools as well as by open ones.
>>
>> Yes, but only when there is a community that is large enough ( Did you know
>> of any RPG II or APL systems that are maintained by a community ? ).
>
> Large enough and experienced in maintaining programming environments.
>
> There were and are no free (as in speech) RPG II or APL systems, as
> far as I know. Consequently there are no RPG II or APL systems that a
> community could maintain. Someone would have to write one from
> scratch, and like the authors of the systems they learned on, they'd
> probably make it proprietary.
Actually, I can point to examples of both...
http://freshmeat.net/projects/eraserheadrpg/
(http://rpg.netpedia.net/ is dead, unfortunately...)
http://www.aplusdev.org/
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ····················@" "454aa"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/finances.html
"... psychologists sometimes refer to perception as controlled
hallucination ..." -- B. K. P. Horn 6.866/6.801 Lecture
From: Ng Pheng Siong
Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <aeq8tp$13u$1@violet.singnet.com.sg>
According to Samantha Atkins <········@objectent.com>:
> Organizations and companies can have a stake in such tools and support
> development of them while making their money from something somewhat
> different but partially enabled by the tools also.
Well, "while making their money" is the tricky part here.
--
Ng Pheng Siong <····@netmemetic.com> * http://www.netmemetic.com
From: David Combs
Subject: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <aemnva$52m$2@reader1.panix.com>
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
Peter Norvig <·····@norvig.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the comments on my retrospective update. I stand by my
>conclusion "Lisp experts are still as productive as ever, but newer
>programmers are less likely to pick up Lisp". I do agree with many of
>the points made in this thread. I agree that most of the libraries do
>exist somewhere, but the fact that they are not standardized makes the
>language harder to use, especially for a non-expert. By "standardized"
>I mean available from one canonical location in a form that is
>portable across implementations; I don't care whether they are part of
>an ANSI standard or not.
>
>One thing I regret about my page is the emphasis on popularity. Of
>course it is true that popular does not equate to better. And the
>measures I cite were the ones that were available to me, and are not
>the most scientific or useful. The only number that I think really
>counts is number of jobs offered. Even that number is unreliable; I
>know there are more than 4 openings for Lisp programmers.
>
>I've updated my page to de-emphasize popularity and stress the
>features that once made Lisp unique, and to incorporate some of the
>points made in this thread. Now I want the take-home message to be
>"Overall, Lisp does very well on the nine features. Anyone making an
>objective choice based on these features would continue to find Lisp
>the best choice for a wide range of applications. But there are now
>viable contenders that did not exist in 1991." In other words, using
>Lisp was a no-brainer in 1990, but now it depends on how you
>prioritize a number of factors.
>
>Here's a challenge for the Lisp community: give me the URL that I can
>point to and say
>
>"Lisp has a free, portable collection of libraries for threads, GUIs,
>HTML, HTTP, XML, SOAP, and many other things available at ?????."
>
PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Someone's response on this thread was that
(re some of the things Peter said was missing)
"you can already do that with lisp!", or something
like that.
Yeah, maybe -- but try that on some higher-up
who's been directed to get something implemented
for company-wide use, when the java and c++
guys (your *competitors* -- competing for the
money you need to feed wife and kids!) say on
*their* proposals that facilities for M$
standard-method XYZ for accessing, via scheme
MNO, Oracle database of size ...
when *your* proposal is "no, those things
aren't built-in; why *should* they be?
It's really *so easy* to just *do* it via
some simple lisp coding!".
Even assuming you're correct, and in fact
you could get the task done in 1/5th the time
(add that into your above proposal), do
you think he or her is going to *believe* you.
He/she (why can't we just say "he" OR "she"
OR "hsee" or *any* *single* word?1/5th the time
(add that into your above proposal), do
you think he or her is going to *believe* you.
He/she (why can't we just say "he" OR "she"
OR "hsee" or *any* *single* word?) is putting
his (or her) job on the line, with whichever
team or company he chooses.
Let's assume that the project FAILS -- is, due
to some unknowns, is *guaranteed* to fail,
*regardless* of who tries to do it,
and *regardless* of what language, etc,
it is used, and even of the cs-IQ of the people.
Suppose, in fact, the boss-man *knows* that
it will never succeed.
Tell me -- what is that person's BEST STRATEGY
for staying employed? Going with the C++,
Java, or Lisp people.
---
Perhaps this kind of thing was a bit behind
what Peter was thinking or feeling when
writing his paper (which I have yet to see).
David
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <kk9elf5vvi5.fsf@glug.org>
·······@panix.com (David Combs) writes:
> Tell me -- what is that person's BEST STRATEGY
> for staying employed?
marry into management?
thi
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3D0EF35C.4090705@hotmail.com>
David wrote:
> Tell me -- what is that person's BEST STRATEGY
> for staying employed?
Hmmm. Being born into a hereditary monarchy looks like a good one to
me. Although I think you should be selective in you choice of country...
;)w
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3D0F1967.FB5DECB7@smi.de>
David Combs wrote:
>
> Tell me -- what is that person's BEST STRATEGY
> for staying employed? Going with the C++,
> Java, or Lisp people.
>
Let's ask that question again for the person who decided what
programming language should be used for the project. No one will
blame him for using Java or C++. These are good proven languages
for that kind of problem while lisp is only usefull for AI applications.
You disagree ? You're right. We all know that that is wrong. But
his "big boss" think that way. And our friend will keep his job.
IMHO one need to change the mind of the "big boss". And that is hardly done
with technical arguments alone.
Best
AHz
From: ozan s yigit
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <vi4y9dcsm8k.fsf@blue.cs.yorku.ca>
Andreas Hinze:
> Let's ask that question again for the person who decided what
> programming language should be used for the project.
only one person decides the project language(s)? what kind of a place
is that? so far every development group i worked in, all the developers
together decided what languages to use for any new project after careful
consideration was given to the existing code and expertise, development
tools (eg. gui builders), libraries and so on, much to the chagrin of a
few monomaniacs who just *knew* their chosen language is of course the
answer for any good development...
oz
--
bang go the blobs. -- ponder stibbons
From: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <kwbsa87i9q.fsf@merced.netfonds.no>
ozan s yigit <··@blue.cs.yorku.ca> writes:
> only one person decides the project language(s)? what kind of a place
> is that?
one of the many places with bosses of the kind that has makes Scott Adams
rich?
--
(espen)
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3D0F577E.381E8EEE@smi.de>
ozan s yigit wrote:
>
> Andreas Hinze:
>
> > Let's ask that question again for the person who decided what
> > programming language should be used for the project.
>
> only one person decides the project language(s)? what kind of a place
> is that? so far every development group i worked in, all the developers
> together decided what languages to use for any new project after careful
> consideration was given to the existing code and expertise, development
> tools (eg. gui builders), libraries and so on, much to the chagrin of a
> few monomaniacs who just *knew* their chosen language is of course the
> answer for any good development...
>
My experience is quite different. The developers make proposals but the
decisions are made by other peoples.
Best
AHz
From: David Golden
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <ecLP8.9638$04.28008@news.iol.ie>
ozan s yigit wrote:
> only one person decides the project language(s)? what kind of a place
> is that?
Most places. Developer-friendly organisations are few and far
between.
--
Don't eat yellow snow.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233447730825778@naggum.net>
* Andreas Hinze
| Let's ask that question again for the person who decided what programming
| language should be used for the project. No one will blame him for using
| Java or C++. These are good proven languages for that kind of problem while
| lisp is only usefull for AI applications. You disagree? You're right. We
| all know that that is wrong. But his "big boss" think that way. And our
| friend will keep his job. IMHO one need to change the mind of the "big
| boss". And that is hardly done with technical arguments alone.
It is not primarily the "Big Boss" that thinks this way, it is other Common
Lisp users who publish their ill-informed "opinion" on their own language, so
various searches for Common Lisp on the Net and in the literature will turn
up negative articles about Common Lisp by Common Lisp users -- and who else
can one trust better? Stupid people publish articles detailing how the
language that made them rich is broken and want to create another language
just to bite the hand that fed them. Stupid people also publish articles
detailing how they lost their faith in Lisp. Stupid people seem unable to
get over the fact that they no longer want to use a language and just move on
to something better.
I would not want to go as far as to exconerate the "Big Boss" for clueless
views, but he got them from somewhere, and the more I have looked, the more I
have found negative articles about Common Lisp in particular by its own user
base. So it is not like people invent reasons not to use Common Lisp, they
ask Common Lisp users, and many of them more than willingly rattle off a
number of good reasons, from few programmers to lack of "standard" features
via lack of "free" compilers, _not_ to use the language. What is this crap?
Is it a self-esteem problem? Is it an apologetic attitude for doing things
differently? Is it a reluctance to state that Common Lisp is smarter than
any other language around? Is it a reluctance to admit that one's own
mastery of this great language may be at fault for one's lack of success? Is
it because the language is smarter than most of its practitioners by far that
insecure people prefer languages that are dumber than themselves?
I think it is time we accept responsibility for the gloom and doom instead of
pointing fingers at the "Big Boss" and the even more irresponsible Someone
Else. The mind of the "Big Boss" does not need changing -- it is an accurate
assessment of those values that he deems relevant to his decisions. Change
not just the conclusion if you want a different outcome, change the premises.
Does Common Lisp need a new renaissance? Hell no! Does it need adapting to
newfangled technologies? Hell no! Does it need standardization of feature
X? Hell no! Does it need a dumber (i.e., wider) user base? Hell no! Does
it need gratis tools and attracting the ignorant newbies and the Microsoft
victims who have been taught that the only true way to enlightenment is _not_
to study and learn? Hell no! Does it need more clueless morons who cannot
even bother to buy a goddamn textbook or look things up in the standard?
Hell no! Does it need a killer "app" (god I hate that slang term)? Hell no!
Does it need a bunch of people who mutually exclude each other from making
money on their investments and published code? Hell no! Does it need a
bunch of youngsters in order to keep growing and revitalizing itself? Hell
no! What it takes is for _you_ to use it instead of some lamebrained tool or
"language". What it takes is for _you_ to get tired of all the newbies who
think they know everything so much better than everybody else they have to
create their own goddamn language from scratch. What it takes is for _you_
to start thinking about proper design of your programming environment and not
buying into the shitty designs perpetrated by _both_ Microsoft _and_ Linux.
(Common) Lisp has been the language from which inferior people picked good
ideas when they could not handle the full language. (Common) Lisp grew out
of the needs of brilliant minds who wanted to get something done _right_, not
just _done_. Common Lisp is not the language you use to hack up a stupid log
format so you can recover 50% of the logged information -- it is the language
you use to design a log format from which you can harvest patterns of use and
abuse and other emergent properties. In this age of paranoid security on
more powerful hardware than most people would know what to do with, Common
Lisp offers a secure environment for replacements and serious enhancements of
the most security-sensitive components of a business that is exposed on the
Internet. Common Lisp should offer an environment in which you could run
programs for Windows, the archetypical insecure and bug-infested platform.
Common Lisp should offer the ability to write tools that will help automate
both the writing and the debugging of software in other languages, like
Common Lisp programs helped analyze COBOL programs for Y2K problems. Why the
fuck do we argue over inconsequential idiocy? (And do shut the fuck up about
"measured debate" if you are into bondage and discipline-debates.) Why are
we _not_ out there to offer a real database system with Common Lisp datatypes
instead of the tragic mess that SQL imposes on us in the C-based APIs out
there (not to mention that XML calamity)? Why are we _not_ out there
building the next planning system for interstate highway updates? Why are we
_not_ building publication solutions that would allow a reversal of the most
hostile of all hostile intellectual activities undertaken by mankind in the
past 40,000 years -- the flooding of innocent people with senseless loads of
marketing crap -- and building the foundation for pull advertising? Where
the hell did the intelligent agents go, anyway? Where is the grammar- and
synonym-sensitive search engine that finds matches for articles with words
you did not think of? Where is the dumbing-down service that can take a
precisely formulated and primarily correct technical or scientific article
and turn it into a meaningful piece of information for the 1000-word-
vocabularians? Where is the research on machine representation of context
going? Never mind the expert system that learns, I simply want an interface
to an encyclopedia or specialized information database that expects me to
remember what I read in some other article not all that long ago, so I do not
need the full-blown version aimed at the relatively ignorant. Where is the
artificial intelligence that can actually take care of some of the things the
human brain sucks at, like _precision_ in its otherwise amazing memory?
Where is the active suggestor, as opposed to the passive computer of what-if-
scenarios? I want to let the network of company computers run what-if-I-had-
thought-of-that-experiments and other Searches for Terrestial Intelligence
instead of wasting computrons on SETI. What if people were not so goddamn
scared of machine intelligence higher than their own that they would keep
computers as stupid as can be? Where are the people working on the future?
Where are the futurists that do the interesting stuff that will hit us all
around the next bend? I mean, to _hell_ with some practical extraction and
reporting language, I want _real_ progress, and I want it before I go mad
with rage over the wastes of human ingenuity, such as it is, that goes into
writing yet another spyware "app" for Windows so yet another retard can send
his obnoxious, insulting advertising to people who explicitly do not want
that kind of information? For that matter, where is the spam filter that
does the job of the intelligent, conscientious receptionist I can no longer
afford because of the supposed labor-saving office automation that makes an
ordinary business letter cost 20 times what it did in 1965 (adjusted for all
important economic indicators)? While I am at it -- where is the _real_
savings of the computer revolution? Who took all my money and gave me
advertising for life insurance and Viagra?
So much real work needs to be done! So much intelligence is being wasted on
so many utterly retarded applications. This is not some "Big Boss's" fault!
This is the fault of the programmers themselves. Instead of being the movers
and shakers of the next millennium (that's this one, so pardon the hackneyed
terminology), programmers have allowed themselves to be blue-collar slaves of
the most idiotic adventure ever -- yet another stupid way to waste gargantuan
amounts of money on advertising, and for what? Youth envy? Obsessive fear
of dying? (I'm not opposed to "logos", I'm just massively opposed to the
attempt at saturating me with irrelevant nonsense 24/7.)
Once we were Programmers. Maybe our last best hope is a movie.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business offer, please be
specific and do not put "business offer" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer,
give me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <kk9vg8fvq65.fsf@glug.org>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> Once we were Programmers. Maybe our last best hope is a movie.
c'mon, hurry up. if you are done programming machines making a movie is a
good way to program society. i review screenplays for reasonable fees.
(what ills can you kill?
which shills can we bill?
when will M-x autodebug start and sit still? %-)
thi
From: Matt Curtin
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <868z5bgzsl.fsf@rowlf.interhack.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> negative articles about Common Lisp in particular by its own user
> base.
At least some of this must be due to a greater level of perspicacity
that exists in an average Common Lisp programmer by comparison to the
average user of another language. (In particular, I mean a user who
programs in another language and really doesn't understand many
others, or at least one other very different paradigm.)
Let's pick on C++ programmers briefly. I know a small handful of
people who are brilliant C++ programmers. They understand the
language far better than I do, but more interestingly, far better than
many of its advocates. Some of the most skillful C++ programmers are
the most critical of the language.
Typical C++ programmers -- I'm speaking from an American perspective
here -- can go right through the typical undergraduate curriculum with
little exposure to other languages. They take courses on data
structures, wherein they can use whichever language they like. Since
they took three or four quarters of programming, where C++ was used,
they choose C++. They take courses in algorithms, wherein they can
use any language they like. Again, they choose C++.
They'll go through four or five years of this, graduating with a
degree in computer science, unable to understand anything but C++, and
also unable to differentiate between how C++ supports the OO paradigm
vs. how it supports the imperative paradigm. They don't know when
they've stopped using the OO features.
In short, they're happy with their tools because it allows them to
build stuff that they don't think they'd otherwise be able to build.
All they have is a sixteen ounce hammer. The idea of criticizing the
hammer is simply beyond them. Why someone would want to make a
hammer's head twenty ounces is beyond them. Yeah, they heard you can
use it for framing, but they can do it "just as well." Having other
tools (like, say, a saw) available doesn't seem to make sense, either.
The boss can bring in a specialist if he wants, or the hammer guys can
just beat the crap out of the wood with the claw side of the hammer.
Because Common Lisp allows people to understand more clearly what is
happening -- or is it more correct to say that it's more idiomatic for
Common Lisp programmers to understand what's happening? -- they will
tend not only to think about the problem at hand, but the language
itself. After all, one of the big things that interests people in
Lisp in the first place is that you can build the language up toward
the problem as much as you build downward from the goal. After doing
enough building the language up, they'll see what isn't perfect in it,
and will be more inclined to complain about the language's
shortcomings.
Lack of standardization in interfaces to sockets and lack of easily
accessible standard GUI interfaces are two big problems from the
perspective of students to whom I teach Common Lisp. Are they really
big problems? Not really. There are portability libraries available
(a la CLOCC) that will standardize the interface a programmer uses
across implementations. The GUI issue is a bit more difficult. Worse
yet is the lack of standardization in lightweight process handling,
and the lack of widespread availability in free implementations.
Again, it's hardly the end of the world, and I'm sure we'll see these
issues get resolved in the free world -- as they have been resolved in
commercial implementations for years -- in due course. But things
like this are the things that people complain about when they're
talking about Common Lisp's problems, and other people hear these
complaints, wondering why such an "ancient language" that "doesn't
have support for such basic features of modern languages" is still
used by anyone for anything. The reality is that in the context of
class, I can address these issues and help people to put the
"problems" into perspective, but we don't always get that opportunity
in other contexts.
The Common Lisp community talks about what's wrong. This is
problematic for people outside of the community looking in, because
these outsiders don't benefit from the same understanding that we have
(and sometimes take for granted) about how much of Common Lisp is
right. People who use other languages tend not to have a large base
of What's Right as the backdrop for the shortcomings in their tools.
Many mainstream "programmers" haven't ever used an environment that
inclines them to think about the language itself.
> I think it is time we accept responsibility for the gloom and doom
> instead of pointing fingers at the "Big Boss" and the even more
> irresponsible Someone Else.
I agree wholeheartedly, as it relates to the need for us (Common Lisp
programmers) to write code in Common Lisp.
I do believe that we would be well-served to make the cost of entry
into the Common Lisp community easier to manage. I'm not suggesting
targeting the same crowd that wants "Learn VB.NET in 4 Hours!" but
being more appealing to an intelligent and open-minded developer who
simply lacks the experience and exposure to grasp what he's seeing at
first sight.
The best way that we're going to do this is to make it easier for
people with other backgrounds to start using Common Lisp and for
people who are just getting started to be able to see examples of its
use for modern applications -- enough with the AI examples, already!
-- and how they can put it to use in their own projects.
Certain inspirational anecdotes like Graham's "Beating the Averages"
can be useful, but only for getting people to take the first step. We
need to think about how to help people beyond the first step to the
point that they can walk for themselves unaided.
This requires time and effort. Local user groups can be effective --
most likely, special interest groups of regional computer societies
would make the most sense at first -- as can writing tutorial articles
for magazines, as can books that show people How It's Done.
At the end of the day, Common Lisp programmers can use their
clairvoyance in an attempt to build The Perfect Language(tm) or they
could put it to work to knock the socks off of the people who need to
put systems into production. Let the /Wall Street Journal/ write an
article about how your company was able to eat everyone else's lunch
because your application fixes itself as it goes or whatever.
A few of those will make even the Big Boss an advocate. But we're not
going to see that until we write the stuff that demands articles to be
written about them.
--
Matt Curtin Interhack Corp +1 614 545 HACK http://web.interhack.com/
Author, Developing Trust: Online Privacy and Security (Apress, 2001)
Knight of the Lambda Calculus | Quod scripsi scripsi. --Pontius Pilate
From: ozan s yigit
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <vi4adpqnehv.fsf@blue.cs.yorku.ca>
matt curtin: [amongst other commentary]
> Typical C++ programmers -- I'm speaking from an American perspective
> here -- can go right through the typical undergraduate curriculum with
> little exposure to other languages. [...]
you speak about "typical" undergraduate curriculum; one would have to
remember the strong shift in the CS curriculum from C++ to java, which
would be appearent the students in the upper years; this provides them
with the opportunity to compare and contrast two languages, and perhaps
think about What's Right. this is small confort, given general minimal
exposure to prolog, ml, lisp et al, but not nearly as bad as one may
conclude...
just for the record, here is the first-language table from a survey
about CAC-accredited degree programs. see the report for more
details on primary programming languages etc.
First
Language 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ada 12% 18% 19% 7% 6% 4%
BASIC - - - 1% - -
C 17% 14% 11% 20% 19% 11%
C++ 32% 39% 47% 50% 54% 40%
Eiffel 2% - 2% 1% - -
FORTRAN 2% - - - - -
Java - - 9% 22% 22% 49%
JavaScript - - - 1% 1% -
Modula-2 - 2% - - - -
Pascal 36% 23% 6% 2% 5% 2%
Scheme 2% 4% 4% 1% - -
Visual BASIC - 2% - - -
First Languages Taught in Curricula in Academic Years 1995-96 through
2001-2002 [Comprehensive Report on the 2001 survey of deparments,
Rene'e A. McCauley and Bill Manaris, May 2002]
oz
---
the only zen you find on the tops of mountains is the zen you bring up there.
-- robert m. pirsig
From: Scott A Douglass
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <240889751.1024583729@MONSTRO4.psy.cmu.edu>
Matt,
Your post showcases the source of Lisp's current
problem--misrepresentation. You seem to want Lisp to serve 2 masters. You
seem to want Lisp to pander to legions of CS1 students by making it trivial
to "from _socket import *". You also seem to want Lisp to remain an elite
language.
> itself. After all, one of the big things that interests people in
> Lisp in the first place is that you can build the language up toward
> the problem as much as you build downward from the goal.
In the above you basically assert that people like Lisp because it's a
building material not a programming language. I agree...
In conventional modern languages (such as C), the logic making up a
problem's specification and the control directives needed to execute a
solution's algorithm are inseparable. The point behind high level
languages such as Lisp and Prolog is that when a programmer is faced with a
significant, complex problem, the last thing they need to be bogged down in
is the low-level procedural aspects of the solution. Lisp shows it's value
when it allows the programmer to extend the language so that it supports a
paradigm capable of achieving a solution. Lisp allows a programmer to
avoid procedural quagmires by letting them program solutions in new
formalisms...
If a programmer's problems are not complex enough to warrant the use of a
high level language, then they should not be expected to use one. If
you're just using Lisp primitives, you're taking advantage of NONE of it's
true potential. Lisp's potential can be directly traced to it's support of
programming paradigmes not from a set of socket libraries! Anyone teaching
or advocating Lisp as a C substitute is misrepresenting the language.
Arguing Lisp should look like any current trendy language hurts Lisp. Lisp
is something different and should be understood on it's own terms.
> Lack of standardization in interfaces to sockets and lack of easily
> accessible standard GUI interfaces are two big problems from the
> perspective of students to whom I teach Common Lisp.
If a student is only interested in stringing together some libraries and
surfing the web through a GUI with a menubar, Lisp is not for them. Why
use Lisp when something like Python is a perfect fit? Lisp's source of
power lies within Lisp itself not a set of trendy, pedantic libraries.
Someone advocating Lisp for things as trivial as sockets and GUIs is
misrepresenting the language. Lisp is not a Python equivalent. There are
things that Python does more easily and there are things that Lisp can do
that are out of Python's reach. Rather than trying to lure CS1 kids to
Lisp by arguing that its just like XYZ, lure them to Lisp by showing them
what it can actually do!
> being more appealing to an intelligent and open-minded developer who
> simply lacks the experience and exposure to grasp what he's seeing at
> first sight.
You can't appreciate what you're seeing the first time you stare at a Lisp
prompt. You simply can't. (This is precisely why Lisp is not mainstream.)
You see the prompt and think "Now what?" For a developer to really "see"
what Lisp is capable of, they must be willing to see. If they are
unwilling to look past XML/SOAP/blah/blah/blah, they won't see what Lisp
is. An "open-minded" developer will of course have to see that the Lisp
prompt means that what happens next is up to them, not a library. They
also need to see past the primitives and understand that they can extend
Lisp's syntax and accomodate literally any programming paradigm they can
come up with. Of course to see Lisp's potential, they're going to have to
think beyond the language itself! How can you expect a C programmer to
follow an example Lisp scheduling/logistics solution in which a FOPC-based
formalism was used to "take things declarative" and achieve solutions
through deduction? Imagine their face when you show them the set of
inferences encoded in s-expressions! "Wait a minute, where are the data
structures and the pointers?" "Holy cow, you're working with knowledge and
logic not control code!" Ha... And showing them sockets in a sea of
parens is just going to misrepresent the language...
> The best way that we're going to do this is to make it easier for
> people with other backgrounds to start using Common Lisp and for
> people who are just getting started to be able to see examples of its
> use for modern applications -- enough with the AI examples, already!
> -- and how they can put it to use in their own projects.
Your contempt for "AI examples" speaks volumes. Lisp is not just a way of
getting a computer to perform operations, its a formal medium in which
ideas about methodology can be expressed. You'll find nothing special in
the primitives... The "AI examples" illustrate how Lisp's potential is used
to develop paradigms usefull for solving problems that would kill a
programmer trying to articulate each and ever instruction needed for a
solution. If a programmer can't see this, they will just see Lisp as a
language with a strange minimalist syntax and no standardized trendy
libraries.
Lisp IS NOT a scripting language.
Lisp IS NOT a steering language.
Lisp IS NOT a hollow shell that strings together sets of libraries.
Asking Lisp to become the above is asking it to serve 2 masters. Lisp is
not a general purpose (socket/GUI/XML/blah blah blah) Java substitute, it
is an elite programming language that has developed in labs attempting to
solve extremely difficult problems. If someone wants to knock scokets
around, let them use something that is simple and effective. Don't try to
bring them to Lisp by misrepresenting the language.
If Lisp is the better tool for solving complex problems, as people become
more interested in complex problems, they'll come to Lisp. If legions of
CS BS grads are not interested in solving complex problems, leave them
alone.
Norvig should have known better than to use populatiry and access to
libraries in his rationalization for moving to a more popular language.
Millions of people can try to get real AI work done in Java, but nothing
says they'll succeed... In an effort to sell more books, he's touched off
a conflagration. Attempting to recover from his remarks by misrepresenting
Lisp is an even worse mistake though. Lisp does not have to pander to the
masses.
To make Lisp more popular:
- Stop trying to change it.
- Stop misrepresenting it.
- Start REALLY teaching it.
From: Matthew Danish
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <20020620173947.B32446@mapcar.org>
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 02:35:29PM -0400, Scott A Douglass wrote:
[snip]
> Asking Lisp to become the above is asking it to serve 2 masters. Lisp is
> not a general purpose (socket/GUI/XML/blah blah blah) Java substitute, it
> is an elite programming language that has developed in labs attempting to
> solve extremely difficult problems. If someone wants to knock scokets
> around, let them use something that is simple and effective. Don't try to
> bring them to Lisp by misrepresenting the language.
I agree with many of the points in your article, but I also think that Lisp has
much to offer to programmers working with not-so-difficult problems as well.
For example, for "web applications" I find Common Lisp to be a nice environment
to work in. Even disregarding any possibly complex "business logic" or such,
there are still many uses for Lispy concepts particularly macros, CLOS, and
interactivity.
There will always be hard problems to work on, but there is also a need for
better ways to address easier problems.
--
; Matthew Danish <·······@andrew.cmu.edu>
; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
; Signed or encrypted mail welcome.
; "There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark."
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3D108A1A.CAB9517E@smi.de>
Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> It is not primarily the "Big Boss" that thinks this way, it is other Common
> Lisp users who publish their ill-informed "opinion" on their own language, so
> various searches for Common Lisp on the Net and in the literature will turn
> up negative articles about Common Lisp by Common Lisp users -- and who else
> can one trust better?
It's hard to imagine that anyone outside the common lisp comunity is reading
that articles. But if they do then some of them start to think over it, maybe.
No, the point is more that there is much noise about the mainstream languages
and nothing about lisp. So lisp becomes an exotic, special purpose language.
> Why are we _not_ out there
> building the next planning system for interstate highway updates? Why are we
> _not_ building publication solutions that would allow a reversal of the most
> hostile of all hostile intellectual activities undertaken by mankind in the
> past 40,000 years -- the flooding of innocent people with senseless loads of
> marketing crap -- and building the foundation for pull advertising?
Because none pay you for this. A simple fact of life is that some people need money
to live. You give us some bright insights of "real work" to do. Unfortunally you
forgot to mention how to finance it. And after all this is the key for the
solution, isn't it ?
Best
AHz
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233491195433364@naggum.net>
* Andreas Hinze <···@smi.de>
| It's hard to imagine that anyone outside the common lisp comunity is reading
| that articles.
Well, maybe for you, but most other people who get a consultant who suggests
Common Lisp does web search for it or ask around.
Matt Curtin pointed out something interesting (I'll reply separately), that
most other language users, especially C++, just do not understand the point
of discussing the language. It is just _there_. Criticizing it is not seen
as conducive to using it competently. When they come across Common Lisp,
they see all this criticism and people not getting over some of the language
design decisions. What are they to think save that it is utterly deficient?
| But if they do then some of them start to think over it, maybe. No, the
| point is more that there is much noise about the mainstream languages and
| nothing about lisp. So lisp becomes an exotic, special purpose language.
There are literally thousands of exotic, special purposes languages that are
considered cool and useful. Point dismissed.
| Because none pay you for this.
Oh, christ. Grow up.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business offer, please be
specific and do not put "business offer" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer,
give me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3D10B690.22E3589E@smi.de>
Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> * Andreas Hinze <···@smi.de>
> | It's hard to imagine that anyone outside the common lisp comunity is reading
> | that articles.
>
> Well, maybe for you, but most other people who get a consultant who suggests
> Common Lisp does web search for it or ask around.
And that prudent consultant will shure "prepare" the customer against all rank
nonsens the customer may find, don't you ?
>
> | But if they do then some of them start to think over it, maybe. No, the
> | point is more that there is much noise about the mainstream languages and
> | nothing about lisp. So lisp becomes an exotic, special purpose language.
>
> There are literally thousands of exotic, special purposes languages that are
> considered cool and useful. Point dismissed.
Usefull for their exotic, special purposes.
>
> | Because none pay you for this.
>
> Oh, christ. Grow up.
I'm wrong ? Please give me a hint.
Best
AHz
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233533721749853@naggum.net>
* Andreas Hinze
| And that prudent consultant will shure "prepare" the customer against all
| rank nonsens the customer may find, don't you?
Sure, and they will invest hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars
on the argumentation skills of a consultant and his ability to refute all the
other people while standing on one foot. _Please_. (Besides, it never was
nonsense to begin with. It was, in fact, entirely true, but see below.)
| I'm wrong? Please give me a hint.
The worst argument is that which is true, but completely irrelevant. He who
argues it thinks "wrong" is the only rebuttal, yet because it is not wrong,
and thus not rebutted, he also thinks it remains relevant. However ...
Relevance is orthogonal to truth.
If there is only one thing I want to pass on to other people, it is that,
because so many smart people spend so much time thinking that relevance is at
least _somehow_ related to truth, that just the truth (or "the facts") will
be enough to convince people. It is not. It never was. It never will be.
Truth, as such, can even be irrelevant.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business offer, please be
specific and do not put "business offer" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer,
give me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <kwr8j2xv2d.fsf@merced.netfonds.no>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> Truth, as such, can even be irrelevant.
I.e. tautologies, which are always irrelevant (if they're already
known to be tautologies).
A fairly common idea among questions/answers-semanticists (one of whom
I once attempted to become) is that relevance is tightly tied to
_answering_ (the definition roughly goes: p is relevant to x
_relative_ to the question Q iff x has a better answer to Q after
updating his information base with p. Depending on the underpining
theory, "better answer to" and "updating" can be given more or less
mathematically precise definitions. And 'truth' is not always a very
relevant part of the underpinning theory...).
--
(espen)
In article <··············@merced.netfonds.no>, Espen Vestre
<·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
>A fairly common idea among questions/answers-semanticists (one of whom
>I once attempted to become)
Which one?
-- Attaining and helping others attain "Aha!" experiences, as satisfying as
attaining and helping others attain orgasms.
From: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on
Date:
Message-ID: <kwptymw85i.fsf@merced.netfonds.no>
········@aol.comNOSPAM (Dvd Avins) writes:
> Which one?
the one which is less than two by itself?
--
(espen)
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3D121D2A.7DACF006@smi.de>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> | I'm wrong? Please give me a hint.
>
> The worst argument is that which is true, but completely irrelevant. He who
> argues it thinks "wrong" is the only rebuttal, yet because it is not wrong,
> and thus not rebutted, he also thinks it remains relevant. However ...
>
>
> Relevance is orthogonal to truth.
>
Interesting point. But isn't an argument that is false not also automaticly
irrelevant (and with that they are not orthogonal since the relevance depends
on the truth) ? Please tell me more.
However, in my posting i said
>>> Because none pay you for this.
is it irrelevant or just not true in your opinion ? I think it's both.
Sincerly
AHz
From: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <kwvg8exvjd.fsf@merced.netfonds.no>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> Matt Curtin pointed out something interesting (I'll reply
> separately), that most other language users, especially C++, just
> do not understand the point of discussing the language. It is
> just _there_. Criticizing it is not seen as conducive to using it
> competently. When they come across Common Lisp, they see all this
> criticism and people not getting over some of the language design
> decisions. What are they to think save that it is utterly
> deficient?
I don't know. If they are completely ignorant to begin with, there's
no hope anyway. If they're not, maybe they finally will discover
that computer languages aren't a priori?
--
(espen)
"When did ignorance become a point of view?"
-Dilbert
From: James A. Crippen
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3lm99di7z.fsf@kappa.unlambda.com>
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>
> > Matt Curtin pointed out something interesting (I'll reply
> > separately), that most other language users, especially C++, just
> > do not understand the point of discussing the language. It is
> > just _there_. Criticizing it is not seen as conducive to using it
> > competently. When they come across Common Lisp, they see all this
> > criticism and people not getting over some of the language design
> > decisions. What are they to think save that it is utterly
> > deficient?
>
> I don't know. If they are completely ignorant to begin with, there's
> no hope anyway. If they're not, maybe they finally will discover
> that computer languages aren't a priori?
More like a posteriori.
'james
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
From: Daniel Barlow
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <871yb3xkhs.fsf@noetbook.telent.net>
Andreas Hinze <···@smi.de> writes:
> It's hard to imagine that anyone outside the common lisp comunity is
> reading that articles. But if they do then some of them start to
> think over it, maybe.
I don't find it at all hard to imagine. But technology can help you
if you do: simply Google for "paulgraham.com -site:paulgraham.com".
No creative mental endeavour necessary.
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
From: Matthew X. Economou
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <w4o660eod8d.fsf@eco-fs1.irtnog.org>
>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> writes:
Daniel> I don't find it at all hard to imagine. But technology
Daniel> can help you if you do: simply Google for "paulgraham.com
Daniel> -site:paulgraham.com". No creative mental endeavour
Daniel> necessary.
I love Google. You might also want to try backward link searches,
e.g. "links:http://www.paulgraham.com/".
I highly recommend installing their toolbar for Internet Explorer.
The "Cached Snapshot of Page", "Backward Links", and "Translate into
English" menu items make some of Google's more advanced features
easily accessible.
--
Matthew X. Economou <········@irtnog.org> - Unsafe at any clock speed!
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian heritage! (http://www.subgenius.com)
"David Combs" <·······@panix.com> wrote in message ·················@reader1.panix.com...
> Tell me -- what is that person's BEST STRATEGY
> for staying employed? Going with the C++,
> Java, or Lisp people.
Actually your question seems to be, "What is the best way to keep getting money?".
There are many ways to get money, some not so upstanding. How far are you willing to
compromise your passion and best judgement? Giving up your sincerity is the surest path
to hell-on-earth.
Wade
From: Raymond Toy
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <4nznxs8dhm.fsf@edgedsp4.rtp.ericsson.se>
>>>>> "David" == David Combs <·······@panix.com> writes:
David> Tell me -- what is that person's BEST STRATEGY
David> for staying employed? Going with the C++,
David> Java, or Lisp people.
If the criteria is to stay employed, C++ or Java may or may not be the
right answer.
If the criteria is to stay happily employed, I submit that the answer
may well be different.
Choose the metric to get your desired answer.
Ray
From: Matt Curtin
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <86d6unh1p1.fsf@rowlf.interhack.net>
·······@panix.com (David Combs) writes:
> He/she (why can't we just say "he" OR "she"
> OR "hsee" or *any* *single* word?)
We can use a single word. "He."
The rules of English grammar are pretty clear on this, attempts at
politically correct manipulations of the language notwithstanding.
There was, in fact, an attempt by certain persons to reduce the
business to a proper "gender-neutral" pronoun, ignoring the fact that
"he" is perfectly legitimate for that purpose. The proposed choice?
"She/he/it." (One must include "it," of course, because one wouldn't
want to show one's bias against sexless beings like AI programs.
Pronunciation of the "word" speaks to the wisdom of the proposal.)
There's no small amount of irony that this "issue" arises in the
context of English, one of the most gender-unaware languages in use.
Try to say "on ili ona dumaet" ("he or she thinks") in Russian and any
competent speaker, irrespective of his own sex, will correct you to
"on dumaet" ("he thinks").
I am told that Chinese has genderless personal pronouns. (So is
everyone in Chinese an "it" or a "he"?) French, of course, has the
personal "un", which is used exactly as I used "one" in the
parenthetical remark in my second paragraph. I claim no particular
expertise in French, but I'd be surprised to learn that "un"
eliminates all possible cases of antecedents of unknown sex or the
need for use of the masculine pronoun.
Manipulation of language for political reasons is dangerous business.
--
Matt Curtin Interhack Corp +1 614 545 HACK http://web.interhack.com/
Author, Developing Trust: Online Privacy and Security (Apress, 2001)
Knight of the Lambda Calculus | Quod scripsi scripsi. --Pontius Pilate
Oops! Matt Curtin <········@interhack.net> was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> ·······@panix.com (David Combs) writes:
>
>> He/she (why can't we just say "he" OR "she"
>> OR "hsee" or *any* *single* word?)
>
> We can use a single word. "He."
>
> The rules of English grammar are pretty clear on this, attempts at
> politically correct manipulations of the language notwithstanding.
> There was, in fact, an attempt by certain persons to reduce the
> business to a proper "gender-neutral" pronoun, ignoring the fact that
> "he" is perfectly legitimate for that purpose. The proposed choice?
> "She/he/it." (One must include "it," of course, because one wouldn't
> want to show one's bias against sexless beings like AI programs.
> Pronunciation of the "word" speaks to the wisdom of the proposal.)
>
> There's no small amount of irony that this "issue" arises in the
> context of English, one of the most gender-unaware languages in use.
> Try to say "on ili ona dumaet" ("he or she thinks") in Russian and any
> competent speaker, irrespective of his own sex, will correct you to
> "on dumaet" ("he thinks").
>
> I am told that Chinese has genderless personal pronouns. (So is
> everyone in Chinese an "it" or a "he"?) French, of course, has the
> personal "un", which is used exactly as I used "one" in the
> parenthetical remark in my second paragraph. I claim no particular
> expertise in French, but I'd be surprised to learn that "un"
> eliminates all possible cases of antecedents of unknown sex or the
> need for use of the masculine pronoun.
Actually, the pronoun in French is "on".
"Un" is the male article corresponding to the English "a"; the
parallel there is:
"Un/une" (m/f) are equivalent to the English indefinite article "a";
"Le/la" (m/f) are equivalent to the English definite article "the".
The personal pronouns are:
French English
Je Me/I
Tu You (Intimate form)
Il He
Elle She
On Genderless (more or less like "one" in
"One could do this or that")
Nous We
Vous You (Multiple/non-intimate form)
Ils They (masculine)
Elles They (feminine)
The one you're after is "on."
It actually suggests another alternative for use in English, which is
the word "one."
As in, "One could think that this was an important matter, but would
be wrong."
Unfortunately, a lot of the use of it has traditionally related to
situations of quasi-royalty trying to avoid the use of the "royal we,"
so it's likely more "class-ist" than the gendered pronouns are sexist.
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@acm.org")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/x.html
"No, you misunderstand. Microsoft asked some hackers how they could
make their system secure - the hackers replied "Turn it off.". So they
did." -- Anthony Ord
Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
> The one you're after is "on."
>
> It actually suggests another alternative for use in English, which is
> the word "one."
Yeah, except it doesn't work in English. For a really simple reason:
the French use the pronoun "on" ironically; we just don't do that in
English. So it makes it sound really strange when someone actually
does use "one". It's too bad, because that's one of the things I miss
most when using English (well, that and the fact that unless you're
from Charleston, English is an ugly ugly language).
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
* Thomas F. Burdick
| (well, that and the fact that unless you're from Charleston, English is an
| ugly ugly language).
One begs to differ.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business offer, please be
specific and do not put "business offer" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer,
give me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
Christopher Browne wrote:
>>I am told that Chinese has genderless personal pronouns. (So is
>>everyone in Chinese an "it" or a "he"?) French, of course, has the
>>personal "un", which is used exactly as I used "one" in the
>>parenthetical remark in my second paragraph. I claim no particular
>>expertise in French, but I'd be surprised to learn that "un"
>>eliminates all possible cases of antecedents of unknown sex or the
>>need for use of the masculine pronoun.
>
> Actually, the pronoun in French is "on".
>
> "Un" is the male article corresponding to the English "a"; the
> parallel there is:
>
> "Un/une" (m/f) are equivalent to the English indefinite article "a";
>
> "Le/la" (m/f) are equivalent to the English definite article "the".
I believe there is, 'come si dice?, equivalent in Italiano.
> It actually suggests another alternative for use in English, which is
> the word "one."
>
> As in, "One could think that this was an important matter, but would
> be wrong."
>
> Unfortunately, a lot of the use of it has traditionally related to
> situations of quasi-royalty trying to avoid the use of the "royal we,"
> so it's likely more "class-ist" than the gendered pronouns are sexist.
Hmmm. As with all such things, I would say that this was a
simplification. One was (and in certain context still is) used whilst
being very formal. There is both a class and an age component to this.
For example, one was seen as a part of standard English by people like
my grandmother. And a rather annoying French teacher I once had.
:)w
Quoth Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com>:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
>>>I am told that Chinese has genderless personal pronouns. (So is
>>>everyone in Chinese an "it" or a "he"?) French, of course, has the
>>>personal "un", which is used exactly as I used "one" in the
>>>parenthetical remark in my second paragraph. I claim no particular
>>>expertise in French, but I'd be surprised to learn that "un"
>>>eliminates all possible cases of antecedents of unknown sex or the
>>>need for use of the masculine pronoun.
>> Actually, the pronoun in French is "on".
>> "Un" is the male article corresponding to the English "a"; the
>> parallel there is:
>> "Un/une" (m/f) are equivalent to the English indefinite article "a";
>> "Le/la" (m/f) are equivalent to the English definite article "the".
> I believe there is, 'come si dice?, equivalent in Italiano.
Despite spending many of my years growing up in an Italian
neighbourhood, and delivering newspapers to houses where the person
paying the bill often didn't speak English, I never actually picked up
any Italian. Since there are similar Latin roots, it would not
surprise me at all for there to be some incredible parallels.
>> It actually suggests another alternative for use in English, which is
>> the word "one."
>> As in, "One could think that this was an important matter, but would
>> be wrong."
>> Unfortunately, a lot of the use of it has traditionally related to
>> situations of quasi-royalty trying to avoid the use of the "royal we,"
>> so it's likely more "class-ist" than the gendered pronouns are
>>sexist.
> Hmmm. As with all such things, I would say that this was a
> simplification. One was (and in certain context still is) used
> whilst being very formal. There is both a class and an age component
> to this. For example, one was seen as a part of standard English by
> people like my grandmother. And a rather annoying French teacher I
> once had.
Grandmothers and French teachers.
As I said, "quasi-royalty" and "class-ist", respectively :-).
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ·············@" "sirhc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/lsf.html
Why are they called buildings, when they're already finished?
Shouldn't they be called builts?
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <lkd6unjrlk.fsf@pc022.bln.elmeg.de>
Matt Curtin <········@interhack.net> writes:
> ·······@panix.com (David Combs) writes:
>
> > He/she (why can't we just say "he" OR "she"
> > OR "hsee" or *any* *single* word?)
>
> We can use a single word. "He."
>
> The rules of English grammar are pretty clear on this, attempts at
> politically correct manipulations of the language notwithstanding.
[snip]
> Manipulation of language for political reasons is dangerous business.
Yes, and it is also a pretty stupid one at that. Apparently some
people lack the mental capacity of distinguishing between genus and
sexus in language. This applies also to many Germans, which is
strange because in German it is particularly easy to see how
non-sensical this worry about ``sexist language'' is.
As most people probably know, German has three articles, ``der'',
``die'' and ``das'', exactly one of which applies to any given noun,
depending on the ``genus'' of same noun. Like ``he'', ``she'',
``it'', this distinguishes between ``masculine'', ``feminine'' or
``neutral'' genus. This is a purely grammatical distinction, however,
as can be easily seen by asking yourself why it is ``der'' Rhein, but
``die'' Elbe? If this was about sexus, what is so ``male'' about the
river Rhine, or so ``female'' about the river Elbe?
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x42B32FC9
From: Lieven Marchand
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87znxrp2cz.fsf@wyrd.be>
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> As most people probably know, German has three articles, ``der'',
> ``die'' and ``das'', exactly one of which applies to any given noun,
> depending on the ``genus'' of same noun. Like ``he'', ``she'',
> ``it'', this distinguishes between ``masculine'', ``feminine'' or
> ``neutral'' genus. This is a purely grammatical distinction, however,
> as can be easily seen by asking yourself why it is ``der'' Rhein, but
> ``die'' Elbe? If this was about sexus, what is so ``male'' about the
> river Rhine, or so ``female'' about the river Elbe?
Not to mention what is so neutral about das M"adchen?
--
Bored, now.
Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be>
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87znxpm7oj.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be> writes:
> Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
>
> > As most people probably know, German has three articles, ``der'',
> > ``die'' and ``das'', exactly one of which applies to any given noun,
> > depending on the ``genus'' of same noun. Like ``he'', ``she'',
> > ``it'', this distinguishes between ``masculine'', ``feminine'' or
> > ``neutral'' genus. This is a purely grammatical distinction, however,
> > as can be easily seen by asking yourself why it is ``der'' Rhein, but
> > ``die'' Elbe? If this was about sexus, what is so ``male'' about the
> > river Rhine, or so ``female'' about the river Elbe?
>
> Not to mention what is so neutral about das M"adchen?
Psht. That one requires some familiarity with German, but no more than
two years of high school German and you should know the answer.
Still, it's interesting to talk about when there's not much
else... Which probably means that it's definitely not interesting to
me right now. :)
--
-> -/ - Rahul Jain - \- <-
-> -\ http://linux.rice.edu/~rahul -=- ············@techie.com /- <-
-> -X "Structure is nothing if it is all you got. Skeletons spook X- <-
-> -/ people if [they] try to walk around on their own. I really \- <-
-> -\ wonder why XML does not." -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp /- <-
|--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-|
(c)1996-2002, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
From: Vebjorn Ljosa
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <cy3elezn6kk.fsf@ljosa.com>
* Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be>
|
| Not to mention what is so neutral about das M"adchen?
"In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has. Think what
overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous
disrespect for the girl." (Mark Twain)
Vebjorn
From: Julian Stecklina
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87it4d6cbq.fsf@blitz.comp.com>
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
[...]
> As most people probably know, German has three articles, ``der'',
> ``die'' and ``das'', exactly one of which applies to any given noun,
> depending on the ``genus'' of same noun. Like ``he'', ``she'',
> ``it'', this distinguishes between ``masculine'', ``feminine'' or
> ``neutral'' genus. This is a purely grammatical distinction, however,
> as can be easily seen by asking yourself why it is ``der'' Rhein, but
> ``die'' Elbe? If this was about sexus, what is so ``male'' about the
> river Rhine, or so ``female'' about the river Elbe?
The most stupid thing I see in German language use affects the names
of jobs. Female suffixes are added everywhere.
Consider "G�rtner" (gardener) and "G�rtnerin" (the female
gardener/gardeneress *g*). I think "G�rtner" is the right term when
one refers to the profession itself and "G�rtner"/"G�rtnerin" the
right one when refering to the person.
But in fact after having been asked about her apprenticeship a woman
is very likely to answer that she had been learning "G�rtnerin".
Regards,
Julian
--
Meine Hompage: http://julian.re6.de
Ich suche eine PCMCIA v1.x type I/II/III Netzwerkkarte.
Ich biete als Tauschobjekt eine v2 100MBit Karte in OVP.
From: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <kwy9d9rnlb.fsf@merced.netfonds.no>
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> As most people probably know, German has three articles, ``der'',
> ``die'' and ``das'', exactly one of which applies to any given noun,
> depending on the ``genus'' of same noun.
The same applies to the minor of the two official written languages
in Norway ("nynorsk"), but not to the major one. Which I find rather
amusing, since it makes fully automatic translation between those
two (almost identical!) languages very difficult (before "real
AI" is realized...)!
--
(espen)
From: Ng Pheng Siong
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <aeqb9d$13u$2@violet.singnet.com.sg>
According to Matt Curtin <········@interhack.net>:
> I am told that Chinese has genderless personal pronouns. (So is
> everyone in Chinese an "it" or a "he"?)
No. Chinese has "he", "she", "it", plus a genderless "He" for divinity.
--
Ng Pheng Siong <····@netmemetic.com> * http://www.netmemetic.com
--
Ng Pheng Siong <····@netmemetic.com> * http://www.netmemetic.com
From: Chisheng Huang
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3fzzj2mqa.fsf@boto.chi-square-works.com>
····@vista.netmemetic.com (Ng Pheng Siong) writes:
> According to Matt Curtin <········@interhack.net>:
> > I am told that Chinese has genderless personal pronouns. (So is
> > everyone in Chinese an "it" or a "he"?)
>
> No. Chinese has "he", "she", "it", plus a genderless "He" for divinity.
>
This is only true in written Chinese.
In spoken Chinese, all four types are pronounced as "ta" as in
"Tacoma", the city near Seattle.
-cph
From: Julian Stecklina
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87elf16c8t.fsf@blitz.comp.com>
Chisheng Huang <···@chi-square-works.com> writes:
> ····@vista.netmemetic.com (Ng Pheng Siong) writes:
>
> > According to Matt Curtin <········@interhack.net>:
> > > I am told that Chinese has genderless personal pronouns. (So is
> > > everyone in Chinese an "it" or a "he"?)
> >
> > No. Chinese has "he", "she", "it", plus a genderless "He" for divinity.
> >
>
> This is only true in written Chinese.
> In spoken Chinese, all four types are pronounced as "ta" as in
> "Tacoma", the city near Seattle.
Is there no way to distinguish between the pronouns in spoken chinese?
Regards,
Julian
--
Meine Hompage: http://julian.re6.de
Ich suche eine PCMCIA v1.x type I/II/III Netzwerkkarte.
Ich biete als Tauschobjekt eine v2 100MBit Karte in OVP.
From: Ng Pheng Siong
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <aeu04d$bd3$1@violet.singnet.com.sg>
According to Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de>:
> Chisheng Huang <···@chi-square-works.com> writes:
> > ····@vista.netmemetic.com (Ng Pheng Siong) writes:
> > > No. Chinese has "he", "she", "it", plus a genderless "He" for divinity.
> >
> > This is only true in written Chinese.
> > In spoken Chinese, all four types are pronounced as "ta" as in
> > "Tacoma", the city near Seattle.
>
> Is there no way to distinguish between the pronouns in spoken chinese?
There is: from the context of the conversation. ;-)
--
Ng Pheng Siong <····@netmemetic.com> * http://www.netmemetic.com
From: James A. Crippen
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3elf16zwj.fsf@kappa.unlambda.com>
····@vista.netmemetic.com (Ng Pheng Siong) writes:
> According to Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de>:
> > Chisheng Huang <···@chi-square-works.com> writes:
> > > ····@vista.netmemetic.com (Ng Pheng Siong) writes:
> > > > No. Chinese has "he", "she", "it", plus a genderless "He" for divinity.
> > >
> > > This is only true in written Chinese.
> > > In spoken Chinese, all four types are pronounced as "ta" as in
> > > "Tacoma", the city near Seattle.
> >
> > Is there no way to distinguish between the pronouns in spoken chinese?
>
> There is: from the context of the conversation. ;-)
It's only when you learn Asian languages, with their typically
elliptical styles of literature that has influenced their everyday
use, that you begin to understand the *huge* amount of information
carried by context in linguistic communication. This is what makes
Natural Language Understanding so hard of an AI problem. Because to
understand language you basically need the entire contents of the
average human brain as reference material, and a binding environment
large enough to bind *everything* multiple times in the communication,
and to keep all the overlapping bindings straight.
I wonder if humans use deep or shallow binding? I'd bet on shallow,
just as a hunch. Our symbol lookup seems to be linear, or even
linearithmic. Pretty efficient, whatever it is...
'james
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
From: Rob Warnock
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <aev4a4$2sb7q$1@fido.engr.sgi.com>
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> wrote:
+---------------
| I wonder if humans use deep or shallow binding? I'd bet on shallow,
| just as a hunch. Our symbol lookup seems to be linear, or even
| linearithmic.
+---------------
I recall reading a paper decades ago in what was then called the
"Bell System Technical Journal" (BSTJ) in which they reported on
human response times for a (member x memorized-word-list)) task.
[BSTJ used to publish a lot of human engineering & perception research
in those days.] The fascinating thing about the results they got
was that the response time was linearly proportional to the length
of the memorized word list, but *not* to the position of the test
word in the list!
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock, 30-3-510 <····@sgi.com>
SGI Network Engineering <http://www.rpw3.org/>
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy. Phone: 650-933-1673
Mountain View, CA 94043 PP-ASEL-IA
[Note: ·········@sgi.com and ········@sgi.com aren't for humans ]
From: Lieven Marchand
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87wusvp2bj.fsf@wyrd.be>
Matt Curtin <········@interhack.net> writes:
> I am told that Chinese has genderless personal pronouns. (So is
> everyone in Chinese an "it" or a "he"?)
Finnish has only genderless personal pronouns. The distintion is
between people and inaminate objects and animals.
--
Bored, now.
Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be>
From: Kalle Olavi Niemitalo
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87n0tkjo2k.fsf@Astalo.y2000.kon.iki.fi>
Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be> writes:
> Finnish has only genderless personal pronouns. The distintion is
> between people and inaminate objects and animals.
In casual speech however, people too are usually referred to as
"se" ("it"), at least here near Oulu. My mother said it was the
same when she was a child (~1960).
From: JB
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3d180872_1@news.newsgroups.com>
Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
> Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be> writes:
>
>> Finnish has only genderless personal pronouns. The
>> distintion is between people and inaminate objects and
>> animals.
>
> In casual speech however, people too are usually referred
> to as
> "se" ("it"), at least here near Oulu. My mother said it
> was the same when she was a child (~1960).
Of course Hungarian has no genders either. We have one word
for {it, he, she}, but it is used only for persons. Other
things (and animals) are referred to as this or that.
--
Janos Blazi
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
From: Carl Gay
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3D113912.8194DB85@attbi.com>
Matt Curtin wrote:
>
> I am told that Chinese has genderless personal pronouns. (So is
> everyone in Chinese an "it" or a "he"?)
An "it", I'm guessing, judging by how frequently some mandarin speakers
I know get gender pronouns in English incorrect. I would think if everyone
were a "he" then they would tend to err on the side of using "he" when "she"
is correct. But they (well, she, really) just as often seems to use "she"
when "he" is correct. Flip a coin.
(The sound "ta" is used for he/she/it in spoken mandarin, but there are
three different characters used in writing.)
"Matt Curtin" <········@interhack.net> wrote in message
···················@rowlf.interhack.net...
| I am told that Chinese has genderless personal pronouns. (So is
| everyone in Chinese an "it" or a "he"?)
There is a genderless third person in Hungarian, and there is no "genderful"
third person. It is neither "it", which is for objects, nor "he", which may
be indicative of gender in English. The lack of distinction is analogous
to, but not nearly as troublesome as using "you" for both the singular and
plural second person. The "he" and "she" distinction is beneficial in only
one special case: if the discussion is about exactly one male and one
female.
Robert
From: Bulent Murtezaoglu
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87k7ou4oi0.fsf@nkapi.internal>
>>>>> "RM" == Robert Monfera <·······@fisec.com> writes:
[...]
RM> There is a genderless third person in Hungarian, and there is
RM> no "genderful" third person. [...]
Same in Turkish.
cheers,
BM
From: James A. Crippen
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3n0tqebmt.fsf@kappa.unlambda.com>
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
> >>>>> "RM" == Robert Monfera <·······@fisec.com> writes:
> [...]
> RM> There is a genderless third person in Hungarian, and there is
> RM> no "genderful" third person. [...]
>
> Same in Turkish.
Japanese up until the modern era (after about 1868) didn't have
genderful pronouns. It in fact has a bunch of pronouns that differ
depending on the *social* level of the speaker in relation to the
level of the listener and the subject. These pronouns all lack
gender. Some of them have the *converse* of gender, however. They
have gender related to the *speaker* (not the subject). The word
'anata', meaning "you" is typically said by a woman. It's the usual
term for a woman when she addresses her husband, for instance. It
would be rare for a man to use 'anata'. He might use 'kimi' to his
wife and children, 'omae' for a close friend, 'kisama' to someone he
was very upset with, and would just not use a pronoun in most other
cases. Along the same lines, a woman would almost never use the
pronouns 'ore' or 'boku', both meaning "I" or "me". She'd almost
always use 'watashi', 'atashi' among friends, and 'watakushi' to
people she feels respectful towards.
For he/she in Japanese the word 'ano hito' is classically used. It
means "that person". In the modern era two words, 'kare' and 'kanojo'
were introduced, mostly for translating works of Western fiction.
The use of 'kare' and 'kanojo' in conversation is relatively rare, and
when they are used they have a special signifigance unknown in other
languages. 'kare' almost always refers to the speaker's boyfriend or
husband, and 'kanojo' usually refers to the speaker's wife or
girlfriend. Very rarely are they used outside of literature to refer
to a generic gendered third person.
Plural pronouns don't really exist. There are plural forms, but
they're used to indicate *groups* and in-group versus out-group
distinctions. 'watashi-tachi' literally translated means "we" or
"us", but it actually means something more like "Me and the people
with me". 'ano hitotachi' means something like "those people over
there who aren't related to us" (not "me", because pointing out "those
people" implicitly includes the listener).
But in normal use in Japanese pronouns are basically dispensed with.
They're rarely used, except to draw direct emphasis. Listeners are
expected to figure out who one is referring to based on context (such
as the direction of giving/receiving verbs, politeness levels, etc).
Some foreigners jokingly say that the bewildering multiplicity of
Japanese pronouns is why nobody uses them -- noone's ever sure which
ones are appropriate when and to whom, so they just avoid them
altogether.
It boils down to English just being another variation on the theme of
human communication. And words always mean whatever you and society
agree on. If you want them to mean something else then you can by all
means do so, but expect to end up explaining yourself at every turn.
As far as the Great Gender Pronoun Debate goes, I (as an amateur
linguist) feel that it's entirely immaterial. It's well understood
that grammatical gender and sex are two different things, which is why
the term 'gender' was invented. Grammatical gender is just a
convenient classification system for the language organ in the brain.
Humans like to classify things into lots of different categories; it's
how we're wired neurologically.
Gender functions as a simple, highly overloaded classification system.
Originally it obviously had something to do with the sex of an
associated living being. The Great Gender Pronoun Debate wouldn't
exist if such vestiges weren't still visible. But the truth is it's
like the << and >> operators in C++. They've been overloaded so many
times and in so many different ways it's hard to tell that they
originally meant left and right shift. With the amount of
bit-shifting that your average C++ programmer does anymore, it's a
wonder that the original semantics of these operators are still even
remembered. The same is true for grammatical gender in language. Its
purpose has been overloaded in so many different ways by so many
different languages that the original meaning of grammatical gender
has been lost. The only reason it's still a debate is because
pronouns are one of the most conservative parts of any human language,
along with the first five numbers, the basic colors, and references to
body parts. English retains its old case system only in the pronouns
(and in the possessive/genitive case). The gender system is
maintained in the same way, and for the same reasons -- because it's
one of the first things a baby learns after learning how to pronounce
the sounds of the language.
For the radical feminists who would rewrite our brains to get rid of
genderful pronouns, I will say one thing. Change your own speech
first. Then teach your children. See if they keep the tradition up.
That's the only way language is spread, through children. If they
don't like it then what you think doesn't matter.
'james
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
From: Julian Stecklina
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87adpp6bpt.fsf@blitz.comp.com>
"Robert Monfera" <·······@fisec.com> writes:
[...]
> The lack of distinction is analogous
> to, but not nearly as troublesome as using "you" for both the singular and
> plural second person.
[...]
That is indeed strange. English had a pronoun for the singular second
person: thou ( = "du" in German ). But it is very obscure to me that
is has been dropped from speech except in some very, very rare
areas. I read some articles about so-called Shakespeare English that
claimed that "thou" was considered to be unpolite and thus slowly
faded away in everyday use.
But why did not the same happen in e.g. Germany?
Regards,
Julian
--
Meine Hompage: http://julian.re6.de
Ich suche eine PCMCIA v1.x type I/II/III Netzwerkkarte.
Ich biete als Tauschobjekt eine v2 100MBit Karte in OVP.
From: Thomas F. Burdick
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <xcvfzzhiy3y.fsf@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> writes:
> "Robert Monfera" <·······@fisec.com> writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
> > The lack of distinction is analogous
> > to, but not nearly as troublesome as using "you" for both the singular and
> > plural second person.
>
> [...]
> That is indeed strange. English had a pronoun for the singular second
> person: thou ( = "du" in German ). But it is very obscure to me that
> is has been dropped from speech except in some very, very rare
> areas. I read some articles about so-called Shakespeare English that
> claimed that "thou" was considered to be unpolite and thus slowly
> faded away in everyday use.
The problem is that it was both the singular and the informal, like
tu/vous in French.
> But why did not the same happen in e.g. Germany?
I guess anglophone society went through a period of formalness when
using the familiar wasn't appropriate, even with people you're
familiar with, so to speak; and German society didn't. A very similar
thing happened in Latin American Spanish to the 2d-person plural
(vosotros, I think).
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Henrik Motakef
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <874rfx7o8g.fsf@pokey.henrik-motakef.de>
···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> > But why did not the same happen in e.g. Germany?
>
> I guess anglophone society went through a period of formalness when
> using the familiar wasn't appropriate, even with people you're
> familiar with, so to speak; and German society didn't. A very similar
> thing happened in Latin American Spanish to the 2d-person plural
> (vosotros, I think).
I wouldn't think so. For example, some 100 years ago, it was usual
that children used the formal form ("Sie" instead of "Du") talking to
their parents (at least in "better" families). Doesn't look as if
there were any lack of formalness back then ;-)
Another thing that is different between english and german, btw: In
english, "I" is capitalized, and "you" is not. In german, it's the
other way around (and forgetting to capitalize "Sie" or "Ihre" etc. is
considered impolite). How is that handled in other languages?
From: James A. Crippen
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3it4d8xur.fsf@kappa.unlambda.com>
Henrik Motakef <··············@web.de> writes:
> Another thing that is different between english and german, btw: In
> english, "I" is capitalized, and "you" is not. In german, it's the
IIRC the 'I' is capitalized mostly so it was easier to see in the
output of old printing presses. Since the word 'I' is written with a
single letter, 'i' would have been easy to lose on pages full of poor
printing press artifacts, set with worn-out type.
> other way around (and forgetting to capitalize "Sie" or "Ihre" etc. is
> considered impolite). How is that handled in other languages?
Almost all other languages do not special case capitalization of
pronouns, thus they're only capitalized at the beginning of a
sentence. The exception is typically for reference to the Christian
deity. 'Gij' ("He") in Dutch for example, which otherwise doesn't
capitalize pronouns especially.
This only works for languages that use scripts with capital letters,
of course. Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, etc. The Arabic script has no
uppercase/lowercase distinctions, and doesn't treat pronouns
specially. Interestingly though, it has a special grapheme for
'Allah'.
'james
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233597365319650@naggum.net>
* James A. Crippen
| Almost all other languages do not special case capitalization of pronouns,
| thus they're only capitalized at the beginning of a sentence. The exception
| is typically for reference to the Christian deity.
Well, Norwegian has a formal version of the second person singular pronouns
that correspond to the second person plural pronouns. They are capitalized
in this version (De, Dem, Deres). Our "schools" have actively discouraged
politeness and formal forms of expression for about 30 years and hence few
under 40 know what it means when someone uses these terms. Our most ignorant
young have sometimes been known to believe it was the plural form and have
failed to understand when they were addressed.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: James A. Crippen
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3n0tp70du.fsf@kappa.unlambda.com>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * James A. Crippen
> | Almost all other languages do not special case capitalization of
> | pronouns, thus they're only capitalized at the beginning of a
> | sentence. The exception is typically for reference to the
> | Christian deity.
>
> Well, Norwegian has a formal version of the second person singular
> pronouns that correspond to the second person plural pronouns.
> They are capitalized in this version (De, Dem, Deres). Our
Hmm. This sounds like something that was probably imported from
German way back when. Do you know? I'd bet it came along with the
printing press, but wasn't used before that. Perhaps it was
though... I think (but don't know) that a lot of these similar
stylistic patterns were carried from one Germanic language to another
as the Bible was translated with the wave of Lutherian thought.
> "schools" have actively discouraged politeness and formal forms of
> expression for about 30 years and hence few under 40 know what it
> means when someone uses these terms. Our most ignorant young have
> sometimes been known to believe it was the plural form and have
> failed to understand when they were addressed.
Why should the youth be considered ignorant if they can't understand a
word that is actively suppressed by their educational system?
Why should I, a Tlingit, be expected to understand Tlingit when the
educational system actively suppressed not only the teaching of it,
but the mere speaking of it?
Why should you be considered ignorant if you can't read MAD? It's not
as if you were ever taught that programming language, or were ever
exposed to it in any way...
'james
Yow! Are we off topic yet?
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
"James A. Crippen" <·····@unlambda.com> wrote in message ···················@kappa.unlambda.com...
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>
> > * James A. Crippen
> > | Almost all other languages do not special case capitalization of
> > | pronouns, thus they're only capitalized at the beginning of a
> > | sentence. The exception is typically for reference to the
> > | Christian deity.
> >
> > Well, Norwegian has a formal version of the second person singular
> > pronouns that correspond to the second person plural pronouns.
> > They are capitalized in this version (De, Dem, Deres). Our
>
> Hmm. This sounds like something that was probably imported from
> German way back when.
It also sounds like Brooklynese: Take dese bums to Joisey and
give dem the grand tour over dere.
From: James A. Crippen
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3znxp5kgt.fsf@kappa.unlambda.com>
"Joe Marshall" <·············@attbi.com> writes:
> "James A. Crippen" <·····@unlambda.com> wrote in message ···················@kappa.unlambda.com...
> > Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> >
> > > * James A. Crippen
> > > | Almost all other languages do not special case capitalization of
> > > | pronouns, thus they're only capitalized at the beginning of a
> > > | sentence. The exception is typically for reference to the
> > > | Christian deity.
> > >
> > > Well, Norwegian has a formal version of the second person singular
> > > pronouns that correspond to the second person plural pronouns.
> > > They are capitalized in this version (De, Dem, Deres). Our
> >
> > Hmm. This sounds like something that was probably imported from
> > German way back when.
>
> It also sounds like Brooklynese: Take dese bums to Joisey and
> give dem the grand tour over dere.
Actually, the funny thing is that phonologically you're not far from
the truth. It seems that Proto-Germanic (a hypothetical,
reconstructed language) had 'th' sounds (written in IPA with a theta)
both voiced and unvoiced. These were lost in West Germanic some time
after English and Saxon and their related tongues split the Continent
for the Isles. The 'th' sounds were converted to 't' sounds, voiced
and unvoiced.
In North Germanic (Old Norse, the language of the Vikings) these were
kept. They were later lost in all the North Germanic languages except
Icelandic (which preserved most of Old Norse, enough to where modern
Icelandic speakers can basically read the Old Norse eddas without
translation), and I think Faeroese. (But on the latter I could be
wrong.) Swedish, both major forms of Norwegian, and Danish all have
lost the theta phonemes.
There seems to have been a progressive trend in all the Germanic
tongues to convert from the theta sounds to the t sounds. It showing
up in English would then hardly be surprising, given historical
precedent.
'james
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233657972711587@naggum.net>
* James A. Crippen
| Hmm. This sounds like something that was probably imported from German way
| back when. Do you know?
Sorry, I have tried to research this today, and came up empty-handed.
It has nothing to do with the Bible, though.
| Why should the youth be considered ignorant if they can't understand a word
| that is actively suppressed by their educational system?
Because they have read at least 1000 pages of literature that uses it, just
like English speakers are expected to understand Shakespear, but not to write
in his language.
Active and passive vocabulary are two _very_ different things.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Julian Stecklina
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87it4chb7c.fsf@blitz.comp.com>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> | Why should the youth be considered ignorant if they can't understand a word
> | that is actively suppressed by their educational system?
>
> Because they have read at least 1000 pages of literature that uses it, just
> like English speakers are expected to understand Shakespear, but not to write
> in his language.
I know some people in my age (I am 18 years old) that perhaps have not
read 1000 pages in their whole life...
> Active and passive vocabulary are two _very_ different things.
The greater problem with old/ancient literature is the metaphorical
language. I recently had the pleasure of reading Sophokles'
Antigone. But Faust II is also an excellent example.
Regards,
Julian
--
"Ein Sumpf zieht am Gebirge hin,
verpestet alles schon Errungene.
Den faulen Pfuhl auch abzuziehen,
das letzte w�r' das h�chsterrungene.""
- Fausts Vision (Goethe)
Meine Hompage: http://julian.re6.de
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <877kksjvjo.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> writes:
> The greater problem with old/ancient literature is the metaphorical
> language. I recently had the pleasure of reading Sophokles'
> Antigone. But Faust II is also an excellent example.
Huh? You think contemporary writing lacks metaphorical language?
Since you're examples of old literature are both poetry, take a look,
say, at any recent poem by Robert Pinsky, or perhaps older stuff by
T.S. Eliot, W.H. Auden, or Robert Frost. Do these guys not use
metaphorical language?
Indeed, one mark of 20th century literature was the expansion into
prose of metaphorical techniques that were once pretty much limited to
poetry; a fine example being the development of the magical realism
genre of fiction.
Thomas
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233679973026336@naggum.net>
* anonymized
| Since you're examples of old literature
This is another curious thing about native English speakers, which I seldom
see in people who have had the luxury of studying the language. It is one
thing for people to write "Why has Gene Wolfe never one a Hugo award?" but
another when they confuse "its" and "it's", "your" and "you're", "their" and
"they're", etc. One way to get rid of this sign of illiteracy is to avoid
contractions in writing. It makes for a more formal appearance, but it also
encourages a better flow and sentence structure -- some things work only when
contracted and sound silly when not, and sometimes vice versa. Historically,
the turn "have got" became useful because "I've" was insufficient alone, and
it is therefore sufficient to write "I have" while you would say "I've got".
[ Native speakers who only "feel" their way around their own language sloppily
will probably object very strongly to any comment I can possibly make about
the English language. Consider it pre-objected and pre-ignored. OK? ]
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87lm98ic93.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> This is another curious thing about native English speakers, which I seldom
> see in people who have had the luxury of studying the language.
I've studied it, I'm just inattentive occasionally when I write
quickly. It's a typo.
In formal writing, of course, I do avoid contractions. But Usenet is
not formal.
Thomas
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233682788738209@naggum.net>
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
| I've studied it, I'm just inattentive occasionally when I write quickly.
| It's a typo.
If you had typos, you would also easily forgive them in others, which you do
not, so it cannot be a typo.
| In formal writing, of course, I do avoid contractions. But Usenet is not
| formal.
Such is your choice. Unfortunately, it has rather dramatic consequences,
which I _beg_ you to keep to yourself instead of infesting the forum. OK?
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87vg8cglbp.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> | I've studied it, I'm just inattentive occasionally when I write quickly.
> | It's a typo.
>
> If you had typos, you would also easily forgive them in others,
> which you do not, so it cannot be a typo.
Huh? That's a strange logic. First, I wasn't asking for forgiveness;
I was explaining the origin of my error. I have no interest in
whether you think it's forgivable or not.
I think it relies on a principle like:
"If you make trivial mistake X, then you would easily forgive such
mistakes in others. But you do not forgive them, so it must not be
that sort of mistake."
That's weird, surely whether it's a trivial mistake is entirely
independent of other behaviors. I suspect you mean something a little
different: that if I do not regard the error as trivial in other
people, then I have no legitimate cause to complain when other people
don't regard mine as trivial.
But I didn't complain that it was pointed out, so whether I have such
cause to complain is irrelevent here. And, I'm actually quite
forgiving of typos--though sometimes a typo makes it harder for me to
understand, and I ask for clarification. Sometimes, also, there might
be some rhetorical point to pointing out the mistake, and then I might
do so--as indeed you pointed out my spelling error referenced above.
Thomas
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233698010286151@naggum.net>
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
| And, I'm actually quite forgiving of typos--
Really? One word: Vacuum.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87bsa4gku2.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> | And, I'm actually quite forgiving of typos--
>
> Really? One word: Vacuum.
The amazing thing is that Erik's horridly low score in my gnus finally
rose to the point where his posts are visible to me, and I see that he
has not progressed a single inch.
Erik, you are the model for everyone here. If only everyone on
comp.lang.lisp acted like you, the world would be so much better, that
I can't understand why people don't take your excellent advice more
often.
Thomas
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233700370419701@naggum.net>
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
| The amazing thing is that Erik's horridly low score in my gnus finally rose
| to the point where his posts are visible to me, and I see that he has not
| progressed a single inch.
Rather, what you observe is that my responses to your behavior are somewhat
similar -- to you. This has _two_ possible reasons. I regret that you are
not smart enough to realize such a simple fact, because you will never change
your behavior as long as you think you are not the aggressor. I really would
like to see a Thomas Bushnell that stopped being the aggressor. So, at least
wait until _I_ have attacked _you_ again before you conclude that _I_ have
not progressed a single inch. You see, _you_ do the attacking around here.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Janis Dzerins
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <twk7kkrdzz6.fsf@gulbis.latnet.lv>
·········@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>
> > * Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> > | And, I'm actually quite forgiving of typos--
> >
> > Really? One word: Vacuum.
>
> The amazing thing is that Erik's horridly low score in my gnus finally
> rose to the point where his posts are visible to me, and I see that he
> has not progressed a single inch.
>
> Erik, you are the model for everyone here.
Jelous?
> If only everyone on comp.lang.lisp acted like you, the world would
> be so much better,
The like of you might read this and think you think what you say is
true.
> that I can't understand why people don't take
> your excellent advice more often.
The amount and kind of people talking to you on this newsgroup should
be an indication of who take his advice and who does not.
And it's not me, it's the beer in my head talking here, now. (And if
you're lucky, it will be there tomorrow, too, so you might have a nice
discussion.)
--
beer
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> One word: Vacuum.
Intracranial ?
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233702569190102@naggum.net>
* Erik Naggum
> One word: Vacuum.
* William Hodges
| Intracrania?
Now that you have introduced yourself, would you mind telling us what,
precisely, you think are doing here? Are you the kind of person who enjoy
ganging up on people you think are disliked by some majority? Are you the
kind of person who think it is fun to tease people you do not like? Are you
a kind of Thomas Bushnell light? Will you turn into psychopath in about
three months after you have gone into a psychotic state of mind where all
that matters is how you feel about me?
Your contributions to this forum are restricted to stupid harrassment of me.
Are you sure this is how you want to be remembered? Is this what William
Hodges as a person is really about? Will your future employers find that you
have done a brilliant job of presenting yourself in public given this great
display of intellect and high moral standards?
Why _do_ you crawl out of the woodwork to attack me? I have never said or
done anything to _you_, about _you_, or in any way even remotely related to
_you_, have I? I do not know you at all, apart from your harrassment. What
kind of person _are_ you?
Thomas Bushnell is the kind of psychopath who really, deeply and personally
_enjoys_ hurting people. You applaud this in your own, lamebrained way. Did
you know he is gay and want some action by sucking up to him that way? I
have to wonder, and I shall keep an open mind about you, but I must say, you
have done an excellent job of repelling any fair-minded, intelligent person.
People like you are well remembered. I know employers who have called me up
on the phone and told me that they have found a disturbingly high correlation
between employees they have had to fire because they ahave been incompetent
and their tendency to get into fights with me on USENET. So far, I have been
used as a negative reference for six people -- people have _not_ got a job
because they have chosen to fight with me on USENET. How good is _your_ job
security? Do you think you are able to hurt me more than I can hurt you?
Several people have bet a lot of their personal prestige on that and they
have lost. I have hung around on USENET since 1987. I am used to cretins
like you. I _know_ I can survive slaughtering you. I know I have nothing at
all to risk in ripping you apart. Nothing I can do to you will be _worse_
than what some people will already argue that I have done. What do _you_
have to lose if you me engage and fail to win?
Thomas Bushnell had already lost serious fights and is widely considered to
be impossible to work with _before_ he started to fight me. Were you aware
of that? How much of your future are you going to risk on the inane drivel
you have posted so far? Just how much money are you prepared to pay for your
abilty to harrass me?
Go back to the nowhere you came from, William Hodges, before you hurt
yourself, or I _will_ help you. Do you understand what you have started?
Here's a puzzle for you: If I am as evil and ruthless and destructive as some
people here think I am, why did _you_ choose to pick on me? Do you think you
are safe behind that computer display of yours? Do you think I cannot make
you feel really, really bad? Look at Thomas Bushnell. Do you think his
display is the result of strong and healthy psyche? Or do you think it is
_fear_ that drives him? How can it be that people can be driven to such
behavior as you can readily find in the archives just by posting messages to
a public forum? Have you thought about this?
What, precisely, have you prepared yourself to experience when you choose to
attack me, of all people? And what can I do to change your mind apart from
inflicting such pain on you that you will turn as mad as so many others who
choose to attack me? Go through the archives and find people who have come
out of nowhere to attack me. Look what they managed to say before they
vanished. Look at their articles and try to imagine their state of mind. Do
you think it feels good? Do you think it is mindless fun? Do you think
Thomas Bushnell is such a lowlife that he has no other forms of amusement in
his life that he has to tease me? No, of course not. His is an obsession
with me, just as other a few other people have an obsession with me. For
days, perhaps weeks on end, all they think about, nearly all they _do_ is to
post insane ranting and raving against my person. Where are they now? Do
you want to go where they went? Is that why you crawl out of your woodwork
to attack me and harrass me? There are people here who are on psychiatric
medication because of what they got themselves into by attacking me. If you
think me mad or insane, do you think I would care if you died in pain from
what I could do to you? If you think that _I_ am the bad guy here, do you
think I would _not_ find out as much as possible about you in order to hurt
you as much as possible? Remember, _you_ chose to attack and harrass me. It
was your choice to open fire, from nowhere, for no reason whatsoever. I see
it as my _right_ to bring people like you down. You will not be the first.
You will not be the last. Would you _really_ like to be the next?
THINK, William Hodges. This forum is _not_ for your kind of people. Leave.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87sn3f695m.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell is the kind of psychopath who really, deeply and personally
> _enjoys_ hurting people.
Do you have evidence? Other people who agree with you? People who
actually know me?
Are you willing to put that into print somewhere where the libel or
slander laws clearly apply? Or are you just a tedious coward?
Thomas
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233747784144981@naggum.net>
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
| Do you have evidence? Other people who agree with you? People who
| actually know me?
You have said do so yourself, here in this newsgroup. Of course, you forget
what you say, and so do I, most of it, but some things stick. You really do
_enjoy_ hurting people and you do it for no reason whatsoever. You are the
aggressor, Thomas Bushnell. Back down. Quit it. Stop playing games.
| Are you willing to put that into print somewhere where the libel or slander
| laws clearly apply? Or are you just a tedious coward?
You have not slandered me anywhere libel and slander laws clearly apply, so
why do I need to _answer_ your behavior anywhere but where you misbehave?
Perhaps you are just very, very unintelligent and really think that I have
attacked you first. This is not so. You attack me, and I answer you where
you have attacked me. Since you are such a fucking coward that you only use
this forum for it, I have no _reason_ to go after you elsewhere. WHy is this
so hard for your sub-Bush IQ to come to grips with?
You keep bringing this act of bravery up, but I do not see you going out of
your way to seek media where your acts could cause you trouble. Why not?
And why is it so bad to be a coward? I would _love_ to steal the tapes from
your psychiatric sessions to find out what went on in your childhood that
makes you think that you can ask something to do something stupid that you
refuse to do yourself, and then call others cowards in the hopes that that
will make you look anything but like a retarded, angry child. You are such a
pathetic specimen, Thomas Bushnell, and your need to deflect criticism is
such a charming personaltiy trait -- in a child.. A little child emotionally
still at the level of a six-year-old, I would guess. How cute. Except that
you are probably 18 or something equally mature and testosteroneladen.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> This is another curious thing about native English speakers, which I seldom
> see in people who have had the luxury of studying the language.
I think this is a very good point. Part of the problem with my
education was poor English teaching. There was an othodoxy that
grammar would be absorbed "through the skin" and, hey daddio, it was
far more important to talk about polical issues and how we felt about
ecology than to be constrained by the Evil Victorian Orthodoxies of
learning English. (sigh). I also remember watching a lot of videos
taped from the TV of Shakespeare. Hmmm.
:)w
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3D148D49.E09322C5@nyc.rr.com>
Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> One way to get rid of this sign of illiteracy is to avoid
> contractions in writing.
Avoid? I thought contractions in writing were a total no-no.
--
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
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87k7or5ldp.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Avoid? I thought contractions in writing were a total no-no.
Formal writing in English used to say one should never use
contractions, never speak in the first person, and so forth, but this
has fallen by the way. It was really just a fad, actually, and the
fad is dying out.
I find the first person to be a considerable help in some kinds of
formal writing, especially when the point is to convey my own
ideas--which is very frequently the case in philosophy, but, as I
noted, I do avoid contractions in formal writing.
However, Usenet is not formal writing. To say that contractions in
writing are a total no-no, full stop, regardless of what kind of kind
of writing, is hardly right.
Thomas
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233747841009944@naggum.net>
* Kenny Tilton
| Avoid? I thought contractions in writing were a total no-no.
That would work, too. :)
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: ozan s yigit
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <vi41yay26iv.fsf@blue.cs.yorku.ca>
Kenny Tilton:
> Avoid? I thought contractions in writing were a total no-no.
it depends on the type of writing. they are a no-no for formal writing
but not for casual writing [i've seen contractions in e.b. white's essays
for instance] or poetry. lyn dupre recommends completely avoiding them in
negative forms because she suggests the the negation is too easy to miss.
oz
--
there is no such thing as too many cooks. -- anon
From: Julian Stecklina
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87fzzevj6i.fsf@jmmr.no-ip.com>
·········@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> writes:
>
> > The greater problem with old/ancient literature is the metaphorical
> > language. I recently had the pleasure of reading Sophokles'
> > Antigone. But Faust II is also an excellent example.
>
> Huh? You think contemporary writing lacks metaphorical language?
I do not mean that metaphorical language has disappeared, but the
metaphors or symbols employed by contemporary writers are (of course)
more common to the reader of today and thus simpler to understand.
OK. Let's drop that topic, as I am unable to find examples to back my
theory. :)
Regards,
Julian
--
Meine Hompage: http://julian.re6.de
Ich suche eine PCMCIA v1.x type I/II/III Netzwerkkarte.
Ich biete als Tauschobjekt eine v2 100MBit Karte in OVP.
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87d6uio81z.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> writes:
> I do not mean that metaphorical language has disappeared, but the
> metaphors or symbols employed by contemporary writers are (of course)
> more common to the reader of today and thus simpler to understand.
>
> OK. Let's drop that topic, as I am unable to find examples to back my
> theory. :)
Oh, that's certainly true; I misunderstood your meaning. No need for
examples here, they abound in the millions. There are surely plenty
of things in Homer that resounded for ancient hearers that go
completely over my head because they are allusions, metaphors, symbols
pointing at things that are nowhere in my experience.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233667832686785@naggum.net>
* Julian Stecklina
| I know some people in my age (I am 18 years old) that perhaps have not read
| 1000 pages in their whole life...
Then they are ignorant ipso facto.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: JB
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3d13481b_2@news2.newsgroups.com>
James A. Crippen wrote:
> Hmm. This sounds like something that was probably
> imported from
> German way back when. Do you know? I'd bet it came along
> with the
> printing press, but wasn't used before that. Perhaps it
> was
> though... I think (but don't know) that a lot of these
> similar stylistic patterns were carried from one Germanic
> language to another as the Bible was translated with the
> wave of Lutherian thought.
If you look at Guliver's Travels, you will see that nouns
are capitalized. I do not know, however, whether this as
usual in those days, as in texts by Shakespeare nouns are
not capitalized.
Janos Blazi
--
Janos Blazi
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
From: Eduardo Muñoz
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <uit4dy9i4.fsf@jet.es>
Henrik Motakef <··············@web.de> writes:
> ···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
> > > But why did not the same happen in e.g. Germany?
> >
> > I guess anglophone society went through a period of formalness when
> > using the familiar wasn't appropriate, even with people you're
> > familiar with, so to speak; and German society didn't. A very similar
> > thing happened in Latin American Spanish to the 2d-person plural
> > (vosotros, I think).
Correct. In Spain usted/ustedes (2d-personal
singular/plural) are used to indicate respect or
when you talk with an extrange (not friend or
family). Tu/vosotros is more familiar. In Latin
American Spanish usted/ustedes is used
everywhere.
> Another thing that is different between english and german, btw: In
> english, "I" is capitalized, and "you" is not. In german, it's the
> other way around (and forgetting to capitalize "Sie" or "Ihre" etc. is
> considered impolite). How is that handled in other languages?
In spanish pronouns aren't capitalized.
--
Eduardo Mu�oz
In article <·············@jet.es>, "Eduardo =?iso-8859-1?q?Mu=F1oz?="
<···@jet.es> writes:
>In Spain usted/ustedes (2d-personal
>singular/plural) are used to indicate respect or
>when you talk with an extrange (not friend or
>family). Tu/vosotros is more familiar. In Latin
>American Spanish usted/ustedes is used
>everywhere.
If you are from Latin America, then I must take your word for it. But when I
learned a little Spanish in school, I was taught that vosotros is not used in
Latin America but tu is. Do you have first-hand knowledge?
-- Attaining and helping others attain "Aha!" experiences, as satisfying as
attaining and helping others attain orgasms.
From: Eduardo Muñoz
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <uit4cd7ao.fsf@jet.es>
········@aol.comNOSPAM (Dvd Avins) writes:
> If you are from Latin America, then I must take your word for it. But when I
> learned a little Spanish in school, I was taught that vosotros is not used in
> Latin America but tu is. Do you have first-hand knowledge?
Mostly from South American clients. Certainly you
can hear "tu" in an informal conversation but it's
not usual. I don't know if it's widely used with
friends or family.
BTW, I'm from Spain.
--
Eduardo Mu�oz
From: Julian Stecklina
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87n0tohcdj.fsf@blitz.comp.com>
"Eduardo Mu�oz" <···@jet.es> writes:
[...]
> > Another thing that is different between english and german, btw: In
> > english, "I" is capitalized, and "you" is not. In german, it's the
> > other way around (and forgetting to capitalize "Sie" or "Ihre" etc. is
> > considered impolite). How is that handled in other languages?
>
> In spanish pronouns aren't capitalized.
In German pronouns are typically capitalized in letters, but not in
other kinds of writings.
Regards,
Julian
--
Meine Hompage: http://julian.re6.de
Ich suche eine PCMCIA v1.x type I/II/III Netzwerkkarte.
Ich biete als Tauschobjekt eine v2 100MBit Karte in OVP.
From: Hannah Schroeter
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <af72p2$gd6$1@c3po.schlund.de>
Hello!
In article <··············@blitz.comp.com>,
Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> wrote:
>[...]
>In German pronouns are typically capitalized in letters, but not in
>other kinds of writings.
That's right for the capitalization of the more familiar "Du" in
letters but not elsewhere. However, the courteous 2nd person
singular/plural usage of "Sie" is *always* capitalized, as well
as its declined forms.
Kind regards,
Hannah.
From: Julian Stecklina
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87hejrjs6r.fsf@jmmr.no-ip.com>
······@schlund.de (Hannah Schroeter) writes:
> Hello!
>
> In article <··············@blitz.comp.com>,
> Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> wrote:
> >[...]
>
> >In German pronouns are typically capitalized in letters, but not in
> >other kinds of writings.
>
> That's right for the capitalization of the more familiar "Du" in
> letters but not elsewhere. However, the courteous 2nd person
> singular/plural usage of "Sie" is *always* capitalized, as well
> as its declined forms.
Hmm.. Never used singular "Sie" in anything that would not be closely
related to a letter. :)
Regards,
Julian
--
Meine Hompage: http://julian.re6.de
Ich suche eine PCMCIA v1.x type I/II/III Netzwerkkarte.
Ich biete als Tauschobjekt eine v2 100MBit Karte in OVP.
From: Thomas F. Burdick
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <xcvd6ukpfzm.fsf@tornado.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
Henrik Motakef <··············@web.de> writes:
> ···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
> > > But why did not the same happen in e.g. Germany?
> >
> > I guess anglophone society went through a period of formalness when
> > using the familiar wasn't appropriate, even with people you're
> > familiar with, so to speak; and German society didn't. A very similar
> > thing happened in Latin American Spanish to the 2d-person plural
> > (vosotros, I think).
>
> I wouldn't think so. For example, some 100 years ago, it was usual
> that children used the formal form ("Sie" instead of "Du") talking to
> their parents (at least in "better" families). Doesn't look as if
> there were any lack of formalness back then ;-)
I was thinking more along the lines of formalness among peers.
Children speaking to parents isn't exactly a peer relationship.
Students or coworkers speaking to eachother is more what I was
thinking of. And the fact that in English, parents started referring
to their children using the formal pronoun (and not just Americans,
who have been known to call their kids "mister", "madam", and "sir").
> Another thing that is different between english and german, btw: In
> english, "I" is capitalized, and "you" is not. In german, it's the
> other way around (and forgetting to capitalize "Sie" or "Ihre" etc. is
> considered impolite). How is that handled in other languages?
In Italian, pronouns aren't capitalized, except Lei/La, which is
formal. It even works in contracted words, which looks really weird.
Eg, the informal "arrivederci" vs the formal "arrivederLa".
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <jtpQ8.261468$352.22673@sccrnsc02>
"Julian Stecklina" <··········@web.de> wrote in message ···················@blitz.comp.com...
>
> That is indeed strange. English had a pronoun for the singular second
> person: thou ( = "du" in German ). But it is very obscure to me that
> is has been dropped from speech except in some very, very rare
> areas. I read some articles about so-called Shakespeare English that
> claimed that "thou" was considered to be unpolite and thus slowly
> faded away in everyday use.
`Thou' is the singular second-person familiar pronoun. It indicates
extreme familiarity with the person and would have been quite
insulting to use among peers.
"Julian Stecklina" <··········@web.de> wrote in message
···················@blitz.comp.com...
| I read some articles about so-called Shakespeare English that
| claimed that "thou" was considered to be unpolite and thus slowly
| faded away in everyday use.
Maybe politeness is achieved through distinction, not by a specific
combination of letters. Thus losing the familiar form automatically pulled
down the formerly distinguished version.
Robert
From: James A. Crippen
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3it4d703z.fsf@kappa.unlambda.com>
"Robert Monfera" <·······@fisec.com> writes:
> "Julian Stecklina" <··········@web.de> wrote in message
> ···················@blitz.comp.com...
>
> | I read some articles about so-called Shakespeare English that
> | claimed that "thou" was considered to be unpolite and thus slowly
> | faded away in everyday use.
>
> Maybe politeness is achieved through distinction, not by a specific
> combination of letters. Thus losing the familiar form automatically pulled
> down the formerly distinguished version.
Well, yes. It should be obvious that that's exactly what happened.
English now makes the formal vs informal distinction by raising the
'tone' or 'style' of speech, and by a bunch of other changes in
pragmatics, discourse, and vocabulary. But the formal/informal
distinction has been basically lost from English grammar and
morphology, where it used to exist. That's one of the reasons why
modern English speakers often find Shakespeare so confusing, because
distinctions that are today made in discourse were then made in
grammar, etc.
Consider "Hey, you!" versus "You, sir!". Which one is more formal?
They both use the same pronoun... In middle English I'd bet (but we
don't really have any middle English speakers handy) that both would
have been considered about equally formal... (I'm not excited enough
about this to go searching through the middle English corpora to prove
the point, but I'd bet someone else more enterprising has already done
the job.)
'james
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
From: John Wiseman
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m2660dr6tp.fsf@server.local.lemon>
Matt Curtin <········@interhack.net> writes:
> ·······@panix.com (David Combs) writes:
>
> > He/she (why can't we just say "he" OR "she"
> > OR "hsee" or *any* *single* word?)
>
> We can use a single word. "He."
>
> The rules of English grammar are pretty clear on this, attempts at
> politically correct manipulations of the language notwithstanding.
From what I've read in multiple places, it's more the other way
around. "He" as a gender-neutral pronoun came about because of
meddling prescriptivist grammarians and an act of English Parliament.
Long-standing tradition before then, and the custom I use because it
feels quite natural, is to use "they" as a singular gender-neutral
pronoun.
I recommend trying it. It feels good.
Pushing grammatical boundaries back to the future,
John Wiseman
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233615371462919@naggum.net>
* John Wiseman
| From what I've read in multiple places, it's more the other way around. "He"
| as a gender-neutral pronoun came about because of meddling prescriptivist
| grammarians and an act of English Parliament.
Huh? An act of British Parliament? Never heard that one before. (I have no
idea what an English Parliament is, so I assume it is British. If it is the
language English that has a Parliament, I have never heard of that, either.)
| Long-standing tradition before then, and the custom I use because it feels
| quite natural, is to use "they" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun.
There is some record of illiterate use of "they" in this function, but that
usage lost grounds a _really_ long time ago. Lots of things have turned out
to be bad ideas, yet become revived when people of little clue need to find
ways to be protest some authority or another, and think the right way is to
use something that predates the decision they protest. This is really funny
to watch from the outside. Arguing with tradition alone is quaintly British,
but selectivity in adopting lost traditions has always appeared affected to
me. It can have some effect, as in Do What Thou Wilst, but overall, I think
it reeks of silliness more than anything else.
| I recommend trying it. It feels good.
They does not know grammar, but they knows what they likes.
Feels terribly grating on my ear, almost as literate as various "dialects" of
English spoken by people who go out of their way to sound illiterate because
some part of their misguided notion of identity is tied up with some "social
background" or something, denial of which is communicated through learning to
speak and write properly. Most of the time, people who do this do not even
know what the right thing is, which I find utterly amazing. What _is_ the
point of breaking a "rule" if you do not know what it is? Of course, lack of
knowledge of something does not imply a protest, but he who lacks knowledge
will adjust his behavior when brought up to date. People who identify with
some defect will do the opposite -- they will make certain that they defect
is more easily detectible.
But how does it work to say something politically incorrect with "they" as a
singular third-person pronoun? Nothing worse than to hold unpopular opinions
seems hypocritical when you go to such trouble to appease other people's
sensitivities. Even the expression of some novel idea that _could_ offend
someone, somewhere, appears to me an insult to those whose hypersensibilities
you sought to protect and serve by avoiding "sexist" language. Selectivity
in which group you seek to offend the least seems a guarantee that the very
group you want to protect from self-inflicted pain and anguish will turn on
you if you say something else in their protected language that they do not
like. The whole concept of changing your language in order to appease people
who lose their marbles because they are too immature to take care of their
own emotions seems so frought with danger of losing the ability to express
yourself if you should happen to disagree with anybody at all that the cost
must be weighed against the loss of not appeasing the first group. My stand
on this issue has probably come from letting the pendulum swing equally far
to the other side, but I consider appeasing hypersensitive dweebs appallingly
obsequious, the kind of disgusting servitude to mediocrity that directors so
decry when they are forced to conform to movie ratings, that musical artists
despair over when their artistic expression is curtailed in the name of the
"children" or somesuch totalitarian government-as-parent nonsense, etc. If
people cannot even deal with a masculine pronoun, just how pampered do they
have to be to quit whining? (A recent ruling by Norway's press ethics board
stated unequivocally that an image of a dildo on the front page of a weekly
magazine supplement to a newspaper was not unethical conduct, and the feeble-
minded loser who whined about this only caused the front page he got so upset
about to be published anew to an audience who probably would never have cared.
In the past, the ethics board has ruled against religious nuts unable to deal
with such upsetting topics as human sexuality and contraception, so there is
no particular reason to rejoice, but I am still happy that yet another dork
saw his attempts to push his personal sensitivities on all of society through
government controls resoundingly squashed.)
The inevitable effect that politically correct affectations produce is that
your readers will _know_ that you find it more important to express your
dislike of the English language and your political affiliation with "radical"
groups than any actual ideas that are worth communicating. This is, of
course, perfectly OK if you have nothing to say to begin with, but if you
have anything to say that would cause someone, somewhere, to go up in flames
(and it is probably not worth saying unless someone does), you do _not_ want
them to have a _legitimate_ gripe with your politicized language. Just look
at this newsgroup: we have people here who have absolutely _nothing_ to say,
yet complain about the lack of "measured debate" when their anal-retentive
word-list-based stylometer beeps. Simple people can evidently be derailed by
the simplest mechanisms available, losing all track of any _purpose_ to their
"measured debate", and unless you do this in order to know them by name to
avoid wasting time on what appears to be intelligent conversation because
they have mimicked the appearance of far more intelligent people, like some
insects have evolved to mimick the appearance of _their_ predators, it is
clearly unwise to antagonize readers who would more than likely appreciate
your argumentation if you did not use a style that only communicates that
your goal is to express dissatisfaction with something they may actually
value highly. There are different kinds of effects to measure here, too.
Using a polysyllabic lexicon, fewer people with nothing worthwhile to say
will choose to chime in -- a larger vocabularly works like a repellent for
the dreadfully stupid, and much more efficiently than countering inevitable
meaningless blathering after the fact with attempts to inform them of their
failure to grasp the most basic arguments or points. This, of course, is
just another form of stylistic affectation, intentionally designed to ward
off a certain class of readers. It is no less noble as such than a desire to
confront and annoy those who find radical faminism to be entirely beside the
point, but at least it may be argued that getting rid of the pollutants in a
forum preventatively is worth the cost of a slightly more flowery style less
emanable to speed reading. One should, naturally, ignore such things if the
contents is worth reading, but, like, novelty spelling, broken grammar is a
message that the author cares more about his pet peeves than his readers.
Unfortunately, there is a political counter-effect in still using "man" to
refer to human beings in a climate of recognized verbal allergies -- people
who are self-hypersensitized about this issue will go nuts when they read
_real_ English, proving that they are far more interested in their own pet
sensitivity that absolutely anything else. I mean, people who rise from
anonymity to say stupid things about the "method of debate" instead of
actually doing something on their own that would help attain that elevated
form of discourse they so admire, tell me that they are _completely_ vacuous,
have nothing whatsoever to offer anyone, and should be kill-filed immediately
if it were not for their massively annoying behavior, which one should help
stomp out. The meta-debate is the scourge of USENET, but whether it is some
jerk who goes bananas because someone said the F word or some jerk who goes
bananas because someone said the H word (no, not Hell, "he"). it is equally
disturbing and at cross-purpose to any forum not explicitly catering to the
hypersensitive crowds. Like my home is full of cat hairs to keep those pesky
allergics out, I think one should explicitly annoy hypersenstiive people so
they "out" themselves. Well, no, not really, but it is important not to let
some group of immature emotional freaks or other handicapped people set the
agenda -- catering to their special needs should be a benevolent gesture, not
a damn requirement forced upon all people everywhere. Rewarding deficiencies
causes people to desire _not_ to be normal, and they tie their identity to
their deficiencies, just like dialects and other regional mispronunciations.
People who consider normal bad should be treated for their delusions, not
rewarded with dictionary entries and style guides that tell them it is OK to
"feel excluded" because you have boobs and some author used "man" to refer to
human beings or "he" to refer to what you wanted to be female. Feelings like
that are just plain wrong and should _not_ be anybody else's problem.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: James A. Crippen
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3r8j170ob.fsf@kappa.unlambda.com>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> | Long-standing tradition before then, and the custom I use because it feels
> | quite natural, is to use "they" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun.
>
> There is some record of illiterate use of "they" in this function,
Erik Naggum, are you a native speaker of English? Were you raised in
a family that spoke English, all of whom were native speakers? If not
then shut up about illiteracy in English. You can argue all you want
about literacy in Norwegian (I'll even allow you to argue about both
bokmal and nynorsk and their associated dialects even though you were
probably only raised speaking one of them), but you are not allowed to
argue about what is correct and what is not in a language you were not
born into, no matter *how* confident you feel about your education in
this language. If you are not a native speaker of English born into a
family that spoke English, and I don't care how early you learned it
in school -- that *doesn't* matter, then you can very well shut the
FUCK UP for once about a subject you are *not* qualified to discuss.
I *HATE* when non-native speakers get noisy about a language that's
not their own. Usually it's English speakers arguing about a language
they learned long ago and feel qualified to talk about. But they have
no right to because they weren't born into it -- their brain did not
specifically adapt to that language from youth. It's less common for
someone, particularly a European, to make such a statement. But it
occasionally happens, and such people should be considered just as
ignorant and loudmouthed as the annoying American is discussing some
language they barely learned in high school.
Much of modern linguistics still depends on 'feel'. Although
sometimes it's obvious that a particular sentence, word usage, or
pronounciation is incorrect, there are still plenty of boundary cases
where the syntactic (or phonological, or semantic) rules laid out by
theory may come into conflict with an individual *native* speaker's
opinion. In these cases it is *invariable* that the linguist
reconsider their theory, making allowances if possible for the
variance of opinions, or perhaps completely revise or discard the
theory if the changes do not fit its framework. This process is
similar to how physics theories are tried and tried again until they
follow reality. The opinion of the physicists developing the theory
does not matter -- it is *reality* which matters. Nowhere along the
line will a linguist ever consider that the *speaker* is incorrect.
This is simply not possible. There are such things as performance
errors, and these happen quite often, particularly in rapid speech.
But when a speaker is asked to reconsider an utterance and they hold
firm to their feeling of grammaticality, then their opinion is not
opinion -- it must be considered *fact*.
The archaic and authoritarian viewpoint of *prescriptivist*
grammarians who feel that they must impose their will on others, or
must belittle others because their speech does not coincide with what
the prescriptivist views as 'true' or 'official', that viewpoint has
long since been proven to be obsolete and has nothing to do with
linguistic reality. Modern linguistics and by extension the writing
and speaking arts of any language are more concerned with
*descriptivist* grammar, that is trying to describe how people
*actually* use the language they have inherited from their forebears.
It is unfortunate that foreign (and even native!) languages are still
taught in nearly every educational system across the globe by methods
that are highly authoritarian. Perhaps in the first few years of
learning a language this approach is necessary, but once a certain
(ill-defined) point of competency is reached the language learner must
*stop* listening to the teacher and *start* listening to those native
speakers that the learner is surrounded by. Language is *far* more
dynamic than can be taught in a classroom. The rigid authoritarian
style that foreign languages are taught with around the globe results
in foreign speakers of languages that fail to listen to the dynamic of
the language, and instead rely on textbook rules which can only
approximate the true reality of speech and writing.
The best example of this was a comment I once read by a linguist and
ESL (English as a Second Language) teacher who remarked on Europeans
and their attitude about English. Nearly all Europeans not raised
speaking English, those who learned it in school, will not accept even
the most constructive criticism of their English usage by native
speakers of English. They all feel that since English was drilled
into them by their teachers in school for so long and so hard that
they could not possibly be wrong, even when to a native speaker of
English the error seems obviously incorrect. It should be granted
that this is an opinion, said rather lightheartedly, but the fact that
a linguist and ESL teacher (who should be fairly enlightened about
language use and teaching issues) held it gives the opinion some
weight.
> | I recommend trying it. It feels good.
It does. I use 'they' in this sense quite often, and unconsciously.
> They does not know grammar, but they knows what they likes.
Shut up. This attitude was discarded in the 50s. Your ridiculous
parody of a nonexistent speech pattern only serves to point out how
illiterate *you* are about a basic fact of language. Chomsky
overturned the entire linguistic world by claiming that maybe little
kids are better speakers of language than their parents are, because
their parents think about language too much whereas children just use
it without thought. Assholes like you who continue to pound from the
pulpit about the decline in language proficiency are like twits who
would claim that the whales are losing their skills at singing
whalesong, or that horses are losing their ability to gallop. The
ability to speak languages correctly is *hardwired* into the brain.
If a human child is exposed to language they will pick it up, no
matter what the language is. It has nothing to do with race, gender,
creed, ethnicity, hair color, or any other factor. Language is *built
in* and the only examples of *real* language deficiency are those such
as aphasia, aglossia, etc.
OBTW, if you were trying to approximate some variation of Black
English Vernacular as spoken in most of the US, then you wanted
something closer to:
"They don't know grammar, but they know what they like."
But I don't speak BEV particularly well. I can understand it but
can't produce it. But I can verify that the 'do' and 'not' would be
contracted almost invariably. And use of the singular 'does'
conflicts, even in BEV, with the plurality of the pronoun 'they'. In
BEV typically it's the singular pronouns that get plural forms of
verbs, not the other way around. 'He do' versus 'he does'. Not *'they
does' or *'we does'.
[... many many lines of senseless opinionated horseshit deleted ...]
I tried hard to read through your arguments hoping to find something
that was other than blatantly uninformed opinion and meaningless
rhetoric. But I could find nothing. You should either admit that you
don't know what you're talking about, or just not talk about it.
The basic fact is that human children will grow up to talk like the
people around them talk. If they can communicate effectively with the
people around them than that is all that is biologically necessary.
If such a person then moves to a different situation where people talk
differently then it is up to the individual to either learn how to
talk how these different people talk, to continue talking how they
originally learned and hope for some sufficient level of
communication, or to not communicate at all. This is a personal
choice that each person must make on their own. It is not your job,
nor is it anyone else's, to decide what language a person may or may
not speak. It is *particularly* not anyone's decision to decide what
is 'acceptable' speech and what is not. If the speech allows
communication within some subset of the human population then it is
acceptable. End of the discussion.
BTW, I am a native speaker of English. I live in the US of A, and
have been bombarded by English for most of my life (excepting a few
sojourns to the bush villages or to foreign countries where English is
either a second language or is not spoken). My opinion on English is
perfectly valid for normal North American speech, in most dialects
thereof, since I have been able to communicate without fail in almost
every part of the North American continent where some variant of
English is the primary language. With all that said, I think you will
note the use of the word 'they' as a reference to an unspecific gender
of third person singular number at least once in the message I have
written above. Considering that I write in a style that is
essentially equivalent to my speech (I make a point of doing so, in
fact), I think it is safe to say that the word 'they' as a third
person singular nongendered pronoun is acceptable English.
Take your uninformed opinions to alt.flame, alt.religion.kibology, or
talk.abortion where they belong. And take your split infinitive rules
with you. And just to wish you well on your way, I'll send you along
with some of my own.
#.(warning 'flame-bait :level 'maximum)
I should mention that it was prescriptivist teachers who used to beat
my grandmother for speaking Tlingit at her boarding school. They
would say that that 'heathen language' is forbidden by God and that
she should learn to be like a good 'white person' and not speak it.
The only reason this sort of crap doesn't go on today in America is
because there are laws against it now. But there are still plenty of
maniacs who'd like to bring back such attitudes into the educational
system.
How'd you like your kids to immigrate to America and get beaten for
speaking Norwegian in school, Erik? Does that sound fun? It's the
same attitude. And the same as yours.
Much love,
'james
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
In article <··············@kappa.unlambda.com>, ·····@unlambda.com (James A.
Crippen) writes:
>"They don't know grammar, but they know what they like."
>
>But I don't speak BEV particularly well. I can understand it but
>can't produce it. But I can verify that the 'do' and 'not' would be
>contracted almost invariably. And use of the singular 'does'
>conflicts, even in BEV, with the plurality of the pronoun 'they'. In
>BEV typically it's the singular pronouns that get plural forms of
>verbs, not the other way around. 'He do' versus 'he does'. Not *'they
>does' or *'we does'.
I think what I'd here on the streets of Brooklyn is exactly as you wrote it,
but if the "they" was actually plural in this case I would here "They don't
know grammar, but they know what they likes". That's another deviation from SWE
(standard written English) so bullies may consider it illeterate, but it
preserves the number distinction in the sentence, making it easy to understand.
-- Attaining and helping others attain "Aha!" experiences, as satisfying as
attaining and helping others attain orgasms.
From: James A. Crippen
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <m3fzzh3smf.fsf@kappa.unlambda.com>
········@aol.comNOSPAM (Dvd Avins) writes:
> I think what I'd here on the streets of Brooklyn is exactly as you
> wrote it, but if the "they" was actually plural in this case I would
> here "They don't know grammar, but they know what they
> likes". That's another deviation from SWE (standard written English)
> so bullies may consider it illeterate, but it preserves the number
> distinction in the sentence, making it easy to understand.
I think that that was exactly what I was looking for. But I don't
have any BEV speakers handy outside my door. I'd have to go down to
the store to find any, and it's late at night here. And they'd
probably look at me funny for asking them such a strange question out
of the blue anyway.
Oddly, and completely OT, I found out recently that Anchorage, Alaska
(my hometown, see sig) is the second most ethnically diverse city per
capita of any city in the US. The first? Honolulu, Hawai`i.
'james
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <kk9elf13q1u.fsf@glug.org>
·····@unlambda.com (James A. Crippen) writes:
> I should mention that it was prescriptivist teachers who used to beat
> my grandmother for speaking Tlingit at her boarding school. They
> would say that that 'heathen language' is forbidden by God and that
> she should learn to be like a good 'white person' and not speak it.
> The only reason this sort of crap doesn't go on today in America is
> because there are laws against it now. But there are still plenty of
> maniacs who'd like to bring back such attitudes into the educational
> system.
against this historical censorship why do you prescribe people to self-censor?
your position seems inconsistent to me (in any language).
thi
From: Alexander Schmolck
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <yfswussg8h6.fsf@black132.ex.ac.uk>
·····@unlambda.com (James A. Crippen) writes:
> The basic fact is that human children will grow up to talk like the
> people around them talk. If they can communicate effectively with the
Not necessarily -- otherwise you wouldn't get creoles.
alex
"Alexander Schmolck" <··········@gmx.net> wrote in message
····················@black132.ex.ac.uk...
> ·····@unlambda.com (James A. Crippen) writes:
>
> > The basic fact is that human children will grow up to talk like the
> > people around them talk. If they can communicate effectively with the
>
> Not necessarily -- otherwise you wouldn't get creoles.
>
No. That's why we get creoles, they are picking up both languages
as well as the compromises in pronuncitation, grammer, and meaning
made when the elders attempt to cross the language barrier. Creoles
don't spring up overnight, the languages had to be effective
communication tools even during their evolution.
--
Geoff
From: Alexander Schmolck
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <yfs7kksfdpv.fsf@black132.ex.ac.uk>
> "Alexander Schmolck" <··········@gmx.net> wrote in message
> ····················@black132.ex.ac.uk...
> > ·····@unlambda.com (James A. Crippen) writes:
> >
> > > The basic fact is that human children will grow up to talk like the
> > > people around them talk. If they can communicate effectively with the
> >
> > Not necessarily -- otherwise you wouldn't get creoles.
>
> No. That's why we get creoles, they are picking up both languages
> as well as the compromises in pronuncitation, grammer, and meaning
> made when the elders attempt to cross the language barrier. Creoles
Creolization is *not* just some more or less random mishmash of what children
pick up from different speakers -- the pidgins of adults are fundamentally
different from the creoles their children are constructing out of them (so
they don't "just talk like people around them".). I don't even think the input
of different pidgins is necessary for creolization to happen (I vaguely
remember having come across studies about the creolization by deaf-children of
the pidgin sign language their non-deaf parents taught them). It is claimed
that Pidgins lack certain universals of "normal" languages, whereas Creoles
don't, which makes them intersting for innateness debates in linguistics.
If you want to follow this up have a look at Bickerton's (or someone else's in
the field) work.
> don't spring up overnight, the languages had to be effective
> communication tools even during their evolution.
alex
In article <···············@black132.ex.ac.uk>, Alexander Schmolck
<··········@gmx.net> writes:
>Creolization is *not* just some more or less random mishmash of what children
>pick up from different speakers -- the pidgins of adults are fundamentally
>different from the creoles their children are constructing out of them (so
>they don't "just talk like people around them".). I don't even think the
>input
>of different pidgins is necessary for creolization to happen (I vaguely
>remember having come across studies about the creolization by deaf-children
>of
>the pidgin sign language their non-deaf parents taught them). It is claimed
>that Pidgins lack certain universals of "normal" languages, whereas Creoles
>don't, which makes them intersting for innateness debates in linguistics.
>
>If you want to follow this up have a look at Bickerton's (or someone else's
>in
>the field) work.
>
See McWhorter's book "The Power of Babel" for an interesting read on the
natural history of languages, including pidgins, creoles, innateness, dialects,
and several other topics.
-- Attaining and helping others attain "Aha!" experiences, as satisfying as
attaining and helping others attain orgasms.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233660303542269@naggum.net>
* James A. Crippen
| Erik Naggum, are you a native speaker of English? Were you raised in a
| family that spoke English, all of whom were native speakers?
Since it appears that your elevated emotional state tries to deny that you
had a question, I shall all the same try to answer that question and ignore
your psychotic state of mind for now.
I am biliingual. I have been raised in a Norwegian family near Oslo, but
with several American NATO officer families as neighbors and personal
friends, their kids my playmates, and have spent at least half of the years
from 4 to 15 in American households, albeit those of NATO officer families
living in Oslo for up to 8 years at a time. I even went to American churches
in Oslo with these families and I have spent more than 4 years total in the
U.S., myself. When I visit, I am routinely taken for a native speaker and
expected to know things that all natives know and sometimes have to flash a
foreign credit card in shops to inform people of my non-native status. I am,
of course, not up to speed on current language developments, and I prefer a
written form that is much more formal and neutral than most Americans use,
mainly because I am uncertain about the effect of most slang and idioms in
written use, but I have also worked with linguists and lexicographers, have
personal friends working for Houghton-Mifflin on their dictionaries, and
spend more the 3/4 of my telephone time with Americans. Norwegian culture is
also permeated, if not saturated, with Americanisms. 90% of all movies shown
in Oslo are American. >95% of my 1200+ volume personal library are written
by Americans and published in the United States. I do not recognize when I
switch between American English and Norwegian in mixed company.
Next time you feel like George W. Bush after the WTC, ask a simple question!
| How'd you like your kids to immigrate to America and get beaten for speaking
| Norwegian in school, Erik? Does that sound fun? It's the same attitude.
| And the same as yours.
Your hurt feelings do not constitute a valid source of information about a
reality you do not know, nor allow your assumptions emanating from them to
form reasonable grounds for extrapolating into yet more retarded emotional
responses. The moment you lapse into the confused state of mind where your
feelings create the reality in which you respond to others, you are, in fact,
clinically psychotic. It is what makes the phrase "to go mad with rage"
technically accurate. Dealing with psychotics is not my strong suit, nor is
dealing with children who want to appear to be grown up, but could you cut
the fucking crap and sit still and perhaps regain your normal composure
_before_ you reply to this message? I realize that communication with you is
going to fail with an overwhelming probabiliy, but GROW THE FUCK UP before
you try to respond and maybe you can beat the odds. That is, if you had
anything to say beyond voicing your immature emotions from being prematurely
offended by what was not even so.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Lieven Marchand
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87znxobiu1.fsf@wyrd.be>
·····@unlambda.com (James A. Crippen) writes:
> The archaic and authoritarian viewpoint of *prescriptivist*
> grammarians who feel that they must impose their will on others, or
> must belittle others because their speech does not coincide with what
> the prescriptivist views as 'true' or 'official', that viewpoint has
> long since been proven to be obsolete and has nothing to do with
> linguistic reality. Modern linguistics and by extension the writing
> and speaking arts of any language are more concerned with
> *descriptivist* grammar, that is trying to describe how people
> *actually* use the language they have inherited from their forebears.
I think the necessary balance between the two approaches has been lost
in English. There is a need, both for native speakers and for advanced
foreign speakers, for a book that defines a generally agreed upon
standard language that one can use in general communication. Quirk
doesn't apply. Most other languages still call that "the grammar
book". English calls these things Manuals of Style and other
euphemisms. This doesn't mean a lot of the sentences used by native
speakers that aren't in the grammar are wrong, but even native
speakers wouldn't use them in a job application review as an example.
--
Bored, now.
Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be>
From: Alain Picard
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <86lm98q600.fsf@gondolin.local.net>
·····@unlambda.com (James A. Crippen) writes:
> I *HATE* when non-native speakers get noisy about a language that's
> not their own.
You may hate it, but it doesn't mean they're not right.
You would be amazed at how often such speakers have a much better
grasp of english qua language, precisely _because_ they have had to
work for many years to internalize its rules. I have met numerous
native english speakers who have commented that my mastery of english
was better than theirs. In fact, my mastery of english is now far
better than that of French, my native tongue. Should I hold my
tongue (pun intended) on matters of English grammar?
Surely you jest.
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87fzzgjvut.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Alain Picard <·······················@optushome.com.au> writes:
> You would be amazed at how often such speakers have a much better
> grasp of english qua language, precisely _because_ they have had to
> work for many years to internalize its rules. I have met numerous
> native english speakers who have commented that my mastery of english
> was better than theirs. In fact, my mastery of english is now far
> better than that of French, my native tongue. Should I hold my
> tongue (pun intended) on matters of English grammar?
I think the problem is that the actual grammatical rules of English
(or any other language) are very complex, and you simply can't find
them in any book. Linguists have been trying to write a correct
and complete syntax for English for a long time, and it's a major
ongoing research project, whose end is nowhere near in sight.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233680042545356@naggum.net>
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
| I think the problem is that the actual grammatical rules of English
| (or any other language) are very complex, and you simply can't find
| them in any book. Linguists have been trying to write a correct
| and complete syntax for English for a long time, and it's a major
| ongoing research project, whose end is nowhere near in sight.
ISBN 0-582-51734-6
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87hejwibl0.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> | I think the problem is that the actual grammatical rules of English
> | (or any other language) are very complex, and you simply can't find
> | them in any book. Linguists have been trying to write a correct
> | and complete syntax for English for a long time, and it's a major
> | ongoing research project, whose end is nowhere near in sight.
>
> ISBN 0-582-51734-6
Quirk's book is a serious and very good attempt on what was the latest
work in the linguistics (or grammatology, at least) of English. My
assertion is that the text is not, in fact, perfect. It is, in fact,
very good--famously so--but not actually a complete and comprehensive
grammar. It's probably the best work of its time (it's over fifteen
years out of date now, IIRC), and research has moved on.
It's also a pretty good proof of my point--excellent fluent non-native
speakers of English have probably not read it (have you? do you think
it's a normal text for, say, a German university teaching the English
language to ordinary undergraduates? [outside linguistics departments,
that is]). And even Quirk does not pretend to cover all the major
dialectical variations in the language. Many native speakers have a
vastly better ear for the grammatical flexibility of the language--and
its rigidities--than do foreign learners for just this reason.
The foreign learner has absorbed--sometimes very well--a set of formal
rules for the language which have been typically somewhat ossified
compared to the actual speech of actual speakers. And it's those
actual native speakers which define correct usage, at least for their
own dialects.
I've heard people wax about regular and idealized Latin is, with such
a strict set of rules, and no bending of them, just follow the rules,
and the mapping from syntax->meaning is just so much happier than
messy modern languages. This notion is quickly disabused if you gain
any facility in reading ordinary Latin (more than just the highest
poetry, that is) from the period where it was a living language. In
the dialogue of Terence (stylized at that!) you hear all the chaos and
"sloppiness" and grammatical weirdness that characterizes actual
spoken speech of that or any language.
I've heard people brand new to the study of New Testament Greek
pontificate about how in Greek every word just has one meaning, unlike
the complexities of English. What bogosity! They've only been taught
one meaning; a brief tour through Liddell and Scott will disabuse that
away from even the most casual obsever.
However, good foreign learners typically *do* stand a good chance at
being superior than native speakers at mastering the formal rules of
the standard dialect. The reason is probably a combination of two
factors: the whole language is new, so they don't need to learn the
standard written dialect as a set of weird rules not in their normal
speech, and two, they recognize and accept the need to learn the
standard dialect as a foreign language.
A native speaker of English, by contrast, has to learn the standard
written dialect as a maze of weird rules, independently memorized, a
hard-to-organize set of deviations from the dialect they know in their
bones. It can be done (it's easier than learning a foreign language),
but it's usually skipped.
Thomas
From: Boris Smilga
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87hejwus9s.fsf@ganglion.bhasha.com>
·········@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>
> > * Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> > | I think the problem is that the actual grammatical rules of English
> > | (or any other language) are very complex, and you simply can't find
> > | them in any book. Linguists have been trying to write a correct
> > | and complete syntax for English for a long time, and it's a major
> > | ongoing research project, whose end is nowhere near in sight.
> >
> > ISBN 0-582-51734-6
>
> Quirk's book is a serious and very good attempt on what was the latest
> work in the linguistics (or grammatology, at least) of English. My
> assertion is that the text is not, in fact, perfect. <...>
You (I mean, Erik and Thomas) are speaking about different things.
Any given language has a thing which is called "usage". For sake of
simplicity it can be defined as the set of all speech acts performed
by all speakers of the language throughout its history. Some
languages also have "grammars" which are systems of more or less
formalised rules that constrain the usages of respective languages in
a certain way.
A well-conceived grammar tends to describe the current usage of the
language; thus, it is in many aspects like a standard of an
algorythmich language. But, since the only thing which constrains the
usage is mutual understanding between language speakers, no grammar
can describe the usage accurately. This is a fundamental problem of
the "categorical" linguistics, and one of the primary incentives of
the statistical NLP (see, e.g. Manning and Sch�tze, "Foundations of
statistical natural language processing", 1.2).
It is hardly surprising that Erik, who strongly advocates following
standards in programming languages, also pushes his fellow Usenet
users to comply to the grammar of human languages.
On the contrary, when Thomas writes: "actual grammatical rules", he
means a description of the usage, not a set of standardisation rules.
Yours,
B. Smilga.
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <873cvf68mv.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Ah, Boris Smilga's message is very nicely put; thanks for the sensible
clarifications.
Thomas
In article <··············@ganglion.bhasha.com>, Boris Smilga
<·····@bhasha.com> writes:
>You (I mean, Erik and Thomas) are speaking about different things.
>Any given language has a thing which is called "usage". For sake of
>simplicity it can be defined as the set of all speech acts performed
>by all speakers of the language throughout its history. Some
>languages also have "grammars" which are systems of more or less
>formalised rules that constrain the usages of respective languages in
>a certain way.
From the perspective of linguistics, *all* languages (and dialects, etc.) have
grammars, and it is the job of linguists to discern, not create, them. This
corresponds with the usage you percieve in Thomas's posts, and would be
considered the "correct" usage in current highbrow English.
However, because textbooks that teach grammar have traditionally 1) claimed to
be omniscient and 2) been called "grammar"s for short, your usage (which is
also the one you perceive in Erik's posts) is understandable.
This issustrates both the need for standards that allow people of diverse
backgrounds to communicate and that there are established patterns of usage
which conflict with those standards that cannot simply be dismissed as
"incorrect" except in a particular context (such as cross-background highbrow
discussion).
>A well-conceived grammar tends to describe the current usage of the
>language; thus, it is in many aspects like a standard of an
>algorythmich language. But, since the only thing which constrains the
>usage is mutual understanding between language speakers, no grammar
>can describe the usage accurately. This is a fundamental problem of
>the "categorical" linguistics, and one of the primary incentives of
>the statistical NLP (see, e.g. Manning and Sch�tze, "Foundations of
>statistical natural language processing", 1.2).
>
>It is hardly surprising that Erik, who strongly advocates following
>standards in programming languages, also pushes his fellow Usenet
>users to comply to the grammar of human languages.
>
>On the contrary, when Thomas writes: "actual grammatical rules", he
>means a description of the usage, not a set of standardisation rules.
-- Attaining and helping others attain "Aha!" experiences, as satisfying as
attaining and helping others attain orgasms.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233749276097183@naggum.net>
* Boris Smilga
| It is hardly surprising that Erik, who strongly advocates following standards
| in programming languages, also pushes his fellow Usenet users to comply to
| the grammar of human languages.
Interesting connection, but entirely false. Standards have clearly defined
scope. If you want to do something within that scope, and there is standard
way to do it, you do it _only_ that way. If what you is not in the standard
or not within its scope, you are free to do it any way you like. Some parts
of grammar are standardized. My stand is: Follow those.
| On the contrary, when Thomas writes: "actual grammatical rules", he
| means a description of the usage, not a set of standardisation rules.
There is con contradiction here at all. In fact, the two are overlapping.
If not, the standard rules would spring into existence only when all of them
were known, as opposed to be written rules that people decided to follow, but
as all writing, and standards, laws, etc, they are subject to change.
Sometimes, I think people who see me argue for standards do not know how
standards are made, probably because they are equally ignorant of how laws
are made, indeed, how all human endeavor that seeks to strike a balance
between descriptive and prescriptive. Standards are not freaky religions.
(Some reach for "religion" to insult people as soon as they do not get their
will, but let us ignore immature children still protesting against their
parents for now.)
Standards, laws, just about anything people decide on, are best efforts with
current knowledge. If you want to implement unwind-protect, here is how you
do it. Anything else is _wrong_. If you want to spell "thought", here is
how you do it. Anything else is _wrong_. If you want to spell "through",
you can choose between "thru" or "through", but anything else is _wrong_.
If you want to purchase something from someone in a store, you can have any
price in mind _except_ 0, and you can carry it any way you like, _except_
hidden away in your jacket without paying for it. Most standards in simple
areas like programming are positively prescriptive -- do this -- while most
laws are negatively prescriptive -- don't do this. Most rules of grammar are
of the "you have one choice" kind, but which rule to apply and whether to
apply it is _not_ similarly restricted.
Why is it so hard for people to understand how standards, laws, grammar, etc,
work, and why do so many people have to _rebel_ against them? That is _so_
clueless. This inability or intense lack of will to do what some other
people tell you to do is so goddamn _childish_. Why are misbehaving children
not simply taught to get with the program and shut up? They fill USENET with
their idiotic taunts and teases, they gang up with each other to hurt people,
they post their retarded lazy questions expecting others to do their homework
for them. Is this also some American thing, I have to wonder. All this very
intense marketing for staying young and fresh and _immature_ in so many TV
series, movies, ads, you would think there are no Americans older than 30,
and none of them ever developed after hitting puberty. No wonder they have
such serious problems dealing with _parent_-style constructs like standards,
laws, grammars, etc. However, there is another option: GROW UP, and do not
force people who do not want to deal with children to deal with children.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233690933547163@naggum.net>
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
| It's also a pretty good proof of my point--excellent fluent non-native
| speakers of English have probably not read it (have you? do you think it's a
| normal text for, say, a German university teaching the English language to
| ordinary undergraduates? [outside linguistics departments, that is]).
Yes, I both own it and have read large parts of it, but not studied it.
| The foreign learner has absorbed--sometimes very well--a set of formal rules
| for the language which have been typically somewhat ossified compared to the
| actual speech of actual speakers. And it's those actual native speakers
| which define correct usage, at least for their own dialects.
The key is to think in the language. This is not about absorbing formal
rules any more than native speakers absord rules. The same applies to Common
Lisp (oh, no, it's on topic!): we are all "foreign learners" of programming
languages, yet some people acquire a "feel" for it and some do not. As far
as I can see, the ability to acquire a "feel" for a language is unrelated to
which one was your first.
But what is most interesting here is that some native speakers do not know
their own language, nor do they have a "feel" for it. The magnitude of the
absence of absorbed formal rules in some speakers and writers is astonishing
to people who know the language, foreign _or_ native. The sheer _inability_
of some people to accept that others may have something to tell them, or that
what others do is worth studying, regardless of how much they think they
know, is completely unrelated to whether you are a foreign or native speaker.
The "I know better than you, so you have nothing to tell me" attitude is
rampant in people who stop learning at some random point in their life.
E.g., I know people who arrived in Norway as young children and still speak
with an atrociously thick accent at 40, and 40-year-old who arrived six
months ago who speak without a trace of accent. Norwegian is a very hard
language to learn, according to those who try it as a second language.
| I've heard people brand new to the study of New Testament Greek pontificate
| about how in Greek every word just has one meaning, unlike the complexities
| of English. What bogosity! They've only been taught one meaning; a brief
| tour through Liddell and Scott will disabuse that away from even the most
| casual obsever.
Well, it is not uncommon for even native speakers to believe in one meaning
of a word. There are lots of people whose understanding of their native
tongue is so deficient that they do not understand transferred meanings of
words they have once learned with their concrete meaning and vice versa.
This is not peculiar to any particular language -- it is peculiar to some
people, and I think of it is a serious learning disability.
| A native speaker of English, by contrast, has to learn the standard written
| dialect as a maze of weird rules, independently memorized, a hard-to-organize
| set of deviations from the dialect they know in their bones. It can be done
| (it's easier than learning a foreign language), but it's usually skipped.
Nothing I have read about how people learn languages rhymes with anything you
have said about either foreign or native speakers. The expression of a rule
and its internalization are quite different cognitive phenomena. The rules
of languages are not strong enough to express themselves the way we really
work. This is really obvious to me, but I consequently have a hard time
arguing for exactly how this works. By analogy, a person can read the Ten
Commandments and get the point or not, but still flawlessly repeat them word
by word. People can recite the valid syllogisms from Aristotle and still
violate them in their reasoning. Have they learned them? I would say no.
The whole point of learning something is that it takes an internal form that
is completely unrelated to its formal expression. An idea may find different
forms of expression that to one who has yet to understand it, may seem wildly
dissimilar, yet to one who does only mildly so. What is so fascinating about
_learning_ a foreign language is that so many ideas have seen so different
forms of expressions historically as to be completely untranslatable in their
present form. The nature itself may have shaped so many expressions of ideas
that one who has not actually seen it will not understand the expression.
For instance, the origin of heavenly gods (yes, plural) in early Judaism is
quite distinct from the origin of earthly gods (including forefathers, etc)
in other tribal religions related to the lack of anything interesting in the
soil at the place of its origin. Where various religions have "placed" their
invented deities is quite telling. E.g., Norse mythology involves a lot of
mountains and rock. Island religions have tended to find deities in the sea.
Desert religions in the sky, jungle religions in the ground. The forms of
expression of ethics in most religions are similar in that they are rules
that defy explanation -- until you look really closely at them and untangle
their often ridiculously elaborate wrappings -- and most deities were very
powerful and could hurt people who broke their rules, clearly a brilliant
device to make (stupid) people obey them instead of breaking them because
they could do so with impunity. Hence, when religious nuts see that society
loses its religion and this dangerous god thing is no longer able to scare
people into submission, they believe people will become evil and destroy
themselves and everything good in the world. That we have invented a legal
system that can wreak much more and much more immediate damage in a person's
life than any "god" could do and that the IRS alone can be more frightening
to behold than any psychotic deity, and thus that "god-fearing" has been
replaced by "law-fearing", the priesthood with judges, random acts of revenge
and retribution in the name of a psychotic deity with the rule of law and due
process. Some religious people pine for the days when their evil gods would
exact revenge on people they did not like simply by praying for it (which
would be "answered" and the religious nuts would be free to act in accordance
with their invented deity). The core principle remains the same: "Do what I
tell you to do, or I'll hurt you". Gods, laws, priests, judges, hell, prison
-- who cares, the point is simply that some people set the rules, most people
get to follow them, and those who do not pay the consequences in ways that
strike fear and terror into the hearts of the rest. Extremely elaborate
systems are concocted by the smartest of people to erect a defense shield
around their position in power, the legality of their monopoly on power, etc,
and may express the concept of "rights" and "constitutions" and the like to
limit the randomness of those who hold power, but all in all, it boils down
to who has the more painful or lethal weapon and what your philosophy or
religion tells you you should accept or not from and of those in power. Are
there universal rights and wrongs? Most probably, but people will never be
able to agree on them because they are mired in so many layers of expression
and so thick a context that any two expressions will sound different to two
people from different backgrounds and will be unacceptable even though the
two _mean_ exactly the same thing.
The smarter you are, however, the more you should be able to cut through the
crap and figure things out. Most probably the ability to do this is well
within reach of millions of people on this planet. The catch is that the
ability to write it back down so other people can also figure it out has yet
to be discovered, after billions and billions of people have lived and died,
so I keep hoping for machine intelligence vastly superior to any human, or,
barring that, some alien invation by really intelligent beings who can just
tell us what the fuck we have been staring at for, what, 40,000 years and not
getting. The catch with that theory is that they would quickly become gods.
What do I know, maybe the gods _were_ aliens who had figured it out, but then
they left in disgust when they saw what we puny humans did with it. I know I
would have if I were a really intelligent alien who came to this miserable
planet and had to deal with people, _especially_ several millennia ago.
Well, speaking of which, I'm outta here.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87lm98gl6w.fsf@becket.becket.net>
When Erik writes fifty-line off-topic paragraphs, does he really
expect anyone to read them?
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233700424134032@naggum.net>
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
| When Erik writes fifty-line off-topic paragraphs, does he really expect
| anyone to read them?
Such is the intellect of Thomas Bushnell that he ponders such trivialties.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
>| When Erik writes fifty-line off-topic paragraphs, does he really expect
>| anyone to read them?
>
> Such is the intellect of Thomas Bushnell that he ponders such trivialties.
LOL !
So you admit that you wrote fifty-line paragraphs of trivialities ?
·········@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
>
>When Erik writes fifty-line off-topic paragraphs, does he really
>expect anyone to read them?
Yes he does.
You will be tested on them on Monday.
From: JB
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3d15ecca_1@news.newsgroups.com>
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> When Erik writes fifty-line off-topic paragraphs, does he
> really expect anyone to read them?
I do. I use several Erik filters which filter out everything
else and have achieved complete control of the Master's
c.l.l opera omnia. (I am considering learning Norwegian
too.)
--
Janos Blazi
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
From: Barry Fishman
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3wusr1fk2.fsf@barry_fishman.att.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> But what is most interesting here is that some native speakers do
> not know their own language, nor do they have a "feel" for it.
I find this concept quite alien. Can people not speak the language
they speak? Much of American literature was written trying to remain
faithful to regional dialects. Do you feel Samuel Clemens (to pick
someone at random) lacked the ability to express himself because he
used regional dialects in some of his books? Do you feel even current
books like "Harry Potter" need to be translated into "American
English" before publishing them in the US (as was recently done)? Is
my non-standard use of parenthetic remarks difficult to understand?
Standard English has always been a (somewhat futile) attempt to fit
the spoken and written language into a well organized set of (static)
rules. Sometimes this has had mixed results, as in the attempt to
purge the language of dangling prepositions.
Lisp is another language which has existed in many dialects. Lisp
is a synthetic language, so unlike english, each dialect can be
described formally. However, each dialect had proponents who felt
constrained when using another dialect.
My impression was that Common Lisp was an attempt to bring into one
language elements which could attract users from other dialects. The
result is a language which provides familiarity at the expense of a
great amount of (linguistic) irregularity.
Another approach might have been to construct a simpler, more regular
language at the expense of familiarity. It would be easier for new
people to learn but lack the maturity and techniques that the long
time experience of people with a computer language brings. Languages
like Java and Esparanto seem to have been constructed in this way.
--
Barry
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233752637234313@naggum.net>
* Barry Fishman
| I find this concept quite alien. Can people not speak the language they
| speak?
There are two meanings to "your own language" -- it is whatever you manage to
produce of sounds and lines, and it is the common language of the community
in which you live. Some people never acquire a feel for the spelling of
their language, meaning that they have their own _personal_ language, but
could not be said to write in the language that people usually think of for
their region.
I wonder how it is possible _not_ to see that there were several ways to
interpret what I said (as there always are with all communication) and/or you
had to choose one that was so silly. Is there no "reasonability test" for
what you conclude that other people might have meant? Do people generally
think "this does not compute. what would it mean if I had said exactly the
same words", or do they "I would not have said that. what is the most likely
thing that I would have meant that could have been expressed this way?". The
whole point of standardized grammar, dictionaries, etc, is to reduce the need
for the random guesswork and unfounded assumptions that go into interpreting
what other people would have meant. It gives people a legitimate reason to
say "this does not compute, can you try again?" instead of trying to piece
together what someone _could_ have meant. Personally, I find that a lot of
people who think very little when they read generally do not get what I say
at all, but that those who do think, or even go back and look, find that I
have been precise and accurate and not at all difficult to read. This tells
me that I am writing for an audience that is not used to half-listen to what
they hear, but of actually paying attention. I do not consider this bad, so
I have no reason to try to adapt to the redundancy of half-attentioners or
the low-impact communication of anything so that only very little effort is
required to suck up the small amounts of ideas involved. Except for a few
areas, such a my constantly being badgered by morons who neither read nor
think about what I write before they attack me with their primitive brains, I
try not to repeat myself or say something everybody already agree to. Some
people, however, require a constant flow of repetitive reaffirmations of
their beliefs and consider lack of such reaffirmation to be hostility towards
their consensus-based mode of thinking. Then I wonder why such people read
USENET, where "me too" is explicitly disallowed and seriously frowned upon.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Barry Fishman
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3hejv5bhv.fsf@barry_fishman.att.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Barry Fishman
> | I find this concept quite alien. Can people not speak the language
> | they speak?
>
> ...
> I wonder how it is possible _not_ to see that there were several ways
> to interpret what I said (as there always are with all communication)
> and/or you had to choose one that was so silly.
I understood what you said. I just choose to be a bit silly in
responding to it. It just shell-shock from reading your long run-on
paragraphs, convoluted sentences, and unproductive abuse.
> I find that a lot of people who think very little when
> they read generally do not get what I say at all, but that those who
> do think, or even go back and look, find that I have been precise and
> accurate and not at all difficult to read. This tells me that I am
> writing for an audience that is not used to half-listen to what they
> hear, but of actually paying attention.
Yes, buried in all that verbiage is often something that is
significant. It would just be nice if you took the same care in
expressing yourself that you would like others to take in reading
your words.
Barry
--
(message-mail
(concat (nreverse
(append "ten.tta" '(··@) "namhsif"'(?\_) "yrrab" nil))))
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233767710379961@naggum.net>
* Barry Fishman
| I understood what you said. I just choose to be a bit silly in responding to
| it. It just shell-shock from reading your long run-on paragraphs, convoluted
| sentences, and unproductive abuse.
Then take a break and recover full operation of your intellect instead of
posting silliness. You have a choice here.
| Yes, buried in all that verbiage is often something that is significant. It
| would just be nice if you took the same care in expressing yourself that you
| would like others to take in reading your words.
Pay me for it, and I will. Give me an intelligent response that makes it
worth while, instead of some silly and moronic complaint, and you may be
surprised, but whining losers who only demand are not worth spending much
time on. So here is the clue: Do not demand anything of others -- just _do_
what you thinkk is the better thing. Yet, you chose to be silly. What more
do I need to judge how your responses? How much weight can a complaint about
what others somehow fail to do have when it comes from someone who willfully
chooses to be silly? If you impress me with your clear thinking instead of
annoy me with your silliness, and you will, in fact, receive a response in
kind. I may waste time on misbehaving children, but demanding children who
cannot even do what they demand from others is generally fruitless -- most of
the time, these children are not even able to grasp what they have received.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Barry Fishman
> | Yes, buried in all that verbiage is often something that is
> | significant. It would just be nice if you took the same care in
> | expressing yourself that you would like others to take in reading
> | your words.
>
> Pay me for it, and I will. Give me an intelligent response that
> makes it worth while, instead of some silly and moronic complaint,
> and you may be surprised, but whining losers who only demand are
> not worth spending much time on. So here is the clue: Do not
> demand anything of others -- just _do_ what you thinkk is the
> better thing. Yet, you chose to be silly. What more do I need to
> judge how your responses?
Mr. Naggum,
I can understand that you should not be expected to spend a lot of
time formulating your response when giving free help. However, that
does not justify your abusive attitude. I might pay you for technical
help, but I don't believe I should need to pay you to stop being
abusive.
You seem to fill your messages with silly phrases like "moronic
complaint" and "misbehaving children". I find myself concluding that
you apply different standards of behavior to yourself. I suspect you
see a distinction between people providing information and people
giving it, and just alway classify yourself as a provider, with its
lessened set of obligations. (Of course, that would not apply to the
message to which I am responding.)
I would not have posted this if I thought my comments applied to just
one individual. Unfortunately, such verbal bullying has become
commonplace on the internet, and is particularly destructive in
comp.lang.lisp because it is done by some of the more technically
astute posters. Many people who would otherwise behave civilly get
drawn in. In some sense I am being drawn in now, but its my own
hostility to bullies that is really responsible.
--
Barry Fishman
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Useless tirade (Was: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp)
Date:
Message-ID: <3233854729472346@naggum.net>
* Barry Fishman
| I can understand that you should not be expected to spend a lot of time
| formulating your response when giving free help. However, that does not
| justify your abusive attitude.
Look, as far as I am concerned, _you_ are the abusive party here.
| I suspect you [...]
Please confine your guesswork about me to yourself. Posting your personal
guesswork about other people is rude and gravely obnoxious no matter what
kind of stupid rationalization you use to defend your poor choice. And to
think that you are opposed to abusive behavior! I hate such hypocrites!
| I would not have posted this if I thought my comments applied to just one
| individual.
Yeah, yeah, of course you speak for others. That is very pretentious of you.
| In some sense I am being drawn in now, but its my own hostility to bullies
| that is really responsible.
Of course you are the responsible party. Nothing beats rationalizing your
own hostilities more than pretending to do it in the name of some "Good".
Control and confine your own goddamn rude behavior, you abusive do-gooder!
Meta-debate is the _essence_ of abuse on USENET. Nothing good _ever_ comes
out of them, except that some disgusted moron is supposed to feel better for
reaching desperately for the moral high ground and expressing his _lack_ of
ethics by pretending that he is the only moral person around. It is haughty
and most religions have deities that strike such venomous beings down. There
is ample reason to believe that aggressive rejection of moralists is very
good for the communities that have made both habit and rule of it, as such
people tend to be _extremely_ annoying and in serious danger of losing life
and limb in real life.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Barry Fishman
Subject: Re: Useless tirade (Was: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp)
Date:
Message-ID: <m3ofe15tib.fsf@barry_fishman.att.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> Meta-debate is the _essence_ of abuse on USENET. Nothing good
> _ever_ comes out of them, except that some disgusted moron is
> supposed to feel better for reaching desperately for the moral
> high ground and expressing his _lack_ of ethics by pretending that
> he is the only moral person around. It is haughty and most
> religions have deities that strike such venomous beings down.
> There is ample reason to believe that aggressive rejection of
> moralists is very good for the communities that have made both
> habit and rule of it, as such people tend to be _extremely_
> annoying and in serious danger of losing life and limb in real
> life.
Again and again you are the best example of what you claim to despise.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Useless tirade (Was: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp)
Date:
Message-ID: <3233875787711282@naggum.net>
* Barry Fishman
| Again and again you are the best example of what you claim to despise.
I am quite happy that you understand that you are the abuser and aggressor,
and quite amused that you prove my point. Thank you.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: JB
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3d15e198_5@news.newsgroups.com>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> E.g., I know people who arrived in Norway as young
> children and still speak with an atrociously thick
> accent at 40, and 40-year-old who arrived six
> months ago who speak without a trace of accent.
I do not believe the second part of this statement (but do
not take that as a personal attack!). I came to Germany at
the age of seventeen and I still have a slight accent. But
many people who are used to the way I speak swear that I
have no accent at all. They have gotten used to my accent!
So this may be the case with you too.
And it took, more than ten years of learning until I could
enjoy Schiller.
--
Janos Blazi
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87fzzej9wj.fsf@darkstar.cartan>
JB <······@hotmail.com> writes:
> Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> > E.g., I know people who arrived in Norway as young
> > children and still speak with an atrociously thick
> > accent at 40, and 40-year-old who arrived six
> > months ago who speak without a trace of accent.
>
> I do not believe the second part of this statement (but do
> not take that as a personal attack!). I came to Germany at
> the age of seventeen and I still have a slight accent. But
> many people who are used to the way I speak swear that I
> have no accent at all. They have gotten used to my accent!
> So this may be the case with you too.
Believe it or not, there are such people, but they are rare. I
once met a girl (18, I think) from Poland who arrived shortly
(1-2 years or some such) ago not knowing a single word of
German. When I met her, her German was absolutely perfect. Only
after a while I realized that there was something strange about
her pronunciation, and I asked her where she came from. She was
very surprised, as nobody else had realized she was a foreigner
for a long time. I thought about what was wrong with her
pronunciation and then I got it: Her pronunciation was /too/
perfect. Her language was absolutely beautiful, no German speaks
that cleanly with such beautiful vowels :-)
> And it took, more than ten years of learning until I could
> enjoy Schiller.
I bet that wasn't only a language issue :-)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xC66D6E6F
From: JB
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3d15ebc3_1@news.newsgroups.com>
Nils Goesche wrote:
> JB <······@hotmail.com> writes:
> Believe it or not, there are such people, but they are
> rare. I once met a girl (18, I think) from Poland who
> arrived shortly (1-2 years or some such) ago not knowing a
> single word of
> German. When I met her, her German was absolutely
> perfect.
Please, do not take that personally, but there are different
"degrees of perfection" (I know that this contrdicts the
meaning of the word "perfection").
I entered the 12th form of a Gymnasium in Regensburg without
speaking any German and two years later I had the mark
"gut" in German. I think that more than 20 pupils out of
30, had a worse mark. So you may say that my German was
"perfect" at that time. At least fifteen years of constant
learning followed.
As far as my accent is concerned, I know that my class mates
had gotten used to it and I know as well that pupils from
other classes still reckognized it.
And the situation has not changed. But I also noticed while
listening to foreign artists at the Staatsoper, who sang
Wagner, that they usually had an icredibly good accent. And
you could still hear that German was not their native
tongue.
--
Janos Blazi
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
In article <··········@news.newsgroups.com>, JB <······@hotmail.com> writes:
>But I also noticed while
>listening to foreign artists at the Staatsoper, who sang
>Wagner, that they usually had an icredibly good accent. And
>you could still hear that German was not their native
>tongue.
Operatically trained Americans singers, singing in English, use Italian vowels.
It's very annoying.
-- Attaining and helping others attain "Aha!" experiences, as satisfying as
attaining and helping others attain orgasms.
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87adpmj75h.fsf@darkstar.cartan>
JB <······@hotmail.com> writes:
> Nils Goesche wrote:
>
> > JB <······@hotmail.com> writes:
> > Believe it or not, there are such people, but they are
> > rare. I once met a girl (18, I think) from Poland who
> > arrived shortly (1-2 years or some such) ago not knowing a
> > single word of
> > German. When I met her, her German was absolutely
> > perfect.
>
> Please, do not take that personally, but there are different
> "degrees of perfection" (I know that this contrdicts the
> meaning of the word "perfection").
When I say ``perfect'', I mean it, i.e., there are no ``different
degrees''. Of course, you might ask what exactly it was she did
perfectly, and believe it or not, I wasn't claiming that she
spoke better German than every poet or writer in our history.
What I actually meant was: There were no grammatical errors,
apart from errors Germans do themselves, and nothing in her
pronunciation indicated a non-German heritage.
Yes, this is extremely rare, and in fact she is the /only/
foreigner I ever met (and I've met a lot) who spoke perfectly (in
the above sense).
> I entered the 12th form of a Gymnasium in Regensburg without
> speaking any German and two years later I had the mark
> "gut" in German. I think that more than 20 pupils out of
> 30, had a worse mark. So you may say that my German was
> "perfect" at that time.
I guess not. I know many foreigners who are able to /write/ much
better German than most Germans, but when you talk to them you
can tell after two or three words from them that they're
foreigners.
> At least fifteen years of constant learning followed.
Well, German is a hard language, and for Germans, too. When you
say ``He speaks perfectly'' about a German, this sentence means
something entirely different, and there probably are only a few
people who do (I certainly don't).
> As far as my accent is concerned, I know that my class mates
> had gotten used to it and I know as well that pupils from other
> classes still reckognized it. And the situation has not
> changed. But I also noticed while listening to foreign artists
> at the Staatsoper, who sang Wagner, that they usually had an
> icredibly good accent. And you could still hear that German was
> not their native tongue.
So you live in Berlin? Oh well, what the heck then: Nobody cares
if you are a foreigner (or anything else) here, anyway :-)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xC66D6E6F
From: JB
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3d15fcb5_6@news.newsgroups.com>
> So you live in Berlin?
No. If I had meant Bedrlin, I should have spoken about the
"Staatsoper unter den Linden". By Staatsoper I mean
something different, but it is easily found out by reading
my mail.
(Hint: It is the best opera house in Europe.)
--
Janos Blazi
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
From: Lieven Marchand
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87u1nwb5rb.fsf@wyrd.be>
·········@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> I've heard people wax about regular and idealized Latin is, with such
> a strict set of rules, and no bending of them, just follow the rules,
> and the mapping from syntax->meaning is just so much happier than
> messy modern languages. This notion is quickly disabused if you gain
> any facility in reading ordinary Latin (more than just the highest
> poetry, that is) from the period where it was a living language. In
> the dialogue of Terence (stylized at that!) you hear all the chaos and
> "sloppiness" and grammatical weirdness that characterizes actual
> spoken speech of that or any language.
The highest poetry is probably more ambiguous than a lot of other
texts. Ovidius is far harder than Caesar.
--
Bored, now.
Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be>
From: Alain Picard
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <868z58p82k.fsf@gondolin.local.net>
·········@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> I think the problem is that the actual grammatical rules of English
> (or any other language) are very complex, and you simply can't find
> them in any book. Linguists have been trying to write a correct
> and complete syntax for English for a long time, and it's a major
> ongoing research project, whose end is nowhere near in sight.
It's not even clear such a thing (as "the" actual grammatical rules of
English) exists. Pinker suggests that humain brains are hard-wired
for grammar, and human language make certain choices from a limited
set of possible "valid" human grammars.
He gives the interesting example of creoles; where a community
turns a language from pidgin into a real language as soon as
they have children. Fascinating stuff.
Another example is how all speakers of a language will agree
on certain things; e.g. on where to split a sentence in exactly
two parts, thus showing innate understanding grammar. In this
sense, grammar is not the fussy schoolmarmy thing, it's the
underlying structure of what makes sentences valid.
Maybe mastering a foreign language is turning the right grammar
bits in one's brain? Hmmmmm.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> There is some record of illiterate use of "they" in this function, but that
> usage lost grounds a _really_ long time ago.
No, it was declared illeterate by people who weren't in the habit of using it,
and therfore lost usage in _written_ English. Despite the efforts of countless
schoolmarms it has remained common in spoken English. Since it serves a useful
function in speach, I see nothing wrong with its revival in written English.
-- Attaining and helping others attain "Aha!" experiences, as satisfying as
attaining and helping others attain orgasms.
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <87vg8d8686.fsf@becket.becket.net>
········@aol.comNOSPAM (Dvd Avins) writes:
> No, it was declared illeterate by people who weren't in the habit of
> using it, and therfore lost usage in _written_ English. Despite the
> efforts of countless schoolmarms it has remained common in spoken
> English. Since it serves a useful function in speach, I see nothing
> wrong with its revival in written English.
I made a conscious decision some time ago to use singular "they" in my
speech. This is hardly without precedent. English already did just
that switch with "you", which was once exclusively plural. The
singular "thou" dropped out entirely, and "you" completely took over
both singular and plural functions.
Of course, "you" continues to have the plural conjugation, even when
used with singular meaning. So we say "You go to the store" and not
"You goest to the store", even though "goest" is the proper
second person singular conjugation. This is pattern is a very deep
seated pattern in Indo-European languages as pronouns change number--
the pronoun gets a new meaning, but keeps its old conjugation.
However, the reflexive doesn't work that way. When "you" acquired a
singular meaning, while it kept the plural verb conjugations, the
reflexive and intensive *did* change, to "yourself". So we have
"yourself" *and* the original "yourselves".
And, mirabile dictu, this is just how people use singular "they":
"When a doctor uses the thermometer, they shake the mercury down
first." ("Shake" is keeping its plural conjugation.)
However, "they" requires a very close antecedent. Particularly in
cases where the antecedent is implied but not closely present in
speech it sounds weird. Fortunately, those are just the cases where
"one" is conventionally used. "One" sounds weird when used in
repetition with a close antecedent, but "they" is perfectly peachy in
those contexts.
To sum up: go ahead and use singular "they" any time it feels
reasonable to do so. Even push the edge if you like. Don't be scared
by ignorant Norwegians who are merely parotting what they were taught
in some language class.
Thomas
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <3233662302866126@naggum.net>
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
| To sum up: go ahead and use singular "they" any time it feels
| reasonable to do so. Even push the edge if you like. Don't be scared
| by ignorant Norwegians who are merely parotting what they were taught
| in some language class.
*SIGH* �More psychotic ranting about a reality that has to conform to their
emotional state. God, what a bunch of retarded children you guys are.
Here's a clue for you psychos: Some cultures think of an aggregate as a
grammatic singular, some as a plural. Some would say "IBM has a lot of
patents" while others would say "IBM have a lot of patents". Native speakers
of English generally do not even realize this point. Move around the world
and talk to lots of English-speakers, and you find that it is regional
whether people retain a grammatical plural when the object is naturally/
physically plural, while others switch to a grammatic singular when the
object has gramamatically singular words. Generally speaking, I find the
correspondence of numbers to be much more natural when it is cleanly
grammatical, while others have argued strongly that it is _wrong_ to refer to
a school of fish or a den of thieves or a pack of lions with a singular.
Thus, the American people _has_ disappointed with _their_ high approval
rating of George W. Bush. Microsoft _has_ once again wielded _their_
monopoly power unlawfully and unfairly.
To you fucking emotional native ears without an education to back up your
"feel" and your hunches, how does that sound?
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Raymond Toy
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <4nhejwmxtq.fsf@rtp.ericsson.se>
>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
Erik> patents" while others would say "IBM have a lot of patents". Native speakers
Erik> of English generally do not even realize this point. Move around the world
As a native speaker, I do, but mostly because I listen to BBC once in
a while.
Erik> Thus, the American people _has_ disappointed with _their_ high approval
Erik> rating of George W. Bush. Microsoft _has_ once again wielded _their_
Erik> monopoly power unlawfully and unfairly.
Are you saying the above statements are grammatically correct? Seems
odd that people and Microsoft are treated as both singular and
plural. I would have expected them to at least match.
Erik> To you fucking emotional native ears without an education to back up your
Erik> "feel" and your hunches, how does that sound?
I've always said if you want to know what correct grammar is, don't
ask a native speaker---he can't tell you. Go ask a fluent, non-native
speaker---you'll get a much better answer and learn something about
how ambiguous grammar can be.
Ray
From: Julian Stecklina
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <87660ch9hi.fsf@blitz.comp.com>
Raymond Toy <···@rtp.ericsson.se> writes:
[...]
> Erik> To you fucking emotional native ears without an education to back up your
> Erik> "feel" and your hunches, how does that sound?
>
> I've always said if you want to know what correct grammar is, don't
> ask a native speaker---he can't tell you. Go ask a fluent, non-native
> speaker---you'll get a much better answer and learn something about
> how ambiguous grammar can be.
I think this depends on the way this "fluent, non-native speaker" has
learnt the particular language.
On the one hand he could have obtained his knowledge from class or on the
other from reading and talking. The latter way is more likely to
result in the person getting the right "feel" for the language.
I doubt whether this person can explain questions regarding grammar
any better than the native speaker.
Regards,
Julian
--
Meine Hompage: http://julian.re6.de
Ich suche eine PCMCIA v1.x type I/II/III Netzwerkkarte.
Ich biete als Tauschobjekt eine v2 100MBit Karte in OVP.
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <87y9d8igs2.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> *SIGH* �More psychotic ranting about a reality that has to conform to their
> emotional state. God, what a bunch of retarded children you guys are.
It's just *so* easy.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <3233680078874138@naggum.net>
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
| It's just *so* easy.
Then try something hard -- grow up.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
| Don't be scared by ignorant Norwegians who are merely parotting what they
| were taught in some language class.
I am _so_ tired of this psychopath and his incessant attacks on me for things
he knows nothing about and posts only to hurt and destroy and belittle. Is
there a way I can purchase "bad luck" for him? Say, some hoodlums who can
trash his car or his apartment, someone who can poison his food, someone who
might make a scene at his place of "work" so he gets into serious trouble? I
have tried to stay out of this dysfunctional freak's way for a long time,
now, and yet we find that his emotional state is such that he just keeps on
hating and attacking, like an Energizer Psycho.
_Or_ is there a way someone can possibly talk to the guy and help him get
over his emotional problems and find some other outlet than this newsgroup
for his seriously deficient coping problems?
I keep having to remind myself than when someone goes after you for something
they had to _invent_, you are actually unequivocally _above _all reproach.
If nothing you have actually done is sufficient grounds for some hatemongerer
to use against you, you are totally and irrevocably in the clear. However,
psychopaths do not understand this. Their emotional trauma and the
concomitant psychosis is such that they _need_ to invent a monster to attack
for things that such a monster would have done. It is a textbook example of
how people lose their minds. It can be temporary, as in insane rage or blind
fury, which is sort of forgivable, or it can be permanent, as when Thomas
Bushnell evidently _cannot_ get over his emotional problems and this is a
constantly recurring theme with him.
Thomas Bushnell is no longer defending himself from anything I could possibly
have done to him. It is pure, undiluted hatred, a childish form of revenge
exacerbated by his accumulation of evil as he grew up. This religious nut,
who uses his "faith" to belittle, harrass, and destroy other people, should
have been ousted from his brothers in faith as an evil, destructive force.
Such lack of control over his emotions as he displays here regularly, for no
reason whatsoever other than his personal animosity towards me, is _insane_.
And perhaps someone can teach him to spell "parroting" while they're at it?
(Please keep in mind that Thomas Bushnell thought that a similar mistake I
made recently was reasonable grounds for yet more harrassment and ridicule.)
Preferably still, could someone just chop his head off for me? Thank you.
There _seems_ to be no other way to make such people quit. Just watch how he
noe feigns the _victim_ that he only is of his own emotions, and defends his
evil actions by blaming me for everything and every pain he has ever felt.
We will hear that it is my fault that Thomas Bushnell became an emotional
wreck and did not seek psychiatric care but stayed in comp.lang.lisp to take
matters in his own hands. We well once again hear this certified lunatic
make idiotic comments for fifty messages about how he wants me to write his
superiors, but chickens out just before he could name them.
Thomas Bushnell, you have two choices: Seek psychiatric treatment, or stop
your goddamn hate campaigns of your own volition. If you respond, the former
is your only remaining option and your superiors _will_ need to be informed.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
Hrm. I didn't think I mentioned Erik at all. I referred to ignorant
Norwegians--a set that Erik also mentions frequently when issues of
language come up--and for some reason he takes it as a personal
attack. Well, I'll leave it up to him to decide whether he's an
ignorant Norwegian. I always thought he was pretty smart.
Hrm.
Erik doesn't have the courage to put his attacks in a forum where he
might have to defend them--as is well known. When I suggested he
might send his insults to my academic advisors, his cowardice took
over. Such hot air from such a smart person! Ah well.
It is fun to watch him do his little dance though.
Thomas
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
| Erik doesn't have the courage to put his attacks in a forum where he might
| have to defend them--as is well known.
Then provide the names of the people you want me to inform or your behavior.
You have never owned up to this simple request, yet you think cowardice is a
property of other people. I find this amazing.
That you have found out that you have absolutely no recourse in this forum is
just great -- but it also means that you _can_ behave the way you do, which
is a much less fortunate effect of your discovery.
| When I suggested he might send his insults to my academic advisors, his
| cowardice took over.
I ask for the names of the people to whom I should send it. There is no such
thing as "Thomas Bushnell's advisors, Random University, USA". I need the
full name of your advisors and their addresses. Posted here, for all to see.
How hard can this be? If you want to drag your advisors into this, _you_ get
to name them. Otherwise, they have absolutely nothing to do with what you do
here. Of course, you have probably talked to a lawyer, too, and know that if
you do this, you have absolutely no recourse whatsoever _and_ would get into
serious trouble, which means that you do your fantastically insane stunt only
to embarrass yourself. Which is what I find so odd. You must know how dumb
you look, yet think you win brownie points or something doing so. Why? Who
are the people who call you up and ask you to repeat this stunt? Are you
sure they are your friends? Maybe they are my friends?
| It is fun to watch him do his little dance though.
I _really_ think you would do better if you got a hamster with a little,
colored wheel so you can have some real amusement in your life. USENET
cannot be good for you.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> I ask for the names of the people to whom I should send it. There is no such
> thing as "Thomas Bushnell's advisors, Random University, USA".
codebytes: GNU Hurd with Thomas Bushnell
An update on Hurd with project designer and architect Thomas Bushnell.
http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_play_stream.html?stream_id=381
Thomas, BSG
http://www.mit.edu/~tb/
Jerusalem and Athens
http://www.mit.edu/~tb/writings/athens
( Nice essay. Worth reading )
Thomas Bushnell's Translation of The Deeds of the Divine Augustus .
http://www.richmond.edu/~wstevens/romanhistory/history331texts/resgestae.html
Stefan Birbacher <·············@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>> I ask for the names of the people to whom I should send it. There is no such
>> thing as "Thomas Bushnell's advisors, Random University, USA".
>
>codebytes: GNU Hurd with Thomas Bushnell
>An update on Hurd with project designer and architect Thomas Bushnell.
>http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_play_stream.html?stream_id=381
>
>Thomas, BSG
>http://www.mit.edu/~tb/
>
>Jerusalem and Athens
>http://www.mit.edu/~tb/writings/athens
>( Nice essay. Worth reading )
>
>Thomas Bushnell's Translation of The Deeds of the Divine Augustus .
>http://www.richmond.edu/~wstevens/romanhistory/history331texts/resgestae.html
Another nice article by thomas:
Towards a New Strategy of OS Design
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd-paper.html
Stefan Birbacher <·············@ntlworld.com> writes:
[...something...]
Stefan, I tried sending you email by taking NOSPAM out of that
address, but I got back an error from ntlworld.com saying "Invalid
recipient".
Thomas
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> Is there a way I can purchase "bad luck" for him? Say, some hoodlums who can
> trash his car or his apartment, someone who can poison his food, someone who
> might make a scene at his place of "work" so he gets into serious trouble?
Just posting stuff like that is asking for serious legal trouble for
yourself.
Get a grip on yourself Eric, before you end up in an institution.
(prison, psych hospital, whatever )
* Lyle McKennot
| Just posting stuff like that is asking for serious legal trouble for
| yourself.
Geez. You _really_ must be a fantastic specimen of a moron.
| Get a grip on yourself Eric, before you end up in an institution.
| (prison, psych hospital, whatever )
Are you posting from one? Is you inability to think that somebody could have
called a lawyer _before_ they did something the cause of your incarceration?
I do not know which is worse -- that you are such a fucking idiot or that you
think other people are just because of your severely limited brainpower. But
do remember your medication tonight. I would hate to see more of your crap.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> Geez.
Do they really say "Geez" in Norway or have you been watching too many
baaaad American movies ?
> I would hate to see more of your crap.
Does that mean that you won't frame the used toilet paper that I
mailed you ?
William Hodges wrote:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Geez.
>>
> Do they really say "Geez" in Norway or have you been watching too many
> baaaad American movies ?
I am Norwegian and I commonly use Scottish terms and phrases in my
spoken English. Sometimes I even write them, not often, but it happens.
I'll leave you to theorize about why this may be. Sufficient to say
it very likely is the same reason Erik is using American terms and
phrases in his English.
--
Thomas Stegen
http://www.geocities.com/thinkoidz
Thomas Stegen <·······@cis.strath.ac.uk> writes:
> William Hodges wrote:
> > Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> >
>
> >> Geez.
>
> > Do they really say "Geez" in Norway or have you been watching too many
> > baaaad American movies ?
>
> I am Norwegian and I commonly use Scottish terms and phrases in my
> spoken English. Sometimes I even write them, not often, but it happens.
>
> I'll leave you to theorize about why this may be. Sufficient to say
> it very likely is the same reason Erik is using American terms and
> phrases in his English.
"William Hodges" appears to be the latest alias for a
non-entity that turns up occasionally in CLL in order to try to pick a
fight with Erik Naggum.
The right response is probably to kill-file him --- I've yet
to see anything from him that is either interesting or relevant to
CLL.
--
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/
* Raymond Wiker wrote:
> "William Hodges" appears to be the latest alias for a
> non-entity that turns up occasionally in CLL in order to try to pick a
> fight with Erik Naggum.
This is almost certainly also the same person as `Lyle McKennot' - at
least they are posting from the same machine, apparently in Australia
- 210.49.79.94 which is c18246.belrs1.nsw.optusnet.com.au - presumably
a dynamically allocated IP address, perhaps in NSW, I guess.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Raymond Wiker wrote:
>
> > "William Hodges" appears to be the latest alias for a
> > non-entity that turns up occasionally in CLL in order to try to pick a
> > fight with Erik Naggum.
>
> This is almost certainly also the same person as `Lyle McKennot' - at
> least they are posting from the same machine, apparently in Australia
> - 210.49.79.94 which is c18246.belrs1.nsw.optusnet.com.au - presumably
> a dynamically allocated IP address, perhaps in NSW, I guess.
>
> --tim
Probably a cable modem user, like me, on Optus @ Home, in NSW.
I'm with that outfit, and my address resolves as
c16758.artrmn1.nsw.optusnet.com.au.
It _is_ a dynamic address, but it changes very rarely;
only when Optus reconfigures their networking layout, I'm guessing.
I apparently killfiled him already, along with Bushnell, Olczyk, Israel,
Xah, Wolbrink, at some point JB and other trolls of varying degrees, so the
only chance I get to hear about these is if Erik - rarely someone else -
responds to them. I am considering filtering based on message parts other
than the sender as well. If you did it yourself already, you could not have
possibly read this posting :-)
Robert
"Raymond Wiker" <·············@fast.no> wrote in message
···················@raw.grenland.fast.no...
| "William Hodges" appears to be the latest alias for a
| non-entity that turns up occasionally in CLL in order to try to pick a
| fight with Erik Naggum.
|
| The right response is probably to kill-file him --- I've yet
| to see anything from him that is either interesting or relevant to
| CLL.
Hi Rob Mafia,
once in a while, some troll-cryers inject spirit into my abjection. My
disconcerted and alienated life gets a taste of hope, that somebody
somewhere cares about me, thought about me, think of me, to a degree
of gesturing love through public name calling.
did anyone misses my _Killfile Considered Harmful_ essay?
I have archived it here permanently:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/kill_file_harmful.txt
actually i have collected resources on issues related to netiquette
here:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/paradigm.html
(the actual content may be moved around to other sections.)
Thanks.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
"Robert Monfera" <·······@fisec.com> wrote in message news:<···················@news2.news.adelphia.net>...
> I apparently killfiled him already, along with Bushnell, Olczyk, Israel,
> Xah, Wolbrink, at some point JB and other trolls of varying degrees, so the
> only chance I get to hear about these is if Erik - rarely someone else -
> responds to them. I am considering filtering based on message parts other
> than the sender as well. If you did it yourself already, you could not have
> possibly read this posting :-)
>
> Robert
>
> "Raymond Wiker" <·············@fast.no> wrote in message
> ···················@raw.grenland.fast.no...
>
> | "William Hodges" appears to be the latest alias for a
> | non-entity that turns up occasionally in CLL in order to try to pick a
> | fight with Erik Naggum.
> |
> | The right response is probably to kill-file him --- I've yet
> | to see anything from him that is either interesting or relevant to
> | CLL.
Thomas Stegen <·······@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote:
>William Hodges wrote:
>I am Norwegian and I commonly use Scottish terms and phrases in my
>spoken English. Sometimes I even write them, not often, but it happens.
>
>I'll leave you to theorize about why this may be.
Slavish imitation ?
Admiration of a superior language ?
"Stefan Birbacher" < ···············@yahoo.com > wrote in message
·······································@4ax.com...
> Thomas Stegen <·······@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >William Hodges wrote:
>
> >I am Norwegian and I commonly use Scottish terms and phrases in my
> >spoken English. Sometimes I even write them, not often, but it happens.
> >
> >I'll leave you to theorize about why this may be.
>
> Slavish imitation ?
> Admiration of a superior language ?
But can you pick up chicks by sporting the accent?
"Joe Marshall" <·············@attbi.com> writes:
> "Stefan Birbacher" < ···············@yahoo.com > wrote in message
> ·······································@4ax.com...
> > Thomas Stegen <·······@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >William Hodges wrote:
> >
> > >I am Norwegian and I commonly use Scottish terms and phrases in my
> > >spoken English. Sometimes I even write them, not often, but it happens.
> > >
> > >I'll leave you to theorize about why this may be.
> >
> > Slavish imitation ?
> > Admiration of a superior language ?
>
> But can you pick up chicks by sporting the accent?
Depends on whether you're at the Sean Connery or Rab C. Nesbitt [1] end
of the spectrum.
Mark
[1]See http://www.argyll.demon.co.uk/Rab.html for more on Rab.
Joe Marshall wrote:
> But can you pick up chicks by sporting the accent?
Really? I find a bag of stale bread at the local lake is far more
effective...
;)w
Will wrote:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
>> But can you pick up chicks by sporting the accent?
> Really? I find a bag of stale bread at the local lake is far more
> effective...
Oops. That should be `duckling.' IME chicks prefer maize or dandelion
leaves.
Soz
The best way to pick up chicks, is with a cock. Have you noticed?
With debilitating instinct, the chicest chicks follow overbearing
cocks. It works then, it works now, and it is always going to be
working like that. Pre-ordained by God, explicated by Darwin,
exhibited by Wolfram.
Have you not seen an outstanding cock? Headstrong with supremacy,
bobbing and poking, there is nothing going to be getting in its way.
In fact, i have been thinking, putting a photo of my cock on my
website sometimes in the future. I drive witless pussies insane.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
--
From: Will Deakin (···········@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Bushnell
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Date: 2002-06-26 06:08:49 PST
Joe Marshall wrote:
> But can you pick up chicks by sporting the accent?
Really? I find a bag of stale bread at the local lake is far more
effective...
"Thomas F. Burdick" <···@mudslide.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
····················@mudslide.OCF.Berkeley.EDU...
> ···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) writes:
>
> > explicated by Darwin,
>
> Moron. Try actually reading Darwin.
Why is it moronic to interpret Darwin as claiming that alpha males will
attract more women than others?
-- Harley
Dear Thomas F. Burdick,
upon thee i endow a lesson.
I read somewhere, probably a quote by Galois, who were asked how he
mastered greatly, the replies was "to read the originals" or something
to that effect.
I have hold that quote in my mind for years. I reasoned the gist being
sometimes only the master himself can tell the story penetratingly. So
i have tried to read originals too. However, my experience with
originals hasn't been great. Perhaps i'm not a genius, but upon
further thinking, the "reading originals" are simply affectation of
fucking quotes, loved by fucking above-it geeks. It has all smell of
wisdom, which is no more than A empty shell of drama. Say, why don't
we do away with study or research, and all listen to great quotes,
then peace will rain on earth, and man will hike on mars?
What's with the "reading originals"? Simply put, reading originals has
only historical interest. Time has drawn and changed. For all
practical and theoretical purposes, do not read originals. Read the
text books to begin. You'll learn much more efficiently, and much more
too. I have these days too much important things to do than hunkering
inside tomes.
.-----------------------.
| No to running dogs. |
| Hello pussy! \--------.
`-______________________/ \
/
_,'| _.-''``-...___..--';)
/_ \'. __..-' , ,--...--'''
<\ .`--''' ` /'
`-';' ; ; ;
__...--'' ___...--_..' .;.'
(,__....----''' (,..--'' FL
For those who understand theory, theory is everything.
--Xah Lee
Theory vs Practice:
http://xahlee.org/Writ_dir/theory_vs_practice.txt episode I
http://xahlee.org/Writ_dir/macos-talk/13.txt episode II
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
--
From: Thomas F. Burdick (···@mudslide.OCF.Berkeley.EDU)
Subject: Re: Thomas Bushnell
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Date: 2002-07-15 12:17:18 PST
···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) writes:
> explicated by Darwin,
Moron. Try actually reading Darwin.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) writes:
> I read somewhere, probably a quote by Galois, who were asked how he
> mastered greatly, the replies was "to read the originals" or something
> to that effect.
Textbooks are, generally, pathetic. Textbooks by masters are the rare
exception--consider in that regard Bohm's text on quantum mechanics,
or Feynman's Lectures on Physics--true masters of physics exposition.
Read Darwin--or the fabulous new overarching treatment of evolutionary
biology by Stephen Jay Gould, his magnum opus published very shortly
before his unfortunate death--if you want to understand evolutionary
biology. Not only that, Darwin is one of the finest science writers
in English prose ever. The Origin of Species is simply a joy to read,
because of his beautiful fluid prose, his supple but very careful
reasoning, the clarity of his method and technique, and, of course,
the tremendous historical importance of the book.
Or, in my own field, if you want to understand philosophy, don't read
philosophy textbooks. Go read Plato. Or Aristotle. Or Kant. Or
Rorty. Or Nietzsche. Or ... (the list is obviously quite
substantial, and these aren't even my favorites!). Cut your teeth on
such people--when you really *understand* Spinoza's "Ethics", then you
have truly mastered something worth mastering.
If you want to absorb mere information a textbook might do. If you
want to actually understand, read the masters. Beyond mere
information, and even beyond actual understanding, however, is actual
learning--and this requires not merely reading the masters, but also
the classics and the originals, prizing them and holding them to be
one's true teachers.
Thomas
·········@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> ···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) writes:
>
> > I read somewhere, probably a quote by Galois, who were asked how he
> > mastered greatly, the replies was "to read the originals" or something
> > to that effect.
>
> Textbooks are, generally, pathetic. Textbooks by masters are
> the rare exception--consider in that regard Bohm's text on
> quantum mechanics, or Feynman's Lectures on Physics--true
> masters of physics exposition.
Yes, those are fine books, but books by masters are certainly not
the only exceptions, and not every text written by a master is
worth reading nowadays. In order to write a good textbook on
some subject you certainly must have a good grasp of the subject,
but being its ``inventor'' doesn't make you a good writer. For
example, which text should you read if you want to learn about
symmetric spaces? The original work by the genius Elie Cartan?
Go ahead and try... First you would have to learn his ancient
notions and notations, we have much easier ways of describing
those things nowadays; in fact, he (like everybody else in his
time) was lacking the very words and notions for describing what
he was talking about. Only if you already know the subject very
well, and take a /lot/ of time to learn to understand his crude
way of describing what he meant, you have a slight chance to
understand at least what he is talking about in his texts; and
still you would have to work hard to get around his errors and
omissions.
And when you're done with that, several years have passed, and
you have not even /started/ reading anything by the people who
came after him... So, ten years later you'll find a text by
someone who noted some error in Cartan's original work and
published a correction, which you had to find on your own in
three months, only because you thought it would be a good idea to
read Cartan in the original and repeat all the work of previous
mathematicians working on the subject. (Why do I have to think
of Schemers all of a sudden?).
Note that this doesn't even mean that Cartan sucked as a writer,
because nobody else at his time could have written any better
treatment of the subject, if there had been anyone who understood
what he was doing in the first place.
> Read Darwin--or the fabulous new overarching treatment of evolutionary
> biology by Stephen Jay Gould, his magnum opus published very shortly
> before his unfortunate death--if you want to understand evolutionary
> biology. Not only that, Darwin is one of the finest science writers
> in English prose ever. The Origin of Species is simply a joy to read,
> because of his beautiful fluid prose, his supple but very careful
> reasoning, the clarity of his method and technique, and, of course,
> the tremendous historical importance of the book.
Maybe so, but frankly my pile of yet-to-be-read books is already
high enough, and why should I take the time and read several
thousand pages about evolution when I, being neither a biologist
nor a Christian, am not interested in the field at all and could
as well read an excerpt in some textbook of 50 pages? The field
of science and human knowledge in general has become so vast that
you have no chance but being content with having at most a
superficial knowledge of 99.9% of all fields. 50 pages about
evolutionary theory is enough to get a vague idea what it is
about so I'll know where to find more information whenever I need
it, which will most likely never happen.
> Or, in my own field, if you want to understand philosophy,
> don't read philosophy textbooks.
Very interesting point: Is it true that all textbooks about
philosophy suck and if yes, why is that so? And why aren't
textbooks about scientific subjects as bad?
> Go read Plato. Or Aristotle. Or Kant. Or Rorty. Or
> Nietzsche. Or ... (the list is obviously quite substantial,
> and these aren't even my favorites!). Cut your teeth on such
> people--when you really *understand* Spinoza's "Ethics", then
> you have truly mastered something worth mastering.
I have? Why? Do modern ethics and meta-ethics experts still
follow his theories? Has nobody found a better treatment of the
subject so far? What are those philosophers doing if the best
they can come up with so far has been written two thousand years
ago? Why do I have to read the crude and prolix writing of some
goddamned ancient Greek if I want to learn something about
ethics? Why do I have to read Aristotle's syllogisms when I can
read a modern textbook on logic and model theory just as well?
Why do I have to read about Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity in his annoying index notation? Why can't I simply
take a modern textbook that uses invariant notation and contains
much more stuff in less pages with exact proofs and be done with
it?
> If you want to absorb mere information a textbook might do. If
> you want to actually understand, read the masters.
Nonsense. The only reason to read the old masters is historical
interest, or personal entertainment, or if you want to know how
they found their results, and most of the time you won't even
learn that from their texts.
> Beyond mere information, and even beyond actual understanding,
> however, is actual learning--and this requires not merely
> reading the masters, but also the classics and the originals,
> prizing them and holding them to be one's true teachers.
``The masters, the classics, the originals'' -- yes, most modern
university philosophers like these words, strangely. To me they
sound more like philologists than like people looking for truth.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xC66D6E6F
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> Yes, those are fine books, but books by masters are certainly not
> the only exceptions, and not every text written by a master is
> worth reading nowadays. In order to write a good textbook on
> some subject you certainly must have a good grasp of the subject,
> but being its ``inventor'' doesn't make you a good writer.
I think I may have been less explicit than I should have been about
the distinction between a master and the "inventor" of the subject.
My point is that in general, one should look to the inventor (to the
extent there is one), but that there are some exceptions, in which the
"masters"--not inventors--write a text. For example, very very very
little of Lectures on Physics was ideas that originated with Feynman,
if anything. And Bohm was responsible for very little of the work
that led to his text, which is a fairly elementary one.
In contemporary mathematics, I think there is a huge need for masters
who can "retell" the story, and I think I probably will reluctantly
agree with you in that case, that going to the original might not be
helpful. (Your example was symmetric spaces and Cartan's original
work.)
I might grudgingly say that for other subjects a textbook could be
useful--but principally as a sort of entree into the work of the
originators and masters, a written tutor if you will.
But this depends on the particular author involved. In the case of
Darwin, he really *is* stunningly readable, and still quite current.
(And if you want bleeding edge, Gould's book that I mentioned will do
as well.)
> > Or, in my own field, if you want to understand philosophy,
> > don't read philosophy textbooks.
>
> Very interesting point: Is it true that all textbooks about
> philosophy suck and if yes, why is that so? And why aren't
> textbooks about scientific subjects as bad?
One central reason is surely that there is much more agreement among
physicists about the content of the standard model--indeed, there *is*
such a thing as a standard model--than there is agreement among
philosophers about what the correct theory of reference is, or whether
Plato was a fascist, or whether Nietzche is brilliant, merely witty,
dastardly, or inept. By contrast, there is vast agreement among
physicists about what classical mechanics looks like, whether Newton's
work has value today, and whether Einstein is brilliant or not.
> I have? Why? Do modern ethics and meta-ethics experts still
> follow his theories?
Nobody every followed Spinoza. ;) That's one of the great ironies.
Well, Leibniz did, ever so slightly.
One does not read Spinoza to find out the Truth. Rather, the Truth is
maddeningly complex and Spinoza has something to offer in one's
understanding. (Incidentally, the actual ethical content of the
Ethics of Spinoza is kind of weak, in my opinion, but other parts of
the book are fabulous--it's as much about metaphysics, epistemology,
and human nature, as it is about ethics.)
> Has nobody found a better treatment of the subject so far?
Oh, *much* better has been found. But if you want to understand Kant,
you really need to have some basics of Spinoza in your head. And if
you want to understand contemporaries like Scanlon or Rawls, you need
to have Kant in your head.
> What are those philosophers doing if the best they can come up with
> so far has been written two thousand years ago? Why do I have to
> read the crude and prolix writing of some goddamned ancient Greek if
> I want to learn something about ethics?
One reason is that some of these people really *are* brilliant prose
stylists. Aristotle is not, but Plato certainly is. Why should I
rewrite Plato if I cannot do better?
> Why do I have to read Aristotle's syllogisms when I can
> read a modern textbook on logic and model theory just as well?
If you want to understand logic, then you don't need to bother with
Aristotle. The fun of reading Aristotle's logic is purely in its role
in intellectual history. But note--if you want to understand what
Duns Scotus is doing (he more or less re-invented logic, and
contemporary mathematical logic owes everything to him), you had
better know what he had to work with!
Now you might learn elementary geometry just as well from a decent
textbook as from Euclid. However, some people walk around with a
sense that we moderns are sophisticated and smart, and that the
ancients were dim and clueless and muddled. Learning geometry from
Euclid will do wonders to kill off that misperception.
> Nonsense. The only reason to read the old masters is historical
> interest, or personal entertainment, or if you want to know how
> they found their results, and most of the time you won't even
> learn that from their texts.
Again, I was not careful enough to explain my usage of
"masters"--sorry. The masters are not necesarrily old--but they are
generally not writing textbooks either.
·········@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
>
> > What are those philosophers doing if the best they can come up with
> > so far has been written two thousand years ago? Why do I have to
> > read the crude and prolix writing of some goddamned ancient Greek if
> > I want to learn something about ethics?
>
> One reason is that some of these people really *are* brilliant prose
> stylists. Aristotle is not, but Plato certainly is. Why should I
> rewrite Plato if I cannot do better?
Well, I enjoyed what I read of Plato, too. But producing good
prose isn't the only goal of philosophers, hopefully :-)
> Now you might learn elementary geometry just as well from a
> decent textbook as from Euclid. However, some people walk
> around with a sense that we moderns are sophisticated and
> smart, and that the ancients were dim and clueless and muddled.
That is, of course, a very stupid attitude to have. Sadly, all
too many people believe something like that...
> Learning geometry from Euclid will do wonders to kill off that
> misperception.
The Elements are brilliant, no doubt, and reading them won't harm
anybody. Despite the fact that even his very first proof in that
book is incorrect, IIRC :-) If, however, your goal is to become
a professional ``geometer'', like a topologist, or a differential
geometer, that book would not be among the first texts I'd
suggest reading...
> Again, I was not careful enough to explain my usage of
> "masters"--sorry. The masters are not necesarrily old--but they are
> generally not writing textbooks either.
No need to be sorry. I am rather glad that not everybody
misunderstood my posting. Thanks for your explanations.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xC66D6E6F
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> ``The masters, the classics, the originals'' -- yes, most modern
> university philosophers like these words, strangely. To me they
> sound more like philologists than like people looking for truth.
That's right, Nils. 'Truth' is to be found by skim-reading the past,
condensing the culture of millennia into sound-bites, absorbing all
our insights second-hand, swallowing only that which has been
thoroughly masticated into slop and regurgitated by a thousand
toothless scholars, and - best of all - racing headlong into the
future as if 'Truth' can only be found at the branches of the 'Tree of
Knowledge', and never again at the roots.
At least with Xah, one never quite knows whether he's playing the
clown or is, in fact, a fool ...
Patrick W <·······@yahoo.com.au> writes:
> Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
>
> > ``The masters, the classics, the originals'' -- yes, most modern
> > university philosophers like these words, strangely. To me they
> > sound more like philologists than like people looking for truth.
>
> That's right, Nils. 'Truth' is to be found by skim-reading the past,
> condensing the culture of millennia into sound-bites, absorbing all
> our insights second-hand, swallowing only that which has been
> thoroughly masticated into slop and regurgitated by a thousand
> toothless scholars, and - best of all - racing headlong into the
> future as if 'Truth' can only be found at the branches of the 'Tree of
> Knowledge', and never again at the roots.
Well, that would be the other extreme, probably just as wrong.
I was objecting to the idea that in order to ``truly understand''
classical mechanics you would have to read Newton in the
original. I am not saying that nobody should read Newton in the
original, or that doing so is somehow bad. Actually, I like
reading classics; but I don't think it is absolutely essential
for gaining an understanding of a subject.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xC66D6E6F
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> Well, that would be the other extreme, probably just as wrong.
> I was objecting to the idea that in order to ``truly understand''
> classical mechanics you would have to read Newton in the
> original.
If we go back in the thread, we had Xah saying that something was
"explicated by Darwin". And Thomas Burdick rightly said "Try
actually reading Darwin"--because Xah was *wrong* about whether it was
"explicated by Darwin".
> I am not saying that nobody should read Newton in the
> original, or that doing so is somehow bad. Actually, I like
> reading classics; but I don't think it is absolutely essential
> for gaining an understanding of a subject.
I think if you want to understand *Newton* and make claims about
*Newton* it behooves you to read *Newton*.
But how can you evaluate the value of reading Newton if you have not
read Newton? Is it not possible that there is something more to be
gained from it? I can tell you that I found his Principia Mathematica
to be brilliant--indeed, it's one of the three finest physics
textbooks I've ever run across (with the other two being, as
mentioned, Feinman's Lectures, and Bohm's QM).
And, in the context of the thread, isn't there something wrong with
Xah saying he doesn't need to read Darwin to find out what Darwin
said?
Thomas
·········@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
>
> > I am not saying that nobody should read Newton in the
> > original, or that doing so is somehow bad. Actually, I like
> > reading classics; but I don't think it is absolutely essential
> > for gaining an understanding of a subject.
>
> I think if you want to understand *Newton* and make claims
> about *Newton* it behooves you to read *Newton*.
Fair point.
> But how can you evaluate the value of reading Newton if you
> have not read Newton? Is it not possible that there is
> something more to be gained from it? I can tell you that I
> found his Principia Mathematica to be brilliant--indeed, it's
> one of the three finest physics textbooks I've ever run across
> (with the other two being, as mentioned, Feinman's Lectures,
> and Bohm's QM).
Who says I haven't read it? (Ok, not all of it :-) No, I have
always been interested in reading classical science texts, and
philosophical texts, as well, although I have read much less of
those; I usually fall asleep after two pages of Hegel, for
instance, and am rather glad that people like Kolakowski have
written nice summaries. That might not be accurate enough for
professional Hegel experts, but certainly for me. But I have
always regarded reading classics as something like a nice
recreational exercise, not really necessary for understanding the
contemporary form of the theories, if that is your main field of
interest.
> And, in the context of the thread, isn't there something wrong
> with Xah saying he doesn't need to read Darwin to find out what
> Darwin said?
I'd put it a bit more mildly: I think making claims about what
Darwin said is perfectly fine even if you haven't actually read
Darwin, provided that you have reason to believe that your source
of information about what Darwin said is reliable enough for you.
Of course, if a Darwin expert tells you that you are mistaken
about this, you should better believe him, or check up by reading
Darwin himself, or simply retreat if you don't care enough,
anyway. For instance: How many people have actually checked up
that Fermat really claimed to have proven his so called ``Last
Theorem''? I certainly didn't but believed someone else who said
so.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xC66D6E6F
* Nils Goesche wrote:
> Well, that would be the other extreme, probably just as wrong.
> I was objecting to the idea that in order to ``truly understand''
> classical mechanics you would have to read Newton in the
> original. I am not saying that nobody should read Newton in the
> original, or that doing so is somehow bad. Actually, I like
> reading classics; but I don't think it is absolutely essential
> for gaining an understanding of a subject.
I think this is completely correct. Quite apart from anything else,
if you want to `truly understand' classical mechanics you need to
understand the Lagrangian & Hamiltonian formalisms, their equivalence,
and then probably a whole load of stuff about the calculus of
variations and vector spaces, and so on. None of which you will find
in Newton, but all of which is absolutely essential if you want to,
for instance, understand what motivated QM.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> I think this is completely correct. Quite apart from anything else,
> if you want to `truly understand' classical mechanics you need to
> understand the Lagrangian & Hamiltonian formalisms, their equivalence,
> and then probably a whole load of stuff about the calculus of
> variations and vector spaces, and so on. None of which you will find
> in Newton, but all of which is absolutely essential if you want to,
> for instance, understand what motivated QM.
I agree completely, but I would suggest that "classical mechanics", as
thus described, and as beautifully taught in the new SICM by Sussman
and Wisdom, is simply not Newtonian mechanics. It is a mathematical
deduction, and is thus in some sense "contained" within Newton's work,
but it isn't Newton's work (which is why, of course, it has names like
Lagrange, Hamilton, and Poincare attached to it).
However, I've heard people make broad statements about "Newton" (as
Xah did about Darwin) in which they simply get totally wrong what
Newton actually said.
A fine example is the principle of relativity. In the usual telling
of the story, Newtonian mechanics has a principle of relativity, but
that went out the window with Maxwell's equations, until Einstein
figured out that you didn't actually need to send it out the window if
you tolerated changes in Newton's laws.
In the usual telling, it is said that Newton himself articulated the
principle of relativity, including the claim that there are no
absolute spatial positions or velocities. However, this is
incorrect. Newton did note that there were no observational
differences, but he did believe in absolute spatial position (and thus
velocity). He was brought to this belief by considering that there
*is* such a thing as absolute rotation, and he concludes incorrectly
that this implies the necessity of absolute spatial position and
linear velocity. Indeed, Newton made a mistake on the point.
But the usual telling smooshes that truth over, and makes an ignorant
claim about what Newton actually thought. If one can't be troubled to
read Newton, then one should not make statements about Newton's ideas,
because there is such a long history of fudging them as they get
retold. (Nor is this specific to Newton; the same thing happens with
everyone.)
Thomas
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> I was objecting to the idea that in order to ``truly understand''
> classical mechanics you would have to read Newton in the
> original. I am not saying that nobody should read Newton in the
> original, or that doing so is somehow bad.
Classical mechanics is morally, socially and culturally neutral. Not
much subtlety of mind is required to understand it. The consequences
of laymen *not* properly understanding Newton are unimportant.
Not so with the classics of philosophy or religion. If certain ideas
are handed down in the form of 'information packets', without depth of
context or culture, something strange happens every now and then.
If people 70 years ago had 'truly understood' Nietzsche and Darwin by
reading them first-hand, they would have *laughed* at a certain raving
nutter and his diseased propagandist. Instead of ...
> ... but I don't think it is
> absolutely essential for gaining an understanding of a subject.
I think Thomas already covered that. If *information* is what you're
after, a textbook may be all you need.
But we're not talking about classical mechanics here. You've reduced
the discussion to trivia. We were concerned with a much more subtle
and important issue; i.e. does a reading of Darwin support the notion
that Xah Lee should display his cock on the web?
Patrick W <·······@yahoo.com.au> writes:
> Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
>
> > I was objecting to the idea that in order to ``truly
> > understand'' classical mechanics you would have to read
> > Newton in the original. I am not saying that nobody should
> > read Newton in the original, or that doing so is somehow bad.
>
> Classical mechanics is morally, socially and culturally
> neutral.
Maybe so, but...
> Not much subtlety of mind is required to understand it.
This is actually quite exciting. So, that I needed quite some
time and effort to understand the significance of typical
statements of classical mechanics like
begin random_quote
Theorem 3. Let (\Omega,g) be a Kaehler structure on M^{2n}.
Let \lambda: G x M -> M be a left action which is Poisson
with respect to to \Omega and preserves the metric g. Let
\mu : M -> g^\asterisk be the associated moment map. Then,
for every good value \xi \in g^\asterisk of \mu, there is a
unique Kaehler structure (\Omega_xi,g_xi) on M_\xi defined
by the conditions that \pi^\asterisk_\xi(\Omega_\xi) be
equal to the pullback of \Omega to \mu^{-1}(\xi) \subset M
and that \pi_\xi : \mu^{-1}(\xi) -> M_\xi be a Riemannian
submersion.
end
is only a sign of my lack of ``subtlety of mind''. Wow. I guess
I underestimated those philosopher types who apparently stopped
worrying about such trivial stuff when they were five years old.
This is not a quote from Newton, which is part of the point I was
trying to make, BTW.
> The consequences of laymen *not* properly understanding Newton
> are unimportant.
Voltaire would probably disagree, but be that as it may :-)
> Not so with the classics of philosophy or religion. If certain
> ideas are handed down in the form of 'information packets',
> without depth of context or culture, something strange happens
> every now and then.
Something strange happens every now and then, anyway, and there
is no other practical way to hand down the classics or anything
else, especially to ``laymen''. And we are all laymen. In all
but 0.01% of all fields at best.
> If people 70 years ago had 'truly understood' Nietzsche and
> Darwin by reading them first-hand, they would have *laughed* at
> a certain raving nutter and his diseased propagandist. Instead
> of ...
Doh. So, nowadays we are safe because people aren't as stupid as
they used to be and now every proletarian has not only read
Nietzsche and Darwin in the original but understands them better
than said raving nutter and his diseased propagandist with his
bad foot (who had a doctoral degree, BTW), thanks to the efforts
of our enlightened Social Democrat leaders, right? Do you often
discuss the Ding-an-sich with your taxi drivers? What do they
say about it? Should I, next time I have a problem with Kaehler
manifolds or meta-ethics, simply ask my taxi driver about it to
gain some insight there? Is his mind more subtle than mine
because of his further developed social consciousness? Or are
you talking about some yet-to-come ideal world yet to be created
by enlightened leaders crowded with specimen of the New Man?
> > ... but I don't think it is
> > absolutely essential for gaining an understanding of a subject.
>
> I think Thomas already covered that. If *information* is what you're
> after, a textbook may be all you need.
Well, what is it I should be after instead? The above quote is
from a textbook I read, which is quite good, I believe. But
apparently I should rather read Newton or Hamilton in the
original. Who don't even mention the above theorem. To gain a
``deep proper true understanding''.
> But we're not talking about classical mechanics here.
And if the situation in philosophy is any different I would like
to know, why.
> You've reduced the discussion to trivia. We were concerned
> with a much more subtle and important issue; i.e. does a
> reading of Darwin support the notion that Xah Lee should
> display his cock on the web?
Heh, I'd like to know that, too :-)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xC66D6E6F
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> is only a sign of my lack of ``subtlety of mind''. Wow. I guess
> I underestimated those philosopher types who apparently stopped
> worrying about such trivial stuff when they were five years old.
Well, let me say that this philosopher (me) thinks that it certainly
takes a fair amount of serious intellectual effort to understand
quantum mechanics. And, indeed, this is true of all the philosopher
types I've run across. One has to avoid the crappy pseudo-philosophy
that gets spouted by pomo freaks, Derrida disciples, and the like, of
course. :)
> > I think Thomas already covered that. If *information* is what you're
> > after, a textbook may be all you need.
>
> Well, what is it I should be after instead? The above quote is
> from a textbook I read, which is quite good, I believe. But
> apparently I should rather read Newton or Hamilton in the
> original. Who don't even mention the above theorem. To gain a
> ``deep proper true understanding''.
I fear Patrick W as a poor ally in this discussion, so don't take his
representations as matching mine.
> > But we're not talking about classical mechanics here.
>
> And if the situation in philosophy is any different I would like
> to know, why.
I gave one reason earlier: there is much more agreement among
physicists about the content of (say) the standard model--heck,
there's even a standard model to talk about!
Don't forget that this was started in Xah Lee's attempt to change the
topic. He made a stupid statement about *Darwin*, and when it was
suggested that he should *Darwin* and discover he's wrong, he tried to
torque the discussion into why he thinks textbooks are fine and
reading originals is silly.
I think that reading originals is essential--in a fairly deep human
sense--though one can indeed succeed as a scientist and never do it.
But one runs the risk of making ignorant statements like the one Xah
Lee made. Moreover, the discussion was not originally about reading
"originals" in general, but about the specific case of Darwin. That
particular book is *so* readable, *such* a joy, and *so* much better
than the average "textbook" on the subject, that there is no reason to
read it.
But--anyone seriously studying physics should one day sit down and
read through Newton's Principia Mathematica--it's a fairly easy read
if you've really understood even ordinary freshman physics. He should
do this even if only because he is going to someday make a statement
about "Newton" and if he goes by what Feynman says, he'll be sure to
get it wrong, because Feynman might have known "Newtonian mechanics",
but he didn't have a very solid understanding of *Newton* or what
*Newton* himself actually said or didn't say, believed or didn't
believe. Indeed, the conflation of "classical mechanics" with
"Newton" is a great error--"classical mechanics" (as the term is now
used) is something Newton really never talked about at all.
But more than that, an educated person should read Newton's PM for the
same reason they should read Homer's Iliad. they will be much better
for it. This is, in part, the distinction between mere information,
understanding, and actual learning.
Thomas
·········@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
>
> > And if the situation in philosophy is any different I would like
> > to know, why.
>
> I gave one reason earlier: there is much more agreement among
> physicists about the content of (say) the standard model--heck,
> there's even a standard model to talk about!
Yes, I am aware of this and I understand that this makes a
difference. It should still be possible to write good textbooks,
of course, and I think there are some.
> Moreover, the discussion was not originally about reading
> "originals" in general, but about the specific case of Darwin.
> That particular book is *so* readable, *such* a joy, and *so*
> much better than the average "textbook" on the subject, that
> there is no reason [not] to read it.
Okok, I have already been convinced of this :-)
> But--anyone seriously studying physics should one day sit down
> and read through Newton's Principia Mathematica--it's a fairly
> easy read if you've really understood even ordinary freshman
> physics.
And I bet most physicists do at some time. Who isn't interested
in the history of his field of work, or of our culture in
general?
> He should do this even if only because he is going to someday
> make a statement about "Newton" and if he goes by what Feynman
> says, he'll be sure to get it wrong, because Feynman might have
> known "Newtonian mechanics", but he didn't have a very solid
> understanding of *Newton* or what *Newton* himself actually
> said or didn't say, believed or didn't believe.
Well, Feynman was Feynman :-)
> Indeed, the conflation of "classical mechanics" with "Newton"
> is a great error--"classical mechanics" (as the term is now
> used) is something Newton really never talked about at all.
Of course, but I think most people are aware of that.
> But more than that, an educated person should read Newton's PM for the
> same reason they should read Homer's Iliad. they will be much better
> for it. This is, in part, the distinction between mere information,
> understanding, and actual learning.
I agree with that. I am only opposing the way philosophy
classics are often treated as being sacrosanct, or something, in
a way that textbooks written about them are automatically
inferior even before they are written, by definition, so to speak
:-)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xC66D6E6F
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> Yes, I am aware of this and I understand that this makes a
> difference. It should still be possible to write good textbooks,
> of course, and I think there are some.
Well, I allowed that the masters might produce good textbooks, and
indicated two examples of my acquaintance (Feynman and Bohm). But
many areas simply lack *good* textbooks. Note that the best available
textbook might still suck. One must make do with what one has!
There are superb "textbooks" of philosophy too, actually, written by
the masters of the discipline. Usually these are found as either
histories of philosophy (two 20th century examples are Bertrand
Russell's and Copleston's). Or, they are in the form of commentaries
on established works (such as Bennett's study of Spinoza's _Ethics_).
However, because of the lack of general agreement on major
philosophical topics, such things as the histories of philosophy are
no substitute for the original authors, and obviously a commentary is
only really useful along with the original text.
> Okok, I have already been convinced of this :-)
I'm glad! :)
> I agree with that. I am only opposing the way philosophy
> classics are often treated as being sacrosanct, or something, in
> a way that textbooks written about them are automatically
> inferior even before they are written, by definition, so to speak
> :-)
Hrm. Here's one piece of a theory which explains why that treatment
is generally correct for philosophy, though more questionable in the
hard sciences, and probably wrong in mathematics.
Classical mechanics is a fairly well-understood subject. There is a
"thing", which is classical mechanics, and which could be presented in
many ways. It is not surprising that as time goes by, people learn
better and better ways to present it. (An excellent example, which I
should trumpet again, is SICM by Sussman and Wisdom.) Indeed, the
beginnings of the subject involved a great many false starts, mistaken
ideas, incomplete thoughts, and the like--so reading Poincare and
Hamilton is not to be recommended if all you want to do is know how to
work with the theory.
But Plato's _Gorgias_ is not nearly as well-understood. Anyone who
goes back to tell you what Plato thought is going to impart some of
their own ideas into the mix, and such commentary may well help you be
able to understand the _Gorgias_ better--but it could never replace
the Gorgias itself.
That is, the _Gorgias_ does not exist in any way apart from the text
itself. You can't understand the _Gorgias_ without understanding the
text. But you *can* understand classical mechanics without
understanding Poincare, because the subject of classical mechanics
*does* exist in some way apart from the writings of Poincare (and
Hamilton, and Lagrange, etc.)
But the subject of the _Gorgias_ (which is, in short, the question of
why [or whether] someone should desire to be ethical) is one which
surely exists independent of the text. But someone who addresses
*that* is going to just write their own book on ethics. (As,
obviously, many have--a principal section of Kant's second Critique
[titled "The Drives of Practical Reason"] is basically about exactly
the same topic.) So that second book is just going to present the
authors *own* ideas.
But that author will agree with Plato only in part--because there is
no general agreement. So the second author cannot really be said to
be explicating the *same thing* as Plato, at least, not in the way
that SICM could be said to be explicating the *same theory* as the one
that Poincare and Hamilton and Lagrange (et al) developed.
Which means that the second theory may well be very important in
philosophy, but it cannot replace the first, so long as the present
sorts of fundamental disagreement in the field continue (and there is,
of course, no reason to think they will ever cease).
Sometimes something *does* get thrown away (despite what some think).
The work of, say, Christian Wolff is moribund. He was a rationalist
in the tradition of Leibniz, quite the big man on the block of his
day. After the Kantian revolution in metaphysics, however, Wolff's
work is "not read any longer" (as a professor of mine once
said--perhaps the most damning criticism there could be in this
field). Leibniz is of course still of monumental importance. But
Wolff, who was once thought (by Kant, no less) to have eclipsed
Leibniz, is now relegated to the backwaters.
Thomas
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> Wow. I guess I underestimated those philosopher types who
> apparently stopped worrying about such trivial stuff when they were
> five years old.
Sarcasm aside (briefly, I promise ;-)), you seem to regard philosophy
and science as different disciplines, with some antagonism between
them. I don't see it that way at all. I think of science as a branch
of philosophy that deals particularly well with things that can be
quantified. But not much else.
> This is not a quote from Newton, which is part of the point I was
> trying to make, BTW.
Yes, the point you're trying to make is well taken: it's difficult,
challenging, important, and praiseworthy to study classical mechanics.
People who do so are smart, very smart, very very smart ...
(Yeah, righto. Got the message, loud and clear).
> Doh. So, nowadays we are safe because people aren't as stupid as
> they used to be ...
Lousy argument isn't it? Strangely enough, I found it buried in your
recent article, which stated that the main value of reading the
'originals' is for "historical interest" or personal entertainment. It
implies that we know better now. Each successive commentator has more
information and is therefore smarter than his predecessor. We
understand what has gone before us. We can read the summary on the
back cover and dispense with the contents. We're too damn *busy* to
read what was written long ago; we're looking for "Truth".
> ... and now every proletarian has not only read Nietzsche and Darwin
> in the original but understands them better than said raving nutter
> and his diseased propagandist with his bad foot
Right now I can't think of any better defense against falling victim
to deranged leaders than understanding the issues better than they do,
and nipping their lunatic ambitions in the bud. (If there is a better
way, we could bottle it and sell it to the Americans for much less
than their leader will cost them).
> (who had a doctoral degree, BTW)
It does not matter that *he* knew exactly what he was doing. It
matters that others did *not*.
> Do you often discuss the Ding-an-sich with your taxi drivers?
Australian men tend not to discuss such things in public. (Not with
other men anyway).
> Should I, next time I have a problem with Kaehler manifolds or
> meta-ethics, simply ask my taxi driver about it to gain some insight
> there?
Why not give it a try? If you're lucky, he might have read a summary
of key concepts in 'Der Spiegel'.
> Is his mind more subtle than mine because of his further
> developed social consciousness? Or are you talking about some
> yet-to-come ideal world yet to be created by enlightened leaders
> crowded with specimen of the New Man?
I was half expecting to hear reasons why a taxi driver should not
possess a a mind as subtle as a mathematician's. Instead I see
evidence that finding such a specimen *might* not be too
difficult. ;-)
> Well, what is it I should be after instead?
I dunno. I guess what *I'm* talking about is what I perceive to be the
real purpose of education.
One of c.l.l.'s better know 'philosophers' said recently: "Truth is
orthogonal to relevance". If you think about it, he's absolutely
right. As a variant of that, I propose (tentatively for now) that
"understanding is orthogonal to knowledge".
There is no textbook guide to 'wisdom' or 'intelligence' or 'taste' or
'skill' or 'good judgement' or 'talent' or 'understanding' or
'insight'. (Well, maybe in California, but not in the real world). ;-)
If education is regarded primarily as the acquisition of facts, then
good textbooks are fine. If we're looking for something beyond mere
"information", in particular something that enables us to devise
intelligent systems for ranking the *relevance* and the relative
*importance* of the myriad facts we're exposed to, we're gonna need
something a little different. There's no shortcut, but there is an
urgent need emerging.
I think one of the stupidest things a person can do is to acquire
facts at an ever-faster rate and mistake it for "learning". But that's
what we appear to be encouraging.
> > We were concerned
> > with a much more subtle and important issue; i.e. does a
> > reading of Darwin support the notion that Xah Lee should
> > display his cock on the web?
>
> Heh, I'd like to know that, too :-)
Well, bugger it, why wait for Xah?
Let's start a trend.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~comingsoon
Cheers,
P.
Patrick W <·······@yahoo.com.au> writes:
> Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
>
> > Wow. I guess I underestimated those philosopher types who
> > apparently stopped worrying about such trivial stuff when they were
> > five years old.
>
> Sarcasm aside (briefly, I promise ;-)), you seem to regard philosophy
> and science as different disciplines, with some antagonism between
> them. I don't see it that way at all. I think of science as a branch
> of philosophy that deals particularly well with things that can be
> quantified. But not much else.
Strange, actually I /didn't/ want to make much of a distinction.
Somebody claimed there weren't any good textbooks and people should
rather read the classics or originals instead. Now, at least in
mathematics and physics this is clearly wrong. I am not sure about
the situation in philosophy, but I /suspect/ that it is similar there,
and I can't think of any reason why there shouldn't be good textbooks
on philosophical themes. I have in fact met several students of
philosophy who really think that there is no progress in philosophy,
all it is about is discussing whether Fichte, Kant or Hegel held the
same opinion on some point or not. Asking who of them was right on a
particular point, if they had a differing opinion, is already
considered sacrilege. I never liked this view of philosophy, and
thought that most people in anglo-saxon countries don't either, but
rather /do/ believe that philosophy has something interesting to say,
and we should try to find out what, rather than endlessly repeating
``Fichte said blablabla, Kant said blublublu, but Hegel said
bliblibli; wow, isn't philosophy deep?'' That's why I am rather
surprised to find English speakers who insist on reading originals
instead of textbooks.
> > Doh. So, nowadays we are safe because people aren't as stupid as
> > they used to be ...
>
> Lousy argument isn't it? Strangely enough, I found it buried in your
> recent article, which stated that the main value of reading the
> 'originals' is for "historical interest" or personal entertainment. It
> implies that we know better now.
But we do! Heh, ``we'' has different meanings there. Of course we
have much better ways nowadays to explain General Relativity or
Classical Mechanics to somebody who wants to learn about it because we
can use language, notions and notations that weren't available to the
classics for explaining and describing. That's called scientific
progress, there is such a thing. However, ``we'' as a species indeed
haven't become more intelligent in any way it seems. And, in addition
to that, I don't believe that what happened 70 years ago happened only
because not enough people had read Nietzsche or Darwin, that it was
all because of a lack of ``education''. It is quite funny that so
many university students nowadays believe that, apparently they don't
know that said dictator was /particularly/ strongly supported by
students, artists and intellectuals (well, at least those that weren't
Jewish...). Many people seem to have a blind spot there now, probably
don't want to think about it. Just as they'd rather forget now how
many of them supported one murderous communist dictator after the
other in the decades that followed. All the while reading piles of
classics in the original <gd&r>.
> Right now I can't think of any better defense against falling victim
> to deranged leaders than understanding the issues better than they
> do, and nipping their lunatic ambitions in the bud.
Well, there were people who knew better. Nobody was listening to
them.
> (If there is a better way, we could bottle it and sell it to the
> Americans for much less than their leader will cost them).
I don't know how bad or costly he is, we should not forget that at
least the Americans or the British /never/ did anything like the
[beep] or Communists to anybody and have the most stable democracies
known to mankind; so, if we are looking for ways to prevent people
from starting world wars or opening concentration camps, we'd rather
find out how /they/ have educated their people in past centuries, what
is taught there. Although I have to admit that nowadays it seems that
the Americans have become bored or something with freedom and
democracy and are trying new ways of Political Correctness and
socialism. We'll wait and see where that leads them, I certainly
remember where it had led us in Europe...
> > (who had a doctoral degree, BTW)
>
> It does not matter that *he* knew exactly what he was doing. It
> matters that others did *not*.
Maybe he didn't either. I rather suspect he /did/ read Nietzsche and
thought he was interpreting him perfectly fine.
> > Well, what is it I should be after instead?
>
> There is no textbook guide to 'wisdom' or 'intelligence' or 'taste'
> or 'skill' or 'good judgement' or 'talent' or 'understanding' or
> 'insight'.
True enough.
> I think one of the stupidest things a person can do is to acquire
> facts at an ever-faster rate and mistake it for "learning". But that's
> what we appear to be encouraging.
So, write a textbook about it and hopefully people will happily read
it :-)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x42B32FC9
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> I don't know how bad or costly he is, we should not forget that at
> least the Americans or the British /never/ did anything like the
> [beep] or Communists to anybody and have the most stable democracies
> known to mankind; so, if we are looking for ways to prevent people
> from starting world wars or opening concentration camps, we'd rather
> find out how /they/ have educated their people in past centuries, what
> is taught there.
Don't get so enamoured with the American republic that you forget (or
possibly never learn about in the first place) its actual history.
The USA was a slavocracy until the mid-19th century, and Jim Crow
terror continues to exist to this day. It has elected more than one
president on the platform of genocide (eg, Jackson); placed next to
the pogroms of Europe, the genocidal campaigns of the US against the
Indians pale not one whit.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
>
> > I don't know how bad or costly he is, we should not forget that at
> > least the Americans or the British /never/ did anything like the
> > [beep] or Communists to anybody and have the most stable democracies
> > known to mankind; so, if we are looking for ways to prevent people
> > from starting world wars or opening concentration camps, we'd rather
> > find out how /they/ have educated their people in past centuries, what
> > is taught there.
>
> Don't get so enamoured with the American republic that you forget (or
> possibly never learn about in the first place) its actual history.
> The USA was a slavocracy until the mid-19th century, and Jim Crow
> terror continues to exist to this day. It has elected more than one
> president on the platform of genocide (eg, Jackson); placed next to
> the pogroms of Europe, the genocidal campaigns of the US against the
> Indians pale not one whit.
Well, I don't forget about it; I guess the proper answer is:
``Nobody is perfect.'' ;-) Yes, there was slavery, as in many
other countries at that and other times, but it was ended; and I
think there haven't been many indians killed by the US army for
quite some time, now. Moreover, don't forget /when/ those crimes
were comitted. Times and values change. I can hardly imagine
any other culture that doesn't have things like that in its
history. Out great European dictators at least tried to keep the
worst of their crimes secret. Because at the time they were
committed /they/ knew that everybody in the world will be
disgusted if he learns about them. That's quite an important
difference, if you ask me. /Nullum crimen sine lege/ might apply
here, in some moral way, but the PC crowd doesn't like Western
Law very much, either, I fear.
And that used to be quite clear for everybody, until the American
Left got the idea of trying to convince the American public that
all of their culture, history and tradition is rotten to the core
and has to be abandoned and replaced by something else, something
socialist, of course, and whether every white American has to be
murdered before that happens, is still subject to debate in
America, as I was surprised to learn. Part of this campaign is
that most classics don't seem to be Politically Correct anymore,
either, BTW.
Well, that's how it looks to me, anyway.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xC66D6E6F
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote in ···················@darkstar.cartan:
> ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
>> Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
>>
>> > I don't know how bad or costly he is, we should not forget that at
>> > least the Americans or the British /never/ did anything like the
>> > [beep] or Communists to anybody and have the most stable democracies
>> > known to mankind; so, if we are looking for ways to prevent people
>> > from starting world wars or opening concentration camps, we'd rather
>> > find out how /they/ have educated their people in past centuries, what
>> > is taught there.
>>
>> Don't get so enamoured with the American republic that you forget (or
>> possibly never learn about in the first place) its actual history.
>> The USA was a slavocracy until the mid-19th century, and Jim Crow
>> terror continues to exist to this day. It has elected more than one
>> president on the platform of genocide (eg, Jackson); placed next to
>> the pogroms of Europe, the genocidal campaigns of the US against the
>> Indians pale not one whit.
>
> Well, I don't forget about it; I guess the proper answer is:
> ``Nobody is perfect.'' ;-) Yes, there was slavery, as in many
> other countries at that and other times, but it was ended; and I
> think there haven't been many indians killed by the US army for
> quite some time, now.
However, only a little probing reveals that to this day the U.S. government
continues to violate it's treaties with the Native American Tribes who are
*supposedly* sovereign. There may not be genocide active aganst the Native
Americans anymore, but there is an active program to destroy what little of
their ways and lands they have been able to hold on to.
Just a thing to keep in mind.
Paul D. Lathrop
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> Somebody claimed there weren't any good textbooks and people should
> rather read the classics or originals instead.
I remember it differently. Somebody suggested reading textbooks
instead of the originals. A few of us responded, each with a
different agenda.
> I have in fact met several students of philosophy who really think
> that there is no progress in philosophy, all it is about is
> discussing whether Fichte, Kant or Hegel held the same opinion on
> some point or not. Asking who of them was right on a particular
> point, if they had a differing opinion, is already considered
> sacrilege. I never liked this view of philosophy, and thought that
> most people in anglo-saxon countries don't either, but rather /do/
> believe that philosophy has something interesting to say, and we
> should try to find out what, rather than endlessly repeating
> ``Fichte said blablabla, Kant said blublublu, but Hegel said
> bliblibli; wow, isn't philosophy deep?''
Heh. That's what's left of philosophy after the interesting parts have
been subsumed under the headings of "science" or "politics" or
"psychology" or [...]. I don't see philosophy as the illegtimate
brother of these disciplines.
> > It implies that we know better now.
>
> But we do! Heh, ``we'' has different meanings there. Of course we
> have much better ways nowadays to explain General Relativity or
> Classical Mechanics to somebody who wants to learn about it because we
> can use language, notions and notations that weren't available to the
> classics for explaining and describing. That's called scientific
> progress, there is such a thing. However, ``we'' as a species indeed
> haven't become more intelligent in any way it seems.
We're in violent agreement here.
·········@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> ···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) writes:
>
> > I read somewhere, probably a quote by Galois, who were asked how he
> > mastered greatly, the replies was "to read the originals" or something
> > to that effect.
>
> Textbooks are, generally, pathetic. Textbooks by masters are
> the rare exception--consider in that regard Bohm's text on
> quantum mechanics, or Feynman's Lectures on Physics--true
> masters of physics exposition.
Oops, I forgot something in my other post: Does this imply that
every Lisp book sucks except for the Lisp 1.5 Programmer's Manual?
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xC66D6E6F
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> ·········@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > ···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) writes:
> >
> > > I read somewhere, probably a quote by Galois, who were asked how he
> > > mastered greatly, the replies was "to read the originals" or something
> > > to that effect.
> >
> > Textbooks are, generally, pathetic. Textbooks by masters are
> > the rare exception--consider in that regard Bohm's text on
> > quantum mechanics, or Feynman's Lectures on Physics--true
> > masters of physics exposition.
>
> Oops, I forgot something in my other post: Does this imply that
> every Lisp book sucks except for the Lisp 1.5 Programmer's Manual?
It is a said truth that many times there is a subject which has no
decent treatment.
Lisp has, of course, changed. The Lisp 1.5 manual would be pathetic
introduction to Common Lisp.
Indeed, there are precious few really good books about programming of
any sort. Perhaps the field is simply too new. SICP is a start, but
it's got plenty of defects.
This is a problem with engineering--it's a field in which there is a
"state of the art" that changes. One must do the best one can, and
there are generally just no good textbooks about any engineering
discipline.
·········@becket.net
> This is a problem with engineering--it's a field in which there is a
> "state of the art" that changes. One must do the best one can, and
> there are generally just no good textbooks about any engineering
> discipline.
Really? Are you sure?
(to get this thread back on topic can't we go back to talking about wild fowl?)
;)w
·········@becket.net
> This is a problem with engineering--it's a field in which there is a
> "state of the art" that changes. One must do the best one can, and
> there are generally just no good textbooks about any engineering
> discipline.
Really? Are you sure?
(to get this thread back on topic can't we go back to talking about wild fowl?)
;)w
···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) writes:
> What's with the "reading originals"? Simply put, reading originals has
> only historical interest. Time has drawn and changed. For all
> practical and theoretical purposes, do not read originals. Read the
> text books to begin. You'll learn much more efficiently, and much more
> too. I have these days too much important things to do than hunkering
> inside tomes.
Okay, so go read a textbook. But if you're going to claim that Darwin
did something, for godsakes, either read Darwin, or someone who
explained what he said.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
People in this thread seem to be talking about physics, philosophy,
and biology as though they were interchangeable. Biology is something
of the odd man out here, in that any serious student of evolutionary
biology *should* read Darwin -- not out of a reverence for antiquity,
but because the fundementals of evolutionary theory as formulated by
Darwin, still provide the framework for the debate over evolutionary
theory. Both his specific theories on the subject, as well as his
formulation of them, have withstood the trials of the last 150 years
remarkably well, with basic Darwinian logic nearly untouched. Of
course, it's still a young field, but the macroevolutionary debates of
the last couple decades haven't been attacking the basic Darwinian
framework, and I personally expect (and I'm far from alone on this
one) that it will form the foundation of whatever evolutionary theory
we come to consensus on in 50 years.
All this is a long-winded way of saying that I think that Darwin is
something of an exception here -- reading Newton is of purely
historical interest, but for a biologist, Darwin is still relevant.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> All this is a long-winded way of saying that I think that Darwin is
> something of an exception here -- reading Newton is of purely
> historical interest, but for a biologist, Darwin is still relevant.
All this talk really made me curious. Ok, I just ordered the dang
thing :-)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x42B32FC9
"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote in message ·································@posting.google.com...
> The best way to pick up chicks, is with a cock. Have you noticed?
No, I haven't noticed. I try to avoid chicks with cocks.
Dear Joe & friends,
as you can see, with the Xah persona, the community banter on chicks
and cocks, fowl or puss, savoring leisurely between the lines of
delicacy and sexuality all the while having fun and learning pun,
while not at all forgetting about the idiocy and ignorance of the
fucking dickheads in society.
compare: the Erik Naggum character, who repetitiously spew chapter
after chapters of ugly and painful things at fellow beings, year after
year; things so vile and indecent from his pernicious mouth, hurting
people and himself, causing the community endless pandemic woe.
--
Joe, i find your habit of renaming threads quite stupid. Have you
considered those who are not interested in your mischievous word-play?
Suppose these people find a thread un-interesting and killfiled it,
but then you defeated it with a spectacular rename. Now if everyone
follows consistently then time-conscious people can simply killfile
threads that has a "[NOISE]" in the subject line, but unfortunately
most won't do, while those do create topics like [Off Topic] or [OT].
In addition, half of posts have nothing to bo with their subject. Do
you think your well-intentioned off-topic thread-renaming behavior
having dubitable benefits?
if you revaluate this behavior of yours, and decided i'm right, i
would like to get a thank you, at the very least in your mind.
Thanks.
--
in the past few days i've taken a gander at some of the threads that
disparage non-lisp languages or sigh-over the predicament of computing
industry or wretched education system by some of which do-nothing
academics, most of which are grumbles and gripes of personal problems
of no significance. I would like to give a few guidance here.
First, all languages have equal rights. Do not belittle other
languages just because YOUR favorite language is a bit better in this
aspect or that. Different people have different ideas and manners of
perception. Ideas compete and thrive in all unexpected fashions.
Societies improve, inventions progress. Lisp may be a first in this or
that, or faster or flexibler, or higher level than other languages old
and new, but then there are other languages the like of Haskell &
Dylan & ML et al which ridicule lisps in the same way lisp ridicule
other languages.
Just because YOU are used to more functional programing or love lots
of parenthesis doesn't mean they are the only and best concepts. The
so-called Object Oriented programing of Java fame, or the visual
programing of Visual Basic fame, or the logic programing of Prolog
fame, or the format-stable syntax of Python fame, or the "one line of
Mathematica equals ten to one thousand lines of lisp" of _A New Kind
Of Science_ fame... all are parts of of healthy competing concepts,
paradigms, or directions of growth.
The way some of you deride other languages is like sneering
heterogeneousness. If unchecked, soon you'll only have your sister to
marry to. Cute, but you do not want incest to become the only sex.
Next time your superiority complex makes you sneer at non-lisp or
other non-popular languages, remember this. It is diversity of ideas,
that drives the welfare of progress.
Now, there is one judgmental criterion, that if a language or computer
technology fits it, then we not only should castigate at their
missionaries, but persecute and harass the language to the harshest
death. That is: utter sloppiness, irresponsibility, and lies. These
things are often born out of some fucking student's homework or
moron's dirty-work, harbored by "free" and wanton lies and personal
fame, amassed thru ignorance.
Of my short but diligent industrial unix computing experience since
1998, i have identified the following targets:
* unix, unixim, and things grown out of unix. (csh, vi, and many other
small time things)
* C
* vi
* Perl
* MySQL
* SQL (the language)
(There are many others)
In our software industry, i like to define criminals as those who
cause inordinate harm to society, not necessarily directly. Of the
above things, some of their authors are not such criminals or
forgivable. While others, are hypocritical fucking fantastic liers
selfish to the core. When dealing with these self-promoting jolly
lying humble humorous priests and their insidious
superficially-harmless speeches, there should be no benefit of doubt.
Tell them directly to stop their fucking vicious lies. Do a face-off.
As to their brain-washed followers for example the not-yet-hard-core
unix, c, or perl coders rampant in industry, try to snap them out of
it. This you do by loudly snapping fingers in front of their face,
making it sound like a ear piercing bang. Explain to them the utter
stupidity of the things they are using, and the harm to their brain.
IMPORTANT: _teach_, not _debate_ or _discuss_ or falling back into you
your fucking stupid philosophical deliberating indecisiveness. I've
seen enough criticisms among learned programers or academics on these,
so i know you know what i'm talking about. When you see a unixer
brainwashed beyond saving, kick him out of the door. He has became a
zombie who cannot be helped.
There are other languages or technology, by itself technically are
perhaps mediocre but at least is not an egregious irresponsible hack,
therefore does not deserve scorn, but sometimes it comes with
overwhelming popular outrageous lies (euphemized as hype). Java is an
example. For this reason, it is equally deserving the harshest
treatment. Any loud proponents of such should be immediately slapped
in the mouth and kicked in the ass in no ambiguous ways.
Summary for the above section: all languages has equal rights.
However, those utterly *sloppy* and *irresponsible* *hacks* with
promoter's *lies* should be severely punished. It is these, that
causes computing industry inordinate harm. Meanwhile, it is wrong to
haughtily criticize other languages just because they are not lisp.
Now, please remember this and go do society good.
--
As most of you agree, there are incredible wrongs in software
industry. Programs crash, injurious tools, uninformed programers, and
decrepit education system. Over the years of my relatively miserable
personal life and esp my computing industry experience since about
1995, i have recently gradually come to realize the cause and plan a
solution. I wanted to write a cohesive account of my thoughts one day.
Here's a quick beginning:
* most agree that computing industry have lots of problems, including:
extremely poor software quality, poorly qualified programers, and a
strayed education system. One final metric is the quality of today's
software, and consumer's experience with computers.
* in pretty much free market system of America, we can say that
software quality (or software related things) being the way it is is
out of natural selection. In other words: "driven by economy", or, a
result that evolved naturally from competition.
* this naturally evolved result, does not mean it is the "best"
outcome. Simply put: "outcome" does not mean "desired outcome". Think
of it this way: the solution from genetic algorithms isn't the best
solution, it's only "best outcome" from a given set of criterions and
gene pool and the coupling environment.
* We can see now that the state of software or industry is not
determined by idiotic and simplistic expectations such as quality of
design or intelligence of programer. (so you pessimistic and
ineffectual lispers can chock you habitual =sigh= now.) How things
come to be in society do not have simplistic explanations, but
sensible understanding is not impossible. In a commercial software
world, software's popularity or trend is determined by the choices
consumer makes. How consumer ends up purchasing a software has a
myriad of factors among them awareness, but most responsible being the
price/performance ratio, or just price. Also, the majority of
consumers are morons with respect to evaluating software for their own
good. This is why, the fucking incompetent _free_ unixes and Perl and
C are everywhere. It is also why, the fucking incompetent unixes
though free but has little place to stand in comparison to a costly
Microsoft when performance also enters the equation. This also
explains, the exorbitantly priced fashion-statement Apple
software/hardware combo are no more populous than those affluent. (not
because some fucking mystery chant about how
good-things-are-always-unpopular fucking fuck chant loved by fucking
vain above-it geeks such as the lispers.)
* The reason fucking languages like C and family masks technically
superior ones like lisp are in large part due to the fucking unix
phenomenon as explained above. C + Unix, incompetence +
irresponsibility bootstrapping each other freely. From there it is
downhill. The unix things teach programers to unthink. With their
greed-based speed-based freely-distributable popularity-based
iconoclastic irresponsibilities spreading like corruption do.
* solution: Understand and spread the word that writing bug-free
software is not difficult at all, and quality software can be as
intuitive as extra hands. When good programers understands this and
catches one, good software with responsible license will emerge.
Eventually software vendors will compete for more responsible
software, one's that offer to be penalized for every bug or crash or
misfeature. In turn, this will eliminate all fucking fashions and
idiots in the software industry such as the Design Patterns and
eXtreme Programing or the TIMTOWTDI Perl fuck or the OOP fad or the
fucking "Universal Modeling Language" fuck. (sorry this and last
paragraphs are written in haste. I already spent too long writing. For
now, read this one i wrote before as a supplement:
why software sucks and what to do
http://xahlee.org/Writ_dir/comp_lang_lisp/145.txt
)
Do you want software/industry to improve? Everyone wants to be
millionaire when asked, but when they have to pay to be a millionaire,
they will reconsider. I'm quite fed up with the software situation.
I'm considering doing something about it. Start a commercial
successful company that revolutionize the industry and make lots of
money, or start some Foundation type of thing like FSF... any
thoughts?
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
--
From: Joe Marshall (·············@attbi.com)
Subject: [NOISE]Re: Thomas Bushnell
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Date: 2002-07-15 05:29:43 PST
"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote in message ·································@posting.google.com...
> The best way to pick up chicks, is with a cock. Have you noticed?
No, I haven't noticed. I try to avoid chicks with cocks.
"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote in message ·································@posting.google.com...
>
> Joe, i find your habit of renaming threads quite stupid. Have you
> considered those who are not interested in your mischievous word-play?
Actually, yes I have. Perhaps I am showing my age, but traditionally
adding `[NOISE]' in front of the subject indicates that the message
has even less content than is usual for a usenet post.
Also, I haven't renamed the thread, I simply changed the subject line
of my message to more accurately reflect the content. The thread
is defined by the references in the header. To wit:
<················@naggum.net>
<··············@becket.becket.net>
<···················@naggum.net>
<··································@4ax.com>
<················@naggum.net>
<··································@4ax.com>
<················@cis.strath.ac.uk>
<··································@4ax.com>
<······················@sccrnsc02>
<················@hotmail.com>
<····························@posting.google.com>
<····················@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>
> Suppose these people find a thread un-interesting and killfiled it,
> but then you defeated it with a spectacular rename.
If they killed the *thread*, then they won't see my message no matter
what I put in the subject. If they kill based on the *subject*, then
yes, they'll see my message. Perhaps this is a learning opportunity
for them.
> Now if everyone follows consistently then time-conscious people can
> simply killfile threads that has a "[NOISE]" in the subject line,
> but unfortunately most won't do, while those do create topics
> like [Off Topic] or [OT]. In addition, half of posts have nothing
> to bo with their subject. Do you think your well-intentioned off-topic
> thread-renaming behavior having dubitable benefits?
Frankly, I don't care that much. Should I get sufficient complaints
about my attempts at levity, I suppose I might change. But I've been
posting to usenet for eighteen years and this is the very first
complaint I've gotten.
> if you revaluate this behavior of yours, and decided i'm right, i
> would like to get a thank you, at the very least in your mind.
I will thank you anyway for your amusing posts.
···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) writes:
> In fact, i have been thinking, putting a photo of my cock on my
> website sometimes in the future.
Great idea Xah, but be careful to avoid a potential ambiguity. Lots
of chicks want you to have a strong dick, but very few want you to
*be* one.
For best effect, I suggest placing it (without warning) at the
*bottom* of the page, not the top. If women mistake it for a
portrait, they won't be impressed. Likewise, if they see a link
explicitly labelled to point to your dick, they'll certainly take an
inquisitive peek, but it might not create the impression you hoped
for.
On the other hand, if you sit back and let them read the words first,
then suddenly present it without commentary, there could be no better
surprise ending. People might regard it as an emphatic exclamation
mark, underscoring the importance of your message. Or maybe they'd
take it as an ironic signature, a leering, winking, proudly scornful
symbol of power and blind desire that makes a mockery of all words.
Either way, they won't forget you.
(Let us know when it's up, eh. Your friends at least should be spared
the ordeal).
"Patrick W" <········@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message ···················@athens.localdomain...
> ···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) writes:
>
> (Let us know when it's up, eh. Your friends at least should be spared
> the ordeal).
I don't want to know when Xah's dick is up.
> Signor X. Lee si scrive:
> The best way to pick up chicks, is with a cock. Have you noticed?
I don't know. Personally, I find the best way to pick up chicks is
using my hands. I would recommend washing before and after due to the
potential danger of passing on diseases.
> Have you not seen an outstanding cock?
I don't know. Would you class [1] as such?
:)w
[1] www.xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/Personal_dir/xahVampire.jpg
Stefan Birbacher wrote:
> Thomas Stegen <·······@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>William Hodges wrote:
>>
>
>
>>I am Norwegian and I commonly use Scottish terms and phrases in my
>>spoken English. Sometimes I even write them, not often, but it happens.
>>
>>I'll leave you to theorize about why this may be.
>>
>
> Slavish imitation ?
> Admiration of a superior language ?
>
The evidence points to something else, but I guess you would
have to be smart to see that. Maybe you should also look up what
a theory actually is. Hint, it has some basis in previous experience,
which you might or might not have to actively seek out.
--
Thomas Stegen
http://www.geocities.com/thinkoidz
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
> specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
> urgent, do not use the word "urgent".
You need some Zyprexa.
* Lyle McKennot
| You need some Zyprexa.
Apparently, it does not work too well on you. Why are you recommending it?
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>Why are you recommending it?
Did Lisp drive you insane or your insanity drive you to Lisp ?
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <lkd6ukiq2s.fsf@pc022.bln.elmeg.de>
·········@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> ········@aol.comNOSPAM (Dvd Avins) writes:
>
> > No, it was declared illeterate by people who weren't in the habit of
> > using it, and therfore lost usage in _written_ English. Despite the
> > efforts of countless schoolmarms it has remained common in spoken
> > English. Since it serves a useful function in speach, I see nothing
> > wrong with its revival in written English.
>
> I made a conscious decision some time ago to use singular "they" in my
> speech. This is hardly without precedent. English already did just
> that switch with "you", which was once exclusively plural. The
> singular "thou" dropped out entirely, and "you" completely took over
> both singular and plural functions.
[snip]
What I don't get is why some people think they ought to make
``conscious decisions'' of this kind. If using ``they'' like this was
really a natural thing to do, people would simply do it, it would
spread and become proper English, without anybody making ``conscious
decisions'' to violently change people's language in order to appease
some ``radical'' groups. /This/ is how English departed from
Shakespeare's language, there wasn't any government or political group
making a ``conscious decision'' to ban ``thou''. And this was also
the whole point, I think, of Erik's article, making it independent of
the question whether he is a native speaker or not because this
applies to all languages.
> And, mirabile dictu, this is just how people use singular "they":
>
> "When a doctor uses the thermometer, they shake the mercury down
> first." ("Shake" is keeping its plural conjugation.)
Sounds horrible to me, but apparently I am not allowed to say that,
not being a native speaker.
> To sum up: go ahead and use singular "they" any time it feels
> reasonable to do so.
Exactly. But if you need a ``conscious decision'' to do that, it is
probably a bad idea, after all.
> Even push the edge if you like. Don't be scared by ignorant
> Norwegians who are merely parotting what they were taught in some
> language class.
Do you speak /any/ foreign language? Have you /ever/ read a book, or
a poem, in another language? If you think that you'll never get
beyond the point of ``parotting what you're taught in some language
class'', I feel very sorry for you. Sure, my English might be pretty
bad, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate beautiful English when I
see it, just like people who have never played a single note can
competently tell whether some pianist's performance was good or bad.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x42B32FC9
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <873cvgjveb.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> What I don't get is why some people think they ought to make
> ``conscious decisions'' of this kind. If using ``they'' like this was
> really a natural thing to do, people would simply do it,
Oh, quite right. It is entirely natural for me to use singular
"they".
The conscious decision was not to defeat it in the interests of
conforming to that particular canon of Standard Written English.
That is, it is the promulgators of the "standard" dialect (and
some Norwegian non-native speakers, for example) who tell me that I
*should* make a conscious decision to *stop* using the dialect I
naturally speak.
The conscious decision *I* made was that, in this instance, I would
*not* do as they say I should.
> Do you speak /any/ foreign language?
Yes.
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <871yb0wdkr.fsf@darkstar.cartan>
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> ·········@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > And, mirabile dictu, this is just how people use singular "they":
> >
> > "When a doctor uses the thermometer, they shake the mercury down
> > first." ("Shake" is keeping its plural conjugation.)
>
> Sounds horrible to me, ...
Now I remember that many years ago somebody told me that `they'
was the proper relative pronoun after `anybody' or some such,
which sounds a bit strange to me, too. I mean, do American
priests really say something like
``If anyone got a problem with that, THEY should speak up now
or keep THEIR mouths shut forever, then.''
in a wedding ceremony? :-)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xC66D6E6F
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <3233661679249005@naggum.net>
* Erik Naggum
> There is some record of illiterate use of "they" in this function, but that
> usage lost grounds a _really_ long time ago.
* Dvd Avins
| No, it was declared illeterate by people who weren't in the habit of using
| it, and therfore lost usage in _written_ English. Despite the efforts of
| countless schoolmarms it has remained common in spoken English. Since it
| serves a useful function in speach, I see nothing wrong with its revival in
| written English.
The referent for "this function" is _singular_ third-person pronoun. That
would be the example I actually gave which should have let people GROW A
FUCKING CLUE about what I meant. Sheesh.
I don't mind people arresting me for mistakes I make, but I really do get
seriously bothered by psychotic freaks who arrest for mistakes I have _not_
made, people whose emotional state is so warped that they no longer see what
I write, but respond instead to their own prejudices and emotions and what
they _think_ was there because their underutilized brains have no space for
the sensory input that flies against their preconcocted beliefs. ARGH!
Goddamn illiterates who cannot even read their _own_ language when used
correctly.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Patrick W
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <RIyQ8.914$5l4.35355@ozemail.com.au>
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.net> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.net...
> * John Wiseman
> | Long-standing tradition before then, and the custom I use because it
feels
> | quite natural, is to use "they" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun.
>
> There is some record of illiterate use of "they" in this function, but
that
> usage lost grounds a _really_ long time ago.
In my (native English-speaking) environment, it is common, natural and
correct to refer to "he or she" as "they", "him or her" as "them", and "his
or her" as "their" in some circumstances. Usually "he" suffices, but a
confident native speaker knows that "they" is sometimes more appropriate.
Consider situations in which gender is unknown but important. For example,
how should we refer to the unknown perpetrator of a crime? It is common,
correct and acceptable in English to say "they" as shorthand for "the
killer" -- eg. "they used arsenic", or "they left lipstick at the scene". It
would NOT be correct to say "he used an axe", or "he left lipstick" without
the killer's gender being known.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233661390786211@naggum.net>
* John Wiseman
| Long-standing tradition before then, and the custom I use because it | feels
| quite natural, is to use "they" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun.
* Erik Naggum
> There is some record of illiterate use of "they" in this function, but that
> usage lost grounds a _really_ long time ago.
* "Patrick W" <······@yahoo.com.au>
| In my (native English-speaking) environment, it is common, natural and
| correct to refer to "he or she" as "they", "him or her" as "them", and "his
| or her" as "their" in some circumstances. Usually "he" suffices, but a
| confident native speaker knows that "they" is sometimes more appropriate.
Does it remain _singular_? Not in my experience, except for the illiterates.
James A. Crippen went ballistic not even seeing this point for all the hate
he could not control, but what normally happens is that people drop the
correspondence in number and use they as a _plural_ form to refer back to a
_singular_ referent. I use that myself, sometimes. But it does not remain
singular. That would be ungrammatical and extremely grating on my ear.
I gave a pretty clear example of precisely what I meant. I have never heard
or heard about _anyone_ use "they" in the _singular_ grammatical capacity.
_Precision_ in communication is not a trait with native speakers, is it?
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Does it remain _singular_? Not in my experience, except for the illiterates.
Sure.
Hmmm. I can think of a couple of dialects in the UK that use a plural
form of you (yous or youse).
> but what normally happens is that people drop the correspondence in number
> and use they as a _plural_ form to refer back to a _singular_ referent. I
> use that myself, sometimes. But it does not remain singular. That would be
> ungrammatical and extremely grating on my ear.
Sure. When speaking about someone of indeterminate gender "was" rather
"were" doing something would be odd.
> I gave a pretty clear example of precisely what I meant. I have never heard
> or heard about _anyone_ use "they" in the _singular_ grammatical capacity.
FWIW I have heard this in a spoken context. And it didn't sound *so*
strange probably because of accent or being in a fairly incomprensible
dialect.
> _Precision_ in communication is not a trait with native speakers, is it?
Probably not. However, in my experience precision in communication is
quite often not a trait in any communication. Although, for most
things, does it matter?
;)w
From: Patrick W
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <oBQQ8.1250$5l4.48428@ozemail.com.au>
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.net> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.net...
>
> ["they" vs "he" or "he or she"]
>
> Does it remain _singular_? Not in my experience, except for the
illiterates.
> James A. Crippen went ballistic not even seeing this point for all the
hate
> he could not control, but what normally happens is that people drop the
> correspondence in number and use they as a _plural_ form to refer back
to a
> _singular_ referent.
Formally, that's what usually happens. I haven't needed to be conscious of
it until now, but a few experiments with a 'singular' "they" in a formal
context confirm that it *does* clang. (Looking back at my various writings,
I haven't found an instance of "they" as singular, which suggests that I was
aware of the clang, but wasn't aware of being aware of it).
Informally, though, it's quite common in *speech* in my environment (mostly
Australia and England). It implies informality, not illiteracy. AFAICT, it
is neither a recent innovation (to circumvent the awkwardness of he/she) nor
a deliberate revival of an old tradition for the same purpose.
I'm less sure now, though ;-)
Will keep my eyes and ears open.
From: Patrick W
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <zcRQ8.1256$5l4.49042@ozemail.com.au>
"Patrick W" <······@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
·························@ozemail.com.au...
>
> Informally, though, it's quite common in *speech* in my environment
(mostly
> Australia and England). It implies informality, not illiteracy. AFAICT, it
> is neither a recent innovation (to circumvent the awkwardness of he/she)
nor
> a deliberate revival of an old tradition for the same purpose.
Having read more articles in the thread, I realise we're at crossed
purposes. I did not mean to imply that "they is" or "they was" has ever been
common in England or Australia.
IOW, please ignore.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3bsa4a9jy.fsf@cley.com>
* Erik Naggum wrote:
> Huh? An act of British Parliament? Never heard that one before. (I have no
> idea what an English Parliament is, so I assume it is British. If it is the
> language English that has a Parliament, I have never heard of
> that, either.)
The English parliament would be the British parliament before the act
of union with Scotland I expect.
> There is some record of illiterate use of "they" in this function, but that
> usage lost grounds a _really_ long time ago. Lots of things have turned out
> to be bad ideas, yet become revived when people of little clue need to find
> ways to be protest some authority or another, and think the right way is to
> use something that predates the decision they protest. This is really funny
> to watch from the outside. Arguing with tradition alone is quaintly British,
> but selectivity in adopting lost traditions has always appeared affected to
> me. It can have some effect, as in Do What Thou Wilst, but overall, I think
> it reeks of silliness more than anything else.
I can only speak for myself, but I don't think `they' has died out.
I'm a native British English speaker, I grew up in the home counties
and went to private schools. The obvious inferences about my dialect
and class are correct, although my dialect has been altered by living
in Scotland for 13 years and by spending too much time involved in a
US-influenced written culture (usenet) over roughly the same period.
My parents are not politically correct and would frown upon PC usage.
I first became aware of using `they' for third person singular at prep
school, so before I was 13, but I'm not sure how long before. As far
as I can tell this was just the point at which I started becoming
curious about how I and others used language, it was not the point at
which I started using it. I don't remember it being corrected at that
or my subsequent school. This was a school where Latin was a
compulsory subject: they would have corrected (and did correct)
anything they were aware of as non-standard English.
I would like to find out whether `they' is native in my parents'
dialects (which are similar but not identical). Unfortunately I can't
easily ask because if I did they would say it's not because they'd see
it as PC usage. Given that they did not (and do not) correct my usage
I assume it is native to them, but I live too far away from them to
have the kind of conversation I'd need to engineer to discover what
they use. I have some hope of doing this next time I see them.
I still use `they' like this, and I don't make any particular attempt
to speak or write in a PC way. I *hate* `he/she', alternating usage or
any of these spurious things, I accept `Ms' but would prefer people
- male or female - to use no title if they care. I often say
`England' when I mean `Britain' which is pretty unfortunate given
where I live. Agreement goes syntactically, not semantically, so I
say `they are' not `they is'. This is similar to German `Sie sind'
not `Sie ist' as far as I can see. I produce `he' sometimes too, but
never `she'.
So I have really good first-hand evidence that `they' in this usage is
native (or was recently native) in a fairly prestigious British
English dialect. Its nativeness (nativity? hmm) is probably masked by
the PC issues that surround it so that if you *ask* speakers of this
dialect many will say it is not native.
I would be interested if anyone else who comes from a similar
background could comment on this.
--tim
PS. I just had an interesting conversation with my partner who pointed
out another similar usage in my dialect or its ancestors: `it' as a
generic third person pronoun. This is quite interesting: it applies
*only* to children (probably small children) and animals. I think it
is dying out, or has died out, for referring to children: I'm sure
that my parents could refer to a baby as `it' but I don't think that I
could without consciously speaking in a somewhat archaic way. It is
still acceptable for animals, but I think it is becoming unacceptable
for pets (particularly cats and dogs). If you call someone's dog `it'
then you are being fairly unfriendly - the polite thing to do is ask
them if it's a he or she, and then use that. In fact, I'm fairly sure
that 100 years ago it would be acceptable to call a child `it', but
*not* acceptable to call someone's dog `it'. This says something
about how society worked in England...
The interesting thing is that it's *not* native in her (Scottish)
dialect, but she picked it up by reading a lot of ~100 year old
children's books, and then unconsciously generalised it to refer to
*any* third person (since most of the people referred to in children's
books are children she didn't have enough counter-examples). This
sounds *really strange* to me...
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87bsa4jvn3.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> PS. I just had an interesting conversation with my partner who pointed
> out another similar usage in my dialect or its ancestors: `it' as a
> generic third person pronoun. This is quite interesting: it applies
> *only* to children (probably small children) and animals.
In the (American) dialect I speak (which is basically Broadcaster
Standard), "it" can refer to babies, but not toddlers or much beyond
that. I think the usage of "it" seem to be semantically coupled to
the lack of some kind of identifiable personality. That hypothesis
accounts for the growing distaste of "it" for pets, and the shrinking
of it to infants, or never humans at all.
One of the delights of reading Chaucer--Middle English--for me, is
that in that older language, "he" and "she" are normal pronouns for
various inanimate objects; a thing that we have only a few survivals
of in Modern English, and those are rapidly fading (ships, nations,
etc.)
Thomas
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233681730964508@naggum.net>
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
| One of the delights of reading Chaucer--Middle English--for me, is that in
| that older language, "he" and "she" are normal pronouns for various inanimate
| objects; a thing that we have only a few survivals of in Modern English, and
| those are rapidly fading (ships, nations, etc.)
Espen Vestre mentioned the curious concoction some Norwegians write (it is
not spoken) called "New Norwegian" ("nynorsk"), and its users have this
disturbing habit (grammatical rule, really) of referring to inanimate objects
with their genderful pronouns. If "key" is masculine, you refer to your key
as "he". If "spoon" is feminine, you refer to it as "she". This weirds me
out. Real Norwegian does not even _have_ a feminine gender, but of course
has feminine pronouns. Consequently, we have "den" for masculine and "det"
for neutral grammatical gender, and "han" and "hun" respectively for sex. It
does indeed make translation from "New" to real Norwegian difficult, but then
again, the irrelevant minority who cannot bother to write real Norwegian is
soon to be extinct, anyway, as "New Norwegian" is more likely to be English a
few years from now. Case in point: at the New Norwegian national conferences
they are more concerned with expressing their support for Palestinian terror
than anything remotely related to their language, so it is not unlike the
politically correct and equally radical gratuitous changes to English, except
it was started a long time ago by a nutcase who protested the government's
language and who was not stopped in time, and it has remained a protestor's
language ever since. (And we are only 4.5 million people. It is such a
goddamn waste, and yet it may explain something about my getting pissed off
by people who are unable to deal with arbitrary decisions and just move on.)
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: JB
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3d15d0e6_11@news.newsgroups.com>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Real Norwegian does not even _have_ a feminine
> gender, but of course
> has feminine pronouns. Consequently, we have "den" for
> masculine and "det"
> for neutral grammatical gender, and "han" and "hun"
> respectively for sex.
Do I understand that correctly? There are two grammatical
genders, masculinum and neutrum. And by "feminine
prononoun" Erik means "girl" for example?
If this is true, then the same thing is happening in German
at the moment. For exmaple the word for "girl" is "M�dchen"
and it is neutral. In good German we refer to a girl as
"it", for example "Ich sah ein M�dchen, es war h�bsch",
that is "I saw a girl, it was good looking". But in "new
German" they say "sie war h�bsch", that is "she was good
looking".
So German is getting closer and closer to bad English.
--
Janos Blazi
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3lm96t02t.fsf@quimbies.gnus.org>
JB <······@hotmail.com> writes:
> Do I understand that correctly? There are two grammatical
> genders, masculinum and neutrum.
That's true in the dialect that Erik speaks (and writes). In
standard Norwegian (both the majority "bokm�l" standard and the
minority "nynorsk" standard), there are three genders.
> And by "feminine prononoun" Erik means "girl" for example?
Probably not.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
·····@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233853179068713@naggum.net>
* Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
| That's true in the dialect that Erik speaks (and writes). In standard
| Norwegian (both the majority "bokm�l" standard and the minority "nynorsk"
| standard), there are three genders.
My "dialect" is the standard upon which the bastardized Bokm�l is based.
Back in 1929, Riksm�l was renamed Bokm�l and perverted by nynorsk freaks, in
the brutal murder of decent language in Norwegian called Samnorsk, which was
abandoned more than 50 years ago, having wrought havoc with both languages,
Riksm�l survived through the sheer will-power of educated authors who formed
a society for the preservation of Norwegian and published the best dictionary
of Norwegian in the past 150 years, like the Oxford English Dictionary or
Merriam-Webster's Unabridged.
Nynorsk is a concoction of dialects and allows a very wide range of forms.
Bokm�l is also a wide range of forms, such that radical Bokm�l is very close
to moderate Nynorsk. Radical Nynorsk is quite simply unintelligible.
Moderate Bokm�ls reasonably close to Riksm�l. Some Norwegians, obsessed with
eradicting good taste and class distinctions, claim that Riksm�l is also a
"dialect" -- but Riksm�l is the _only_ "dialect" in Norway that you cannot
write in official government communication, which is enough reason to do it,
but the status as "dialect" is contradicted by the official government policy
of accepting _all_ dialects equally. Except well-written, real Norwegian.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m34rftu3l6.fsf@quimbies.gnus.org>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> but Riksm�l is the _only_ "dialect" in Norway that you cannot write
> in official government communication
Just in case anybody actually is still reading this -- this is, of
course, nonsense.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
·····@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233855794260586@naggum.net>
* Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <·····@gnus.org>
| Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
|
| > but Riksm�l is the _only_ "dialect" in Norway that you cannot write
| > in official government communication
|
| Just in case anybody actually is still reading this -- this is, of
| course, nonsense.
Sigh. People who want to _know_ need to talk to Norsk Spr�kr�d. I cannot
fight ignorance and malice here. The express purpose of the wide range of
allowable forms of Nynorsk and Bokm�l is to make certain that not a single
Norwegian feels left out
Riksm�l is in fact banned by the Norwegian government. There may be
something that Lars considers a "dialect" somwhere, spoken by so few people
as to constitute an regionally _unaccepted_ speech disorder instead of the
accepted ones that make dialects, but it is hard to tell what someone who
calls Riksm�l a "dialect" might actually mean by that word.
This is no longer a debate for this forum, however. People who want to know
have to ask Norwegian government linguists in Norsk Spr�kr�d. They, and only
they, control what is officially accepted.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m3vg89sndj.fsf@quimbies.gnus.org>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> This is no longer a debate for this forum, however.
As if it ever were.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
·····@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
From: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <kwfzzdqew0.fsf@merced.netfonds.no>
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <·····@gnus.org> writes:
> That's true in the dialect that Erik speaks (and writes). In
> standard Norwegian (both the majority "bokm�l" standard and the
> minority "nynorsk" standard), there are three genders.
I've heard linguists refer to 'west side Osloish' as having 2.5
genders ;-)
--
(espen)
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87k7oqjb8y.fsf@darkstar.cartan>
JB <······@hotmail.com> writes:
> Erik Naggum wrote:
> > Real Norwegian does not even _have_ a feminine
> > gender, but of course
> > has feminine pronouns. Consequently, we have "den" for
> > masculine and "det"
> > for neutral grammatical gender, and "han" and "hun"
> > respectively for sex.
>
> Do I understand that correctly? There are two grammatical
> genders, masculinum and neutrum. And by "feminine
> prononoun" Erik means "girl" for example?
> If this is true, then the same thing is happening in German
> at the moment. For exmaple the word for "girl" is "M�dchen"
> and it is neutral. In good German we refer to a girl as
> "it", for example "Ich sah ein M�dchen, es war h�bsch",
> that is "I saw a girl, it was good looking". But in "new
> German" they say "sie war h�bsch", that is "she was good
> looking".
What the hell is this? Do people really say that? For
``political'' reasons? They should be shot.
> So German is getting closer and closer to bad English.
Yes, like this disgusting new habit of saying ``in 1984'' instead
of just ``1984'', invented by some social democrat, I think, or
``in englisch'' instead of ``auf englisch''. It is amazing how
people, whose anti-americanism cannot be overestimated otherwise,
are particularly big fans of the ``Englishification'' of their
own language.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xC66D6E6F
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3d164875@news.sentex.net>
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>,
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> ...
>> and it is neutral. In good German we refer to a girl as
>> "it", for example "Ich sah ein M�dchen, es war h�bsch",
>> that is "I saw a girl, it was good looking". But in "new
>> German" they say "sie war h�bsch", that is "she was good
>> looking".
>
> What the hell is this? Do people really say that? For
> ``political'' reasons? They should be shot.
why? imo it's only an indication that german is still a living
language, following a trend that most western european languages have
followed for centuries
>> So German is getting closer and closer to bad English.
>
> Yes, like this disgusting new habit of saying ``in 1984'' instead
> of just ``1984'', invented by some social democrat, I think, or
> ``in englisch'' instead of ``auf englisch''. It is amazing how
> people, whose anti-americanism cannot be overestimated otherwise,
> are particularly big fans of the ``Englishification'' of their
> own language.
despite this "englishification" being fashionable, wouldn't it also be
a repetition of the process english went through a few centuries ago?
when i went to university, we had to take a few humanistic studies,
and i took english in the language department (duennbrettbohrer). one
of the things our prof didn't tire of pointing out that english
started changing rapidly from a typical germanic language to a
germanic/romanic mixture and then to its current form with xposure to
foreign influences, aided by a willingness to adopt forein language
constructs without "englishizing" them.
hs
--
don't use malice as an explanation when stupidity suffices
From: Julian Stecklina
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87ofe050lb.fsf@jmmr.no-ip.com>
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
[...]
> Yes, like this disgusting new habit of saying ``in 1984'' instead
> of just ``1984'', invented by some social democrat, I think, or
> ``in englisch'' instead of ``auf englisch''. It is amazing how
> people, whose anti-americanism cannot be overestimated otherwise,
> are particularly big fans of the ``Englishification'' of their
> own language.
To use "in 1984" in German language is really strange. I only heard
some "business men" use that and it really hurted my ear. :)
But I think there there is a minor difference in meaning between "in
Englisch" and "auf Englisch". I cannot specify it, but somehow there
are different connotations. I never considered it, however "in" seems
worse German in this context.
Regards,
Julian
--
Meine Hompage: http://julian.re6.de
Ich suche eine PCMCIA v1.x type I/II/III Netzwerkkarte.
Ich biete als Tauschobjekt eine v2 100MBit Karte in OVP.
From: Erik Haugan
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <877kkpf5nu.fsf@arequipa.haugan.no>
* Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
> Espen Vestre mentioned the curious concoction some Norwegians write (it is
> not spoken) called "New Norwegian" ("nynorsk"), [...]
Those of you who are more interested in the Norwegian language situation
than Erik Naggum's dislike for it, can look it up in e.g. Webster's
Unabridged (here from the 1989 edition):
Norwegian [...] 3. the speech of Norway in any of its forms, whether
Dano-Norwegian, the local dialects, or the standard language based on
these, all being closely related to one another and to the other
Scandinavian languages.
The mentioned standard language is what is known as New Norwegian, while
Dano-Norwegian is a Norwegian adaption of Danish. (Norway was under
Danish rule from 1536 to 1814, and before that in a union with Denmark
since 1380.) These two languages are the only written forms of
Norwegian.
The only unique and somewhat bizarre about the Norwegian language
situation, is that the government at one point (in the nineteen
thirties) decided that the languages should be mixed into one. This
policy failed, and has been abandoned, but the result is that both
languages have an endless number of varieties, from the most traditional
ones to varieties heavily mixed up with the other language. A subset of
these varieties is sanctioned by the government. The traditional
Dano-Norwegian that Erik Naggum uses, is not. Neither is traditional
New Norwegian or the most mixed up varieties.
> [...] and its users have this
> disturbing habit (grammatical rule, really) of referring to inanimate objects
> with their genderful pronouns.
This is a characteristic of Norwegian language, as opposed to Danish and
and Swedish.
> [...] at the New Norwegian national conferences they are more
> concerned with expressing their support for Palestinian terror [...]
This is nonsense. (I was there.)
I often enjoy off-topic threads in comp.lang.lisp, but please try to
stay at least vaguely in touch with reality when you attack third
parties, so that it won't be _necessary_ to follow up.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233929124677278@naggum.net>
* Erik Haugan
| Those of you who are more interested in the Norwegian language situation
| than Erik Naggum's dislike for it, can look it up in e.g. Webster's
| Unabridged (here from the 1989 edition):
Huh? What are you quoting from? Merriam-Webster's Unabridged has this to
say on Norwegian. See unabridged.merriam-webster.com:
Main Entry: norwegian
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Usage: capitalized
Etymology: Medieval Latin Norvegia, Norwegia Norway + English -an, n. suffix
1 a : a native or inhabitant of Norway b : a person of Norwegian descent
2 : the Germanic language of the Norwegian people -- see LANDSMAL, RIKSMAL
: INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES table
This entry clearly predates 1929, when the names were changed to Nynorsk and
Bokm�l. However, at no point has any Norwegian been labeled Dano-Norwegian
by any _other_ people than the Landsm�l/Nynorsk freaks. They also think it
is an insult -- "yours is not real Norwegian because it has Danish in it,
nya, nya, nya", which is a load of crap. Ask any _Danish_ person about this.
So I have no idea where you constantly drag up this stupid "Dano-Norwegian"
but it is a recurring theme with the nationalist nynorsk freaks who want
their little minority stunt to be "Norwegian", despite the fact that it was
made up from some self-selected dialects, whereas Riksm�l was the actual
spoken and written language of the cities.
| The mentioned standard language is what is known as New Norwegian, while
| Dano-Norwegian is a Norwegian adaption of Danish.
This is just plain historically wrong. Nynorsk freaks try _so_ hard to make
it look this way, and even use "Dansk-Norsk" to refer to Bokm�l of today in
order to present themselves as retarded hostile jerks rather than actually
say anything useful about Bokm�l. Suffice to say that Nynorsk is a losing
language and that its practitioners and defenders are getting increasingly
hostile to their environment. They also waste enormous amounts of taxpayer
money on forced publication of nynorsk textbooks in public school that are
never used. Lots of things like that poison the language debate in Norway,
and this Dano-Norwegian crap is part of it. Erik Haugan is even part of this
movement, and you can reach him at <full.name>@nynorsk.no. Generally very
knowledgeable about nynorsk, he is _way_ more partial about this language
issue than I am, and should scare people.
| The traditional Dano-Norwegian that Erik Naggum uses, is not.
It is called Riksm�l. It even has its own dictionary entry in good English
dictionaries, you nynorsk twit. This insulting Dano-Norwegian crap does not.
| This is nonsense. (I was there.)
So was the journalist who reported it. Maybe you missed it. Or maybe it was
just too unintelligible even for those of you present. Nynorsk is like that.
See what happens when people just cannot just accept a standard, but have to
be stupid rebels? Norway did not even have a revolution at the time the rest
of Europe was busy figuring out human rights and stuff, because we were busy
fighting over how to spell it. It is _really_ ridiculous, not the least that
the last remaining 10,000 or so people who actually use Nynorsk fight so hard.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Erik Haugan
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87ptygeabk.fsf@arequipa.haugan.no>
* Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
> Huh? What are you quoting from?
Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language,
copyright 1989 by dilithium Press, Ltd., published by Gramercy Books,
ISBN 0-517-68781-X.
> However, at no point has any Norwegian been labeled Dano-Norwegian
> by any _other_ people than the Landsm�l/Nynorsk freaks. They also think it
> is an insult -- "yours is not real Norwegian because it has Danish in it,
> nya, nya, nya", which is a load of crap.
I do not think it is an insult, and although I do think it is a good
term, I normally use the official name "bokm�l" when referring to the
language, because lots of people actually _do_ feel insulted by any hint
that the language they write has Danish roots.
I could write a long article about this issue, but this is not the right
place for it. Maybe I'll write one and put it on my web page.
From: JB
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3d1765c8_1@news.newsgroups.com>
Erik Haugan wrote:
[...]
The "Das gro�e Universallexikon" (Coron-Verlag, Z�rich)
writes:
--
Janos Blazi
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
From: JB
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3d1766f2_1@news.newsgroups.com>
Erik Haugan wrote:
[...]
The "Das gro�e Universallexikon" (Coron-Verlag, Z�rich)
writes:
"Als eine stark vom D�nischen beeinflu�te Schriftsprache
wurde das Riksmal ausgebildet. Das rein norwegische
Landsmal(1853) ist seit 1907 gleichberechtigte
Schriftsprache (seit 1929 "Nynorsk" genannt)."
Which idiom was used by Ibsen and Hamsun?
--
Janos Blazi
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233935031999749@naggum.net>
* JB <······@hotmail.com>
| Which idiom was used by Ibsen and Hamsun?
Henrik Ibsen wrote in a beautiful Riksm�l and influenced the Riksm�l
dictionary strongly.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Erik Haugan
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87k7ooea2r.fsf@arequipa.haugan.no>
* JB <······@hotmail.com>
> Which idiom was used by Ibsen and Hamsun?
Riksm�l. The most well known landsm�l author of that time is Arne
Garborg.
From: JB
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3d178068_3@news.newsgroups.com>
Erik Haugan wrote:
> * JB <······@hotmail.com>
>> Which idiom was used by Ibsen and Hamsun?
>
> Riksm�l. The most well known landsm�l author of that time
> is Arne Garborg.
So do I understand you correctly? You reject the idiom Ibsen
and Hamsun used, on ideological grounds?
--
Janos Blazi
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
From: Erik Haugan
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87fzzce51x.fsf@arequipa.haugan.no>
* JB <······@hotmail.com>
> So do I understand you correctly? You reject the idiom Ibsen
> and Hamsun used, on ideological grounds?
I'm not sure what rejecting a language would mean. Actually I find it
quite fascinating. To the best of my knowledge it is the only colonial
language that has successfully been gradually changed and widely
accepted as a variety of the colonized country's own national language.
I'm told that the situation in Ukraine is similar in some regards.
Ukrainian and Russian are closely related languages. Russian, the
language of the old colonial power, has got high status and is widely
used in the country. Ukrainian is also used. However, at no point has
anyone tried to metamorphose Russian into a variety of Ukrainian.
But I'll answer your real question. On ideological grounds I think
Norwegians should choose to use Nynorsk in stead of Bokm�l in writing.
And I won't go into that debate in this forum.
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
>...and those are rapidly fading (ships, nations, etc.)
No longer ships. Lloyd's register has announced that ships are to be
neuter from this summer (IIRC).
Nations interesting though because they can be Fatherlands, Mothers or
neuter.
:)w
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3hejv8o97.fsf@cley.com>
* Will Deakin wrote:
> No longer ships. Lloyd's register has announced that ships are to be
> neuter from this summer (IIRC).
I've always wondered what people did about ships with obviously
masculine names. HMS Lord Nelson? Lots and lots of examples in navies.
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <878z56o81a.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> I've always wondered what people did about ships with obviously
> masculine names. HMS Lord Nelson? Lots and lots of examples in navies.
They called them "she".
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233677487195639@naggum.net>
* Tim Bradshaw
| I can only speak for myself, but I don't think `they' has died out.
That has got to be the only use of a grammatically singular "they" I would
approve of. I mean, I really thought the example I gave would be a clear-
cut clue of precisely what I was objecting to. In the literature, which I
thought it would be clear that I referred with "there is some record", when
"they" is used with non-plural referents, it still remains _grammatically_
plural, except with illiterate use of "they" as grammatically singular, which
some people have indeed done in the past.
| I don't remember it being corrected at that or my subsequent school.
As long as you kept writing "they are" instead of "they is", there would be
little reason to correct it, unless, of course, the mismatch in number would
be garish or highly ambiguous. Suppose you have a co-ed sports team, they
get a new player, and the coach says "You must treat them well."
| I still use `they' like this, and I don't make any particular attempt to
| speak or write in a PC way. I *hate* `he/she', alternating usage or any of
| these spurious things, I accept `Ms' but would prefer people - male or female
| - to use no title if they care. I often say `England' when I mean `Britain'
| which is pretty unfortunate given where I live.
| Agreement goes syntactically, not semantically, so I say `they are' not `they
| is'. This is similar to German `Sie sind' not `Sie ist' as far as I can see.
Precisely. However, what people really mean gets lost when some dirtbag goes
bananas over some supposed mistake you never made, and the art of paying
attention is considered irrelevant compared to the need to bash people's head
in for opinions they do not hold. Trying to rectify such twists of meaning
because some idiot imputes a different meaning to you that everybody believe
is so fucking annoying I think people like James A. Crippen should be beaten.
When they case psychopaths like Thomas Bushnell to crawl out of his cave to
abuse me for something that James A. Crippen invented, I get really steamed.
However, again, precision in a native language appears to be a lost art. One
of the reasons it is so much easier for me than sloppy dimwits to be precise
is that I _have_ had to make a conscious effort to learn languages (with lots
of conflicting pronunciations and usages from people from all over the world
as your English-speaking community, you cannot just mimick whatever people
say around you), and I have studied Norwegian equally hard, mostly because
the "native dialect" where I grew up is so goddamn ugly. I try not to be
sloppy, but when some native jerk uses his own sloppiness to accuse others of
same, I think someone should have their head examined. Goddamn losers.
| PS. I just had an interesting conversation with my partner who pointed out
| another similar usage in my dialect or its ancestors: `it' as a generic third
| person pronoun.
I use that all the time. Some people _are_ its.
| If you call someone's dog `it' then you are being fairly unfriendly - the
| polite thing to do is ask them if it's a he or she, and then use that.
My queen (the supposed correct term for a female cat) goes by "she" when she
is cute and "it" when it does something bad. I do the same for children and
people. Unfriendly or not, unintelligent animal behavior should have a class
of pronouns all to itself. I'm not kidding. I think it is fully proper to
dehumanize idiots by revoking their right to be called by pronouns reserved
for thinking people -- using "he" or "she" means you care enough about them
as human beings (or pets) to want to know their sex, with "it" you could not
care less.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87ptykidpr.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> That has got to be the only use of a grammatically singular "they"
> I would approve of. I mean, I really thought the example I gave
> would be a clear- cut clue of precisely what I was objecting to.
> In the literature, which I thought it would be clear that I
> referred with "there is some record", when "they" is used with
> non-plural referents, it still remains _grammatically_ plural,
> except with illiterate use of "they" as grammatically singular,
> which some people have indeed done in the past.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone use "they" with a singular verb,
though I suppose it's probably happened.
> When they case psychopaths like Thomas Bushnell to crawl out of
> his cave to abuse me for something that James A. Crippen invented,
> I get really steamed.
The irony here is that you haven't noticed that you and I were
agreeing. What fun you are! Thanks.
Thomas
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3sn3g8itv.fsf@cley.com>
* Erik Naggum wrote:
> That has got to be the only use of a grammatically singular "they" I would
> approve of. I mean, I really thought the example I gave would be a clear-
> cut clue of precisely what I was objecting to. In the literature, which I
> thought it would be clear that I referred with "there is some record", when
> "they" is used with non-plural referents, it still remains _grammatically_
> plural, except with illiterate use of "they" as grammatically singular, which
> some people have indeed done in the past.
If I understand you, then I agree. The syntax must make sense, so it's
`they are' but not `they is'. `They is' or anything where the
disagreement is too glaring would immediately make me think the
writer/speaker was not very literate.
> As long as you kept writing "they are" instead of "they is", there would be
> little reason to correct it, unless, of course, the mismatch in number would
> be garish or highly ambiguous. Suppose you have a co-ed sports team, they
> get a new player, and the coach says "You must treat them well."
I think that would be hard for me, because the individual is probably
known. What is OK is something like: `someone broke in last night,
but they did not steal the biscuits' where the `they' quite clearly
refers to an (unknown) individual. I *think* that this would not have
been corrected, but I can't do a retrospective experiment...
There's a fine skating-around-of-syntactic-problems that goes on in
this usage I think. It's possible to construct linguistic situations
where things really jar, and in previous exchanges with people I've
had about this they've spent a lot of time trying to construct such
situations to make me admit I would not really use `they'. I think
the answer is that in those cases I'd probably revert to `he', or just
avoid them. Unfortunately I'm terribly tired so I can't construct any
good examples at present (we shipped things this week after too many
hours of solid work...).
> My queen (the supposed correct term for a female cat) goes by
> "she" when she is cute and "it" when it does something bad.
I think `queen' is right, but I'm not sure I'd use it. It's not as
bad as `bitch', which has become almost impossible to use naturally I
think: to me it's use for female dog would sound affected in anyone
under 50 (again, in a southern English context). I just tried to
think about my cat, and I'm pretty sure I'd always use `she', however
cross I was. What I *do* do with cats and dogs when cross with them
is to refer to them very deliberately as `animal': `that bloody animal
has been eating the plants again', rather than `she has...' or `Becca
has ...'.
Right, I'm going back to sleep now...
--tim
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87d6ukibj5.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> If I understand you, then I agree. The syntax must make sense, so it's
> `they are' but not `they is'. `They is' or anything where the
> disagreement is too glaring would immediately make me think the
> writer/speaker was not very literate.
There are dialects of English in which "they is" is a standard form.
That's obviously not any of the dominant standard dialects--and your
judgment that they are probably illiterate surely derives from the
fact that literature is written in the dominant standard dialects.
·········@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
>
> > If I understand you, then I agree. The syntax must make sense, so it's
> > `they are' but not `they is'. `They is' or anything where the
> > disagreement is too glaring would immediately make me think the
> > writer/speaker was not very literate.
>
> There are dialects of English in which "they is" is a standard form.
> That's obviously not any of the dominant standard dialects--and your
> judgment that they are probably illiterate surely derives from the
> fact that literature is written in the dominant standard dialects.
... from the fact that litterature is /generally/ written in the
dominant standard dialects.
It's not always.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87r8j0gla0.fsf@becket.becket.net>
···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> ... from the fact that litterature is /generally/ written in the
> dominant standard dialects.
>
> It's not always.
Quite right, and indeed some of the best literature is that which
flexible warps and zips from dialect to dialect. One thinks of Homer,
Shakespeare, Twain, Faulkner...
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3n0to8ics.fsf@cley.com>
* I wrote:
> think: to me it's use for female dog would sound affected in anyone
This must be `its', mustn't it. This undoubtedly fulfils some
requirement that all posts about grammar should contain at least one
really embarrassing error. Never mind, I really do need to sleep...
--tim
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233685780109473@naggum.net>
* Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com>
| If I understand you, then I agree. The syntax must make sense, so it's
| `they are' but not `they is'. `They is' or anything where the
| disagreement is too glaring would immediately make me think the
| writer/speaker was not very literate.
My point exactly. However, there is no telling what people who want to make
changes to a language might want to do. Mismatch in number is already a
grammatical error. One could regard compounding this grammatical error with
another as worsening the already sorry situation. At one point, of course,
you have a completely different sentence, which has become grammatical
through any number of individual ungrammatical steps. Where to start? Where
to stop? _How_ do you decided that some ungrammatical form is acceptable?
Of course, you might argue, a native speaker would never write "they is", so
you do not even consider that an option. HOWEVER, people have actually done
this in the past, a long time ago. Whether it was another stupid stunt to
try to get rid of he/she or not, I have no way of telling, but what I wrote
was precisely what I have found. This is, again, why I write "there is some
record" of this phenomenon. That I either did not interpret "singular third
person pronoun" to mean "of course, we don't treat it as a singular for any
_other_ purposes" or the person who argued this was blindly _unaware_ of the
historical record that some _illiterates_ (in my view as well as the position
taken by linguists both then and after the fact), it is hard to tell, but I
am so fucking tired of people who attack me for their own goddamn emotional
problems and general failure to cope with unwelcome feelings and events.
| What is OK is something like: `someone broke in last night, but they did not
| steal the biscuits' where the `they' quite clearly refers to an (unknown)
| individual. I *think* that this would not have been corrected, but I can't
| do a retrospective experiment...
I would not object to that, but I would not call it a _singular_ pronoun. It
is something else. Indefinite or whatever, but calling it "singular" would
imply the singular form of other words, too. The fact that "you are" is the
same for singular and plural does not mean that randomly using another
pronoun in a new role carries anything similar with it. Languages do not
grow that way. Historically, languages have grown through steps of least
resistance. Is there less resistance from "he is" to "they is" or to "they
are"? People _have_ in fact differed in this view, regardless of the fucking
annoying ignorance of James A. Crippen and his need to blame me for it.
| There's a fine skating-around-of-syntactic-problems that goes on in this
| usage I think. It's possible to construct linguistic situations where things
| really jar, and in previous exchanges with people I've had about this they've
| spent a lot of time trying to construct such situations to make me admit I
| would not really use `they'. I think the answer is that in those cases I'd
| probably revert to `he', or just avoid them.
It is fairly obvious to me that you _cannot_ just make a simple change like
"s/he/they/". In order to make this work, you have to change the whole way
you think about referring to people. I consider it massively stupid to even
_attempt_ to believe that "he" can be replaced with "they" without serious
ramifications. There is a difference betwen "may the best man win" and "may
the best man or woman win" -- you would instead say "may the best contestant
win". If you would say "someone broke in last night, but at least he left
the aquarium intact", is it better to rewrite to "they" than to rewrite to
"someone broke in last, fortunately leaving the aquarium intact"? The use of
pronouns is just one of several ways to refer back to something. Simple and
short sentence structures with subject-verb-object forms need pronouns more
than more complex sentence structures. It may be highly preferable to find
other forms of expression if the pronouns get in the way than to use more
pronouns.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Lieven Marchand
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87wussb5vn.fsf@wyrd.be>
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> I think `queen' is right, but I'm not sure I'd use it. It's not as
> bad as `bitch', which has become almost impossible to use naturally I
> think: to me it's use for female dog would sound affected in anyone
> under 50 (again, in a southern English context).
I think this is context and profession related too. Our local
television station is broadcasting reruns of the BBC programme Vets in
Practice and spaying bitches comes up fairly regularly.
--
Bored, now.
Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be>
"Tim Bradshaw" <···@cley.com> wrote in message
····················@cley.com...
| I think that would be hard for me, because the individual is probably
| known. What is OK is something like: `someone broke in last night,
| but they did not steal the biscuits' where the `they' quite clearly
| refers to an (unknown) individual. I *think* that this would not have
| been corrected, but I can't do a retrospective experiment...
It's interesting that robbery comes forward so often as an example. Crime,
by design, involves secrets, _especially_ the identity of the perpetrators.
The break-in example is thus a lucid case of using "they" when we're utterly
uncertain about who committed the crime, and we may even presume that there
were numerous until the opposite is proven. After all, one person is just a
special case of a group of people.
By the way, do those knowledgeable about political correctness know how to
transliterate this?
"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
Robert
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87ofe368zg.fsf@becket.becket.net>
"Robert Monfera" <·······@fisec.com> writes:
> By the way, do those knowledgeable about political correctness know how to
> transliterate this?
>
> "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
What kind of transliteration is necessary?
If the goal is to accurately report Armstrong's words, then obviously
no change would do so.
If the goal is to say to Armstrong that he should have said something
different, than that is at best applying the standards of today to a
1969--and more than that, it's insulting unless you are his teacher.
If the goal is to ask what I would say (I being someone who tries to
avoid unnecessarily gendered language) the answer is that I wasn't on
the moon, I wouldn't have even thought up that fabulous sentence, and
I'm much more fascinated by Armstrong's achievement, and not just his,
but all those who did it with him (that "mankind" of which he spoke),
and I just don't see the language issue...
Thomas
In article <······················@news2.news.adelphia.net>, "Robert Monfera"
<·······@fisec.com> writes:
>"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
Armstrong was supposed to say "One small step for *a* man, one giant leap for
mankind". He had such an important 15 minutes of fame that he still has a
little residual fame, and he blew his main line. Maybe it's fitting that (as I
guess) more people remember Sir Edmund Hillary's name.
What he would be supposed to say now is "One small step for a man, one giant
leap for humanity". You still get the "man" sylable in there, so the second
part is sonorous after saying the first, but many fewer people would perceive
it as sexist. And rightly so, IMO.
-- Attaining and helping others attain "Aha!" experiences, as satisfying as
attaining and helping others attain orgasms.
········@aol.comNOSPAM (Dvd Avins) wrote in message news:<·····························@mb-bd.aol.com>...
> In article <······················@news2.news.adelphia.net>, "Robert Monfera"
> <·······@fisec.com> writes:
>
> >"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
>
> Armstrong was supposed to say "One small step for *a* man, one giant leap for
> mankind".
At least he was dissuaded from saying "I claim this land for Texas."
:)
> He had such an important 15 minutes of fame that he still has a
> little residual fame
He got a lot more than 15 minutes of fame. He became the first man on
the moon. The first on another celestial body.
> and he blew his main line. Maybe it's fitting that (as I
> guess) more people remember Sir Edmund Hillary's name.
Not very likely, I had to look up his name. :)
As I understand, he's claimed to be the first on the top of Mt
Everest.
The moon is rather a lot higher up. :)
> What he would be supposed to say now is "One small step for a man, one giant
> leap for humanity". You still get the "man" sylable in there, so the second
> part is sonorous after saying the first, but many fewer people would perceive
> it as sexist. And rightly so, IMO.
You also loose the pattern man - mankind. "mankind" and "humanity"
means the same thing, anyway (note the "man" in "human" and
"humanity"). There's nothing sexist about it.
Regards,
Terje
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <3233752775379726@naggum.net>
* Dvd Avins
> What he would be supposed to say now is "One small step for a man, one giant
> leap for humanity". You still get the "man" sylable in there, so the second
> part is sonorous after saying the first, but many fewer people would perceive
> it as sexist. And rightly so, IMO.
* Terje Sletteb�
| You also loose the pattern man - mankind. "mankind" and "humanity" means the
| same thing, anyway (note the "man" in "human" and "humanity"). There's
| nothing sexist about it.
One small step for a human, one giant leap for humanity.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
From: Paolo Amoroso
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <iBcXPck2J7=PMdGtpEudK1v2Y3PH@4ax.com>
On 22 Jun 2002 06:18:01 GMT, ········@aol.comNOSPAM (Dvd Avins) wrote:
> In article <······················@news2.news.adelphia.net>, "Robert Monfera"
> <·······@fisec.com> writes:
>
> >"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
>
> Armstrong was supposed to say "One small step for *a* man, one giant leap for
> mankind". He had such an important 15 minutes of fame that he still has a
> little residual fame, and he blew his main line. Maybe it's fitting that (as I
Armstrong's actual words can be found in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
(which, by the way, is a terrific resource):
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11.step.html#1092413
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <ulm94cyc7.fsf@grant.org>
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:00:38 +0200, Paolo Amoroso ("Paolo") writes:
Paolo> On 22 Jun 2002 06:18:01 GMT, ········@aol.comNOSPAM (Dvd Avins) wrote:
>> In article <······················@news2.news.adelphia.net>, "Robert Monfera"
>> <·······@fisec.com> writes:
>>
>> >"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
>>
>> Armstrong was supposed to say "One small step for *a* man, one giant leap for
>> mankind". He had such an important 15 minutes of fame that he still has a
>> little residual fame, and he blew his main line. Maybe it's fitting that (as I
Paolo> Armstrong's actual words can be found in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
Paolo> (which, by the way, is a terrific resource):
Paolo> http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11.step.html#1092413
Armstrong's actual words can also be found in the personal memories of
some people on the newsgroup. (Is there some dispute about what he said?)
In article <·············@grant.org>,
······@grant.org (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:
> Armstrong's actual words can also be found in the personal memories of
> some people on the newsgroup. (Is there some dispute about what he said?)
Many people, I would have thought. I certainly remember being 6 1/2
years old and standing out at our farm gate at eight in the morning with
my father waiting for the school bus and listening to the landing:
"Houston ... Tranquility Base here ... the Eagle has landed". And
later, in the afternoon, the moonwalk being broadcast over the school
intercom system. We didn't get to *see* it until the next day, because
a tape had to be flown from Australia.
-- Bruce
In article <···························@copper.ipg.tsnz.net>, Bruce Hoult
<·····@hoult.org> writes:
>We didn't get to *see* it until the next day, because
>a tape had to be flown from Australia.
Tape? How quickly we forget. I'd be surprised if it wasn't film.
-- Attaining and helping others attain "Aha!" experiences, as satisfying as
attaining and helping others attain orgasms.
In article <·····························@mb-bd.aol.com>,
········@aol.comNOSPAM (Dvd Avins) wrote:
> In article <···························@copper.ipg.tsnz.net>, Bruce Hoult
> <·····@hoult.org> writes:
>
> >We didn't get to *see* it until the next day, because
> >a tape had to be flown from Australia.
>
> Tape? How quickly we forget. I'd be surprised if it wasn't film.
Why? Broadcast quality videotape has been around since 1956. I don't
know for sure, but everything I've ever seen about all the international
news footage that came across the Tasman every day has said "tape" not
"film".
-- Bruce
From: Michael Sullivan
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <1fen56h.x45i3qtoa08oN%michael@bcect.com>
Dvd Avins <········@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> In article <······················@news2.news.adelphia.net>, "Robert Monfera"
> <·······@fisec.com> writes:
> >"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
> Armstrong was supposed to say "One small step for *a* man, one giant leap for
> mankind". He had such an important 15 minutes of fame that he still has a
> little residual fame, and he blew his main line. Maybe it's fitting that (as I
> guess) more people remember Sir Edmund Hillary's name.
My understanding was that he *did* say 'a man', but that the 'a' was
obliterated by static or some other communication difficulty in what we
heard down here. IIRC, there's a noticeable pause between 'for' and
'man', so that would make perfect sense.
obLisp: Looking to learn lisp (I have some familiarity but have never
really used it), I note that the comp.lang.lisp.mcl newgroup is pretty
much dead. Does this mean MCL is no longer considered reasonable? Are
there other mac options?
Michael
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
From: John Wiseman
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <m2u1njfhh8.fsf@server.local.lemon>
·······@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) writes:
> obLisp: Looking to learn lisp (I have some familiarity but have
> never really used it), I note that the comp.lang.lisp.mcl newgroup
> is pretty much dead. Does this mean MCL is no longer considered
> reasonable? Are there other mac options?
Most MCL discussion takes place on the info-mcl mailing list, see
<http://www.digitool.com/contact.html#discussion-forum>. It's not a
high traffic list (35 messages last month), but it's far from dead.
If you're on a Mac you almost certainly will be happiest with MCL,
even though the OS X version is not yet available. The current
version runs well under Classic, and it is a great programming
environment. It's also really cheap.
A relatively recent change in the Mac world, more or less brought
about by OS X, is that there are actually some alternatives to MCL.
* clisp is pretty mature, though it lacks a native code
compiler. Once you load fink onto your machine, all you have to do
is "fink install clisp". No IDE (except emacs), no Mac GUI stuff.
* OpenMCL is the open source version of MCL
(http://openmcl.clozure.com/). It is mostly based on the mature
MCL codebase, but is still under development, and lacks the
graphical IDE and Mac GUI libraries.
Even with the limitations and alternatives, I personally found it
worthwhile to spend the money for MCL recently.
John Wiseman
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <8765zzgrbx.fsf@bird.agharta.de>
John Wiseman <·········@yahoo.com> writes:
> ·······@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) writes:
>
> > obLisp: Looking to learn lisp (I have some familiarity but have
> > never really used it), I note that the comp.lang.lisp.mcl newgroup
> > is pretty much dead. Does this mean MCL is no longer considered
> > reasonable? Are there other mac options?
>
> Most MCL discussion takes place on the info-mcl mailing list, see
> <http://www.digitool.com/contact.html#discussion-forum>. It's not a
> high traffic list (35 messages last month), but it's far from dead.
>
> If you're on a Mac you almost certainly will be happiest with MCL,
> even though the OS X version is not yet available. The current
> version runs well under Classic, and it is a great programming
> environment. It's also really cheap.
>
> A relatively recent change in the Mac world, more or less brought
> about by OS X, is that there are actually some alternatives to MCL.
>
> * clisp is pretty mature, though it lacks a native code
> compiler. Once you load fink onto your machine, all you have to do
> is "fink install clisp". No IDE (except emacs), no Mac GUI stuff.
>
> * OpenMCL is the open source version of MCL
> (http://openmcl.clozure.com/). It is mostly based on the mature
> MCL codebase, but is still under development, and lacks the
> graphical IDE and Mac GUI libraries.
Don't forget Allegro CL: <http://www.franz.com/products/allegrocl/>.
Edi.
From: John Wiseman
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <m2u1nj2mmz.fsf@server.local.lemon>
Edi Weitz <···@agharta.de> writes:
> Don't forget Allegro CL: <http://www.franz.com/products/allegrocl/>.
Oh yeah! I do tend to forget that, because I haven't heard of anyone
using it yet, and they don't offer that version as a free trial.
John Wiseman
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <47kkfnobt.fsf@beta.franz.com>
John Wiseman <·········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Edi Weitz <···@agharta.de> writes:
>
> > Don't forget Allegro CL: <http://www.franz.com/products/allegrocl/>.
>
> Oh yeah! I do tend to forget that, because I haven't heard of anyone
> using it yet, and they don't offer that version as a free trial.
Quite a few people do use it, even though it does not yet have any
builtin Mac toolkit GUI.
--
Duane Rettig Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/ (www)
1995 University Ave Suite 275 Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone: (510) 548-3600; FAX: (510) 548-8253 ·····@Franz.COM (internet)
From: Paolo Amoroso
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <7LQhPeE=CdyiDtq=RsmQcgZ5f=Zn@4ax.com>
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:01:08 -0400, ·······@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan)
wrote:
[About Neil Armstrong's historical words]
> My understanding was that he *did* say 'a man', but that the 'a' was
> obliterated by static or some other communication difficulty in what we
> heard down here. IIRC, there's a noticeable pause between 'for' and
> 'man', so that would make perfect sense.
The issue has been extensively discussed in the ProjectApollo mailing list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProjectApollo
You may also have a look at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal mentioned
elsewhere.
> obLisp: Looking to learn lisp (I have some familiarity but have never
> really used it), I note that the comp.lang.lisp.mcl newgroup is pretty
> much dead. Does this mean MCL is no longer considered reasonable? Are
I am not an MCL user, but I have often heard that it has an active user
community gathered around its mailing list.
> there other mac options?
You may check OpenMCL, which is under active development:
http://openmcl.clozure.com
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.net> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.net...
| Suppose you have a co-ed sports team, they
| get a new player, and the coach says "You must treat them well."
I've heard (from a butcher, for example) using the word "them" as a synonym
for these, those, and even this, that.
"You must treat them new girl well."
"You can find them chicken over there."
What do you think of them usage curiosities?
| Unfriendly or not, unintelligent animal behavior should have a class
| of pronouns all to itself. I'm not kidding.
It is everyday practice in Hungarian to refer to perceived assholes with
"it". Also, nothing stops a true asshole to use this on others, deserved or
misjudged. And there is a classic book written about how kids humiliate the
protagonist simply by writing his name in all lowercase letters among other
things. It is mandatory reading in primary school.
Robert
"Robert Monfera" <·······@fisec.com> wrote in message ··························@news2.news.adelphia.net...
>
> And there is a classic book written about how kids humiliate the
> protagonist simply by writing his name in all lowercase letters among other
> things.
I'm so humiliated. (see sig)
From: Paul Foley
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m2sn3f6gyh.fsf@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:44:47 GMT, Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Tim Bradshaw
> | I can only speak for myself, but I don't think `they' has died out.
> That has got to be the only use of a grammatically singular "they" I would
> approve of. I mean, I really thought the example I gave would be a clear-
> cut clue of precisely what I was objecting to. In the literature, which I
> thought it would be clear that I referred with "there is some record", when
> "they" is used with non-plural referents, it still remains _grammatically_
> plural, except with illiterate use of "they" as grammatically singular, which
> some people have indeed done in the past.
I don't think it is used with a singular referent, in fact. Various
people /say/ they do that, but sentences in which they claim to be
using "they" for a singular referent seem to always be a sort of "ad
sensum" construct where the real referent is plural. [Anyone have a
counterexample that doesn't sound strange?]
--
In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with
reality at any point. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
From: Patrick W
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <HtUQ8.1328$5l4.51438@ozemail.com.au>
"Paul Foley" <·······@actrix.gen.nz> wrote in message
···················@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz...
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:44:47 GMT, Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> I don't think it is used with a singular referent, in fact. Various
> people /say/ they do that, but sentences in which they claim to be
> using "they" for a singular referent seem to always be a sort of "ad
> sensum" construct where the real referent is plural. [Anyone have a
> counterexample that doesn't sound strange?]
Does this sound strange?
"Somebody called and left a message. I couldn't tell whether it was a man or
a woman. They didn't leave a name or number...."
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3d6uj8o5i.fsf@cley.com>
* Patrick W wrote:
> Does this sound strange?
> "Somebody called and left a message. I couldn't tell whether it was a man or
> a woman. They didn't leave a name or number...."
No. That is the precise usage I'd generate. Or `We're going to meet
the new employee tomorrow, they'll be here at 9:30'.
--tim
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233831343471646@naggum.net>
* Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com>
| No. That is the precise usage I'd generate. Or `We're going to meet
| the new employee tomorrow, they'll be here at 9:30'.
How about "..., which should be here at 9:30"?
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>* Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com>
>| No. That is the precise usage I'd generate. Or `We're going to meet
>| the new employee tomorrow, they'll be here at 9:30'.
>
> How about "..., which should be here at 9:30"?
"[W]hich", when talking about an individual human sounds completely wrong to
me. It is equivalent to "it". I would use it in talking about a corporation,
but I don't think I would if I referred to corporations as "they".
-- Attaining and helping others attain "Aha!" experiences, as satisfying as
attaining and helping others attain orgasms.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis
Date:
Message-ID: <3233832348612333@naggum.net>
* ········@aol.comNOSPAM (Dvd Avins)
| In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
|
| >* Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com>
| >| No. That is the precise usage I'd generate. Or `We're going to meet
| >| the new employee tomorrow, they'll be here at 9:30'.
| >
| > How about "..., which should be here at 9:30"?
|
| "[W]hich", when talking about an individual human sounds completely wrong to
| me. It is equivalent to "it". I would use it in talking about a corporation,
| but I don't think I would if I referred to corporations as "they".
Heh, amusing mistake of mine. I really thought "who", but because of the
purposeful removal of gender/sex, the whole "person" property got lost. Just
goes to show how unnatural I think "they" in such usage is, I guess.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>* ········@aol.comNOSPAM (Dvd Avins)
>| In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
>writes:
>|
>| >* Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com>
>| >| No. That is the precise usage I'd generate. Or `We're going to meet
>| >| the new employee tomorrow, they'll be here at 9:30'.
>| >
>| > How about "..., which should be here at 9:30"?
>|
>| "[W]hich", when talking about an individual human sounds completely wrong
>to
>| me. It is equivalent to "it". I would use it in talking about a
>corporation,
>| but I don't think I would if I referred to corporations as "they".
>
> Heh, amusing mistake of mine. I really thought "who", but because of the
> purposeful removal of gender/sex, the whole "person" property got lost.
>Just
> goes to show how unnatural I think "they" in such usage is, I guess.
"..., who will be here at 9:30" is the sort of constuction I use, which
alienates people because I'm being too formal. I've learned to do it less. If
it's a situation where I think "they" will grate on peoples nerves, I just have
to hope that I'll have the presence of mind to think ahead and say "We're going
to meet the new emplyee at 9:30 tomorrow."
-- Attaining and helping others attain "Aha!" experiences, as satisfying as
attaining and helping others attain orgasms.
"Dvd Avins" <········@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
··································@mb-mo.aol.com...
| I've learned to do it less. If
| it's a situation where I think "they" will grate on peoples nerves, I just
have
| to hope that I'll have the presence of mind to think ahead and say "We're
going
| to meet the new emplyee at 9:30 tomorrow."
Or
"We meet the new emplyee at 9:30 tomorrow."
Robert
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <ey34rft80ld.fsf@cley.com>
* Erik Naggum wrote:
> | No. That is the precise usage I'd generate. Or `We're going to meet
> | the new employee tomorrow, they'll be here at 9:30'.
> How about "..., which should be here at 9:30"?
(assuming you mean `who' not `which', as your followups imply, I
think). Yes that's OK too (although `who will be here at ...' might
be more exact for `they will be here at ...' for me). I *think* I'd
actually write/say what I wrote, but I can't really say for sure now
since there is so much context. What I can say is that I would not
*correct* what I wrote if I was reading a mail message (or more formal
communication) before sending it.
--tim
From: Henrik Motakef
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <871yb0xxtj.fsf@pokey.henrik-motakef.de>
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> PS. I just had an interesting conversation with my partner who pointed
> out another similar usage in my dialect or its ancestors: `it' as a
> generic third person pronoun. This is quite interesting: it applies
> *only* to children (probably small children) and animals.
[...]
> The interesting thing is that it's *not* native in her (Scottish)
> dialect, but she picked it up by reading a lot of ~100 year old
> children's books, and then unconsciously generalised it to refer to
> *any* third person
In a german dialect some of my relatives speak, it is common to use
"es" (well, really something like "et") for third person singular. For
example, "She said" would become "Et hat gesacht" instead of "Sie hat
gesagt". This does not only apply to children (well, it's "das Kind"
anyways), but I think it's more usual for female persons. But I can't
really tell, I still have problems understanding them...
From: Dorai Sitaram
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <af7v3p$3kf$1@news.gte.com>
In article <··············@pokey.henrik-motakef.de>,
Henrik Motakef <··············@web.de> wrote:
>
>In a german dialect some of my relatives speak, it is common to use
>"es" (well, really something like "et") for third person singular. For
>example, "She said" would become "Et hat gesacht" instead of "Sie hat
>gesagt". This does not only apply to children (well, it's "das Kind"
>anyways), but I think it's more usual for female persons. But I can't
>really tell, I still have problems understanding them...
In the (Asian) Indian language Telugu, there is no
feminine gender. There is only masculine and
neuter, with the neuter being used for human female
subjects (even for exalted females such as Prime
Ministers). In Telugu, verbs are marked for gender, so
circumlocution to avoid specifying the gender is
practically impossible.
Since I came to Telugu from another Indian language
(Tamil) that did differentiate masculine and feminine,
and where using the neuter for a female subject would
have been immediately noted as a putdown (some of my
female cousins used to refer to me as "it" in Tamil out
of irredeemable cussedness), I would
painstakingly use the Telugu (respectful) plural for
both human males and females that I had no cause or
wish to offend. Luckily, the plural in Telugu was the
same for both genders, so it was easy to use, and there
is a long tradition in almost all Indian languages of
using the plural to refer to individuals that are
respected, so I wasn't committing a grammatical
"mistake".
Nevertheless, they must have thought I was
unusually polite.
Tim wrote:
> The English parliament would be the British parliament before the act
> of union with Scotland...
...in 1707 which then became the UK[1] in 1801 with the the
legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland ;)
> I can only speak for myself, but I don't think `they' has died out.
I would concur though.
> I would be interested if anyone else who comes from a similar
> background could comment on this.
I'm not sure that I could say my background was similar (childhood in
the West of England and Mid-Wales, educated in State Schools).
However, if you are talking about something like a dog, a cow or a
sheep then `it' would be correct. Dogs are more complicated due to the
different status (at least in Mid-Wales) given by farmers to house
dogs -- in which case these animals are part of family and it is then,
at least, polite to know the name and sex of the animal -- or working
dogs, where `it' is fine.
However, using `it' or the wrong `he' or `she' is rude if used about a
person. Particularly if used deliberately. I can remember as a child
talking about people being `it' as a way of insulting them.
To refer to somebody who of indeterminate sex I would either refer to
them as `they' or in limited cases guess that it is a `he' or `she' --
dependant on the context[2]. In a formal context, for example in a
letter to the bank manager or the council I alway go with a "Dear
Sir".
I had a more personal dilemma a couple of months ago during my wife's
pregnancy. Not beliving in technology ;) we were joyously suprised
with the birth of our daughter. However, up until that point I had
tried a couple of `its' to my -- and my wife's strong --
disatisfaction and so with either construct tortuous sentences that
tried to make no reference to her in the third person or went for
`they.'
:)w
[1] ...or to push my pedantry to levels even I find frightening
"United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" which became "and
Northern Ireland" in 1921 with the partion. Not sure that before 1801.
Following `unification' of Wales and England under Edward I in 1284
the name of the parliament that followed the Statute of Rhuddlan is
all a bit vague. Particularly since people didn't speak english (as
such) and the incumbent claimed title to being the Duke of Aquitaine
and the Lord of Ireland too.
[2] If I was talking about a nurse or reception class teacher I would
probably go for a `she'. A judge or a soldier I would guess `he'. Or
again punt it with a `they.'
From: Julian Stecklina
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87elf0haye.fsf@blitz.comp.com>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * John Wiseman
> | From what I've read in multiple places, it's more the other way around. "He"
> | as a gender-neutral pronoun came about because of meddling prescriptivist
> | grammarians and an act of English Parliament.
>
> Huh? An act of British Parliament? Never heard that one before. (I have no
> idea what an English Parliament is, so I assume it is British. If it is the
> language English that has a Parliament, I have never heard of that, either.)
An even more off-topic question:
Doesn't the state England (just like Brandenburg, Bavaria etc in
Germany) have an own parliament? I know Scotland and North Ireland have
one.
Regards,
Julian
--
Meine Hompage: http://julian.re6.de
Ich suche eine PCMCIA v1.x type I/II/III Netzwerkkarte.
Ich biete als Tauschobjekt eine v2 100MBit Karte in OVP.
From: Peter Buchlovsky
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87it4c7c2h.fsf@cs.bham.ac.uk>
Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> writes:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>
> > * John Wiseman
> > | From what I've read in multiple places, it's more the other way
> > | around. "He" as a gender-neutral pronoun came about because of
> > | meddling prescriptivist grammarians and an act of English
> > | Parliament.
> >
> > Huh? An act of British Parliament? Never heard that one
> > before. (I have no idea what an English Parliament is, so I
> > assume it is British. If it is the language English that has a
> > Parliament, I have never heard of that, either.)
Perhaps John was referring to the English Parliament which existed
before the union of England and Scotland in 1707. From then on it
became known as the Parliament of Great Britain.
> An even more off-topic question:
>
> Doesn't the state England (just like Brandenburg, Bavaria etc in
> Germany) have an own parliament? I know Scotland and North Ireland
> have one.
No. Britain does not have a federal system like Germany so there is no
such thing as an English state.
--
Peter
From: ·········@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <m27kkstqbt.fsf@server.local.lemon>
Peter Buchlovsky <·······@cs.bham.ac.uk> writes:
> Perhaps John was referring to the English Parliament which existed
> before the union of England and Scotland in 1707. From then on it
> became known as the Parliament of Great Britain.
Actually it was pretty much a throwaway line that was meant to be play
ironically against Matt Curtain's statement that regarding correct
uses of "they", "The rules of English grammar are pretty clear on
this, attempts at politically correct manipulations of the language
notwithstanding."
[But if you want to know way more about it than me I'm sure 10 seconds
with google will give you pointers to actual information that can be
analyzed, confirmed, debunked or whatever you're motivated to do.]
Also, in case it wasn't clear (and it looks like it, uh, wasn't), I'm
not proposing that people should say "they sure is quick to fly off
the handle", I was recommending what is already common practice among
millions of native English speakers (radicals every one, and
illiterates most, I am certain), which is to say things like "they
sure are quick to fly off the handle" while referring to a single
person.
That some people at least believe that this use of "they" was even
more common in recent times, up until some point in the 19th century
when busybody grammarians or greedy textbook salesmen decided to
change the rules, well, you can go check up on that for yourself if
you want.
John Wiseman
Syntax Liberation Army, [rank censored]
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3D13A0CE.62EB8F03@nyc.rr.com>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> The whole concept of changing your language in order to appease people
> who lose their marbles because they are too immature to take care of their
> own emotions ...
USA speakers and writers anyway have seen enough merit in the
anti-he-ists' position that they have adjusted usage to avoid the
universal "he". ie, in this case the PC crowd, as sucky as they are in
general, have prevailed.
... seems so frought with danger of losing the ability to express
> yourself if you should happen to disagree with anybody at all that the cost
> must be weighed against the loss of not appeasing the first group.
Again, the anti-heists have prevailed, to the extent that persisting in
using "he" universally becomes the anti-social act. Their success means
my writings appear sexist if I use "he" universally, whether I am sexist
or not. So I adjust to the linguistic flux (with a number mismatched
"they" in the hope some PC bozo will call me on it and I can then blame
them for the whole thing).
I think one is on thin ice, btw, when one starts talking about absolute
right and wrong in language.
--
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
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233697589907684@naggum.net>
* Kenny Tilton
| USA speakers and writers anyway have seen enough merit in the anti-he-ists'
| position that they have adjusted usage to avoid the universal "he". ie, in
| this case the PC crowd, as sucky as they are in general, have prevailed.
Not so. Numerous writers rail against this subjugation of intellect to the
political will of feeble-minded neurotics. If there is anything you learn
from traveling across the United States, it is that there is no such thing as
"USA" (is that the politically correct term? does "American" exclude Canada
and/or Latin and/or South America? do I have to care about this, too?) as a
homogeneous and universally applicable adjective, anymore than "European".
| Again, the anti-heists have prevailed, to the extent that persisting in using
| "he" universally becomes the anti-social act. Their success means my
| writings appear sexist if I use "he" universally, whether I am sexist or not.
Precisely my point. The problem is that you cannot go back and rewrite old
texts to appease your neurotics. In other words, your entire past is sexist.
Your whole _culture_ is sexist because some neurotic feels hurt when you use
"he". This very paranoia means that every book written before the Transition
must be burned, lest the neurotics feel hurt. Expressions of ideas that are
in danger of appearing to refer to back pre-Transition texts will be "sexist"
before they are even read. The Constitution will be sexist. Before we know
it, American English will have become the most irrelevant language on the
planet, American culture will be as worthless as George W. Bush, people will
look to a people who fights its own past and laugh, all around the world. I
mean, I have recently tried to figure out what this "reparations for slavery"
thing is all about, and I come across organizations for openly racist blacks
who want to terminate the white race -- because the American culture _ended_
slavery. I mean, _geez_, dudes, what is _wrong_ with you? Clearly, dealing
with people who are primarily black and secondarily human beings and who do
_not_ want to be Americans is outright _dangerous_ for me, being both pale
and white and considering rap to be anti-music and BEV to be equivalent to
illiteracy. It would never _occur_ to me to treat a black person differently
from a white, but now I have to consider the possibility that a black person
I am facing is a member of an organization that wants to terminate the white
race and hates _me_ because of my "race". This is one reason I do not want
to move to the United States. The rampant and violent black racism scares
the hell out of me. When people change their whole language so their entire
history and everything that has been written in _correct_ English becomes
sexist and oppressive to women, I am suddenly in danger in the United States
simply because I happen to be _male_. And white male at that! What could
the United States _possibly_ have to offer me? If the political correctness
freaks get their way, and it seems that will, _I_ will be oppressed and
discriminated against in a few years. With the "popularity" of a bastardized
"Spanish" and the tolerance for Hispanics who refuse to learn English, my
ability to speak fluent American English without an accent is becoming a
goddamn _liability_. Unless I can find a way to guarantee a huge fortue and
live a protected life where these things would not affect me in my lifetime,
the United States has _very_ little to offer a white European male. I think
it has very little offer white _American_ males, too, actually.
So what _possible_ value could such a culture have outside its own playpen?
Now that your retarded president has made the whole population into victims
and the ability to voice concerns over the rapidity of the loss of freedom
that Americans face who are not openly favoring the near-totalitarian Bush
policy of "national security", what the hell kind of freedoms are you trying
to protect, anyway? I watched in horror as an esteemed professor was chased
out of office and into personal ruin because he (an actual male) had used a
word that some hypersensitive racist black assholes did not _know_ -- he used
"niggardly" to refer to the university budget committee's decisions. It is
utterly unrelated to "nigger", but to those whose pronunciation is so broken
and whose vocabulary is so stunted that it sounds like someone had insulted
them, it was enough to inflame so many retards to make it _appear_ that he
was racist, despite his work, despite his record, and he was crushed under
the political correctness machine. So now "niggardly" is out, too. I have a
last name that could be misunderstood as racist by some hypersensitive idiot
who only hears the N and hard G sounds in short succession! Watching how
people on this newsgroup behave when they are served _opinions_ that go
against their own, I _have_ to believe that the American culture is the most
oppressive and prohibiting and restricting on earth, with a lower tolerance
for the free expression of contrary ideas than you had under the McCarthy
period. At least under such an oppressive regime I would have had _some_
clue that I would be clear of danger. But now? Geez, you _incarcerate_ your
own people without due process for having shaken hands with muslims in
Europe! I have partied with both muslims and black people at the University
of Oslo! There are pictures of me with a black African girl who _later_
became a muslim. Do I have to be on guard at all times when I come to San
Francisco for the ILC in October? Do I need bodyguards if I present a paper?
What happens if I use "he" about the generic programmer? What happens if
someone in the audience somehow feels excluded from some group they want to
belong to because of some poor choice of words? At least I know that I must
_not_ speak about U.S. domestic or international politics -- I probably have
to promise that to the INS officer in writing, right next to the box I check
off that says I am not a member of the foreign press so they can throw me in
jail or ban me from ever entering the country again if I write an article to
the (gasp!) _communist_ newspaper in which I own (gasp!) stock. Well, maybe
I would not even be safe from McCarthyism because of that. Ooops, I am also
a gun owner and master marksman -- will I be marked a terrorist? Clearly, I
need contingency plans and must bring with me the phone numbers of both
lawyers and the Norwegian embassy and/or consulate offices. I would have had
to prepare less for the effects of random acts of government had I planned to
travel to Israel or Iran. Perhaps I should just drop ILC until they hold it
in an actually free country? I'm just waiting for George W. Bush to change
the name of the nation to the Free United States of America, much like other
oppressive regimes have used a similar misnomer in their name to throw people
off guard.
Perhaps I should get a sex change operation and get a _really_ good tan
before I visit the U.S. next? Can I say I think Condoleezza Rice should be
the next president of the United States? (If both woman and black is too
much, at least make her (an actual female) vice president with Colin Powell
as president.) Can I say that I absolutely _adore_ Halle Barry, or would
that be considered to favor blacks who "act white" and as anti-white among
race-sensitive whites? Do I have to learn Spanish before I come to San
Francisco if I want to avoid "offending" the staff at the hotel?
I just don't know, anymore. The United States of America turned into a
country of fools when George W. Bush was elected president and a country of
whining victims when a few buildings were destroyed. Now you tell me the
political correctness neurotics have "won", too, so I have be super careful
to do late binding of gender, or some radical feminist within earshot will
beat me up, I will be ostracized, etc.
You know, I could basically ignore all that crap and just enjoy myself when
visiting the U.S. previously. When George W. Bush was elected and even more
so when he (an actual male) proved he was a retarded, angry child and he
still got very high approval ratings, what I had believed to be insignificant
symptoms of an irrelevant change in public culture -- at least as far as I
was personally concerned -- turned into _serious_ grievances. It's like --
whoa! -- you guys are _serious_ about this completely nutty oppression
business.
| I think one is on thin ice, btw, when one starts talking about absolute right
| and wrong in language.
I do not see anyone who argues for any absolute right. I see people who
think in such terms because it is more convenient than the much more complex
alternative -- that language _defines_ what is right and wrong, that the
language embodies the philosophy and culture of the population. (Why else
would you have to change the language to combat "sexism"?) It is not that I
find "he" absolutely right, it is that I _know_ that when you make "he"
absolutely "wrong", almost everything that I love about the American culture
(and it is still a lot), is in serious jeopardy of becoming _archeology_.
A close and long-term friend of mine emigrated to China recently in order to
live in a free country. He (an actual male) keeps calling and asking that I
come join him. Another good friend of mine (also male) works in Hong Kong.
At least a tall white male would not be in serious danger there, and for the
foreseeable future, they will probably think good command of English is a
feature worth paying for. At least until the United States gets completely
fucked up. Reelect Bush, and I'll consider it to have happened.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> "USA" (is that the politically correct term? does "American" exclude Canada
> and/or Latin and/or South America? do I have to care about this, too?) as a
> homogeneous and universally applicable adjective, anymore than "European".
English is annoying here, because "American" works when you /need/ an
adjective, and can't just say "US"; but when you need an adjective,
and you want to distinguish the US from Canada and Mexico, neither
"American" nor "North American" work, obviously. This country's
second language, Spanish, has a nice word here, "estadounidense", but
it just doesn't work in English. Of course, it's also more important
in Spanish, where saying "americano" when meaning the US, would just
be confusing.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <uy9d6zpz8.fsf@telus.net>
···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> when you need an adjective, and you want to distinguish the US from Canada
> and Mexico, neither "American" nor "North American" work, obviously.
"American" works just fine in Canada for that purpose.
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <af3and$badfl$1@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>
In the last exciting episode, Ray Blaak <·····@telus.net> wrote::
> ···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>> when you need an adjective, and you want to distinguish the US from Canada
>> and Mexico, neither "American" nor "North American" work, obviously.
>
> "American" works just fine in Canada for that purpose.
It does except when dealing with some particularly "anti-American"
Canadians. There aren't that many of them, and they're irritating to
deal with, but they do exist...
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@cbbrowne.com")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/emacs.html
:FATAL ERROR -- ATTEMPT TO USE CANADIAN COINS
From: David Golden
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <IrjR8.9947$04.30823@news.iol.ie>
"USian" has become fairly common usage on some parts of the web (like
kuro5hin, festering pile of crap^W^W^W^Wslashdot, etc.). Some people I know
pronounce is as use-ian, others us-ian or u-s-ian.
I favour use-ian personally, since it's closer to how I say "USA" quickly,
use-ay. (that's use, not "uze" rhyming with "ooze")
"Stateside" is often used in England and Ireland for "in the USA".
--
Don't eat yellow snow.
From: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <usn3fayut.fsf@telus.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> If there is anything you learn from traveling across the United States, it
> is that there is no such thing as "USA" (is that the politically correct
> term? does "American" exclude Canada and/or Latin and/or South America? do
> I have to care about this, too?) as a homogeneous and universally applicable
> adjective, anymore than "European".
The usage gets wierd.
In the USA and especially Canada, "American" refers to citizen of the USA. To
refer to members of the continent, people say "North American".
In Latin America, on the other hand, people tend to say "North American" when
referring to USAians, even though they most likely are not referring to
Canadians or Mexicans, or even themselves, for that matter.
I don't know about South America.
Technically speaking, of course, "American" should refer to anyone from either
of the two continents.
In practice, as usual, the word has its own meaning according to place and
context.
ObLisp: multiple namespaces :-).
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87wusrngt5.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Ray Blaak <·····@telus.net> writes:
> In Latin America, on the other hand, people tend to say "North American" when
> referring to USAians, even though they most likely are not referring to
> Canadians or Mexicans, or even themselves, for that matter.
I have heard Mexicans refer to Canadians as "norteamericanos".
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <af7d47$bm5cd$5@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, Ray Blaak <·····@telus.net> transmitted:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>> If there is anything you learn from traveling across the United States, it
>> is that there is no such thing as "USA" (is that the politically correct
>> term? does "American" exclude Canada and/or Latin and/or South America? do
>> I have to care about this, too?) as a homogeneous and universally applicable
>> adjective, anymore than "European".
>
> The usage gets wierd.
>
> In the USA and especially Canada, "American" refers to citizen of the USA. To
> refer to members of the continent, people say "North American".
>
> In Latin America, on the other hand, people tend to say "North American" when
> referring to USAians, even though they most likely are not referring to
> Canadians or Mexicans, or even themselves, for that matter.
>
> I don't know about South America.
>
> Technically speaking, of course, "American" should refer to anyone from either
> of the two continents.
>
> In practice, as usual, the word has its own meaning according to place and
> context.
>
> ObLisp: multiple namespaces :-).
Something like...
] (in-canada *AMERICA*)
"United States"
] (in-us *AMERICA*)
"United States"
] (in-elsewhere *AMERICA*)
("Canada" "Mexico" "United States")
:-)
By the way, I've also seen some contexts where:
- Mexicans gripe that "we're Americans too!" in that they're on the
same continent;
- Canadians that are apparently trying hard to be the ***holes they
consider Americans to be complain in the same fashion.
(Look up "Richard Kulitz" if you want an example of the latter; he was
a plague on gnu.misc.discuss a few years ago, as an extremely weird
extreme Marxist at Carleton University that liked characterizing
Americans as "evil-minded hillbillys". An apt phrase, if the goal is
to make up rash insults... It looks like he asked Google Groups to
remove his writings... I'm sure they're still available on archives
of gnu.misc.discuss, and if you're interested in finding strong
vitrol, possibly stronger than #Erik reactions to Bushnell, take a
look :-).)
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ··········@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/canada.html
Appendium to the Rules of the Evil Overlord #1: "I will not build
excessively integrated security-and-HVAC systems. They may be Really
Cool, but are far too vulnerable to breakdowns."
"Christopher Browne" <········@acm.org> wrote in message
···················@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de...
| ] (in-elsewhere *AMERICA*)
| ("Canada" "Mexico" "United States")
America means US only in most contexts in much of continental Europe.
Rarely, inclusive of Canada. I have _never_ heard of America to mean North
America as you imply above. However incorrect, even North America often
means USA + Canada, unless speaking about NAFTA or geography. Mexico
deserves a separate category - Mexico. If grouped: Latin-America.
Robert
From: Patrick W
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <FpRR8.2661$5l4.91130@ozemail.com.au>
"Robert Monfera" <·······@fisec.com> wrote in message
·························@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> "Christopher Browne" <········@acm.org> wrote in message
> ···················@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de...
>
> | ] (in-elsewhere *AMERICA*)
> | ("Canada" "Mexico" "United States")
>
> America means US only in most contexts in much of continental Europe.
> Rarely, inclusive of Canada. I have _never_ heard of America to mean
North
> America as you imply above.
I haven't heard it in Australia either. We never intentionally refer to
Canadians as Americans. When we say 'America' we mean the United States.
There is also a fairly widespread perception here that Canadians are a
subtly different 'breed' from US Americans -- ie. Canadians are regarded as
more easy-going, more irreverent, less self-assured, and better able to take
the piss out of themselves.
It's a gross generalisation of course, but my experience of USENET tends to
confirm it. Canadians seem to have an instinctive empathy with the
tongue-in-cheek and the crooked grin that's so prevalent down under. Irony
is lost on Americans.
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <afbdps$co9o2$3@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>
Oops! "Robert Monfera" <·······@fisec.com> was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> "Christopher Browne" <········@acm.org> wrote in message
> ···················@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de...
>
> | ] (in-elsewhere *AMERICA*)
> | ("Canada" "Mexico" "United States")
>
> America means US only in most contexts in much of continental Europe.
> Rarely, inclusive of Canada. I have _never_ heard of America to mean North
> America as you imply above. However incorrect, even North America often
> means USA + Canada, unless speaking about NAFTA or geography. Mexico
> deserves a separate category - Mexico. If grouped: Latin-America.
I agree that "America" would be quite widely understood to indicate
"United States."
It's still fair to say that "America" can be reasonably considered to
tie to the name of the continent, which is comprised of three
countries.
When there are apparently considerable numbers of "Americans" that are
unable to grasp that "New Mexico," home of Santa Fe and Albequerque
(sp?) is in fact in the United States, it seems silly to be too terribly
strict about it all...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ·············@" "sirhc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/spiritual.html
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of
Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <87eleu1ujm.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
> It's still fair to say that "America" can be reasonably considered to
> tie to the name of the continent, which is comprised of three
> countries.
Eek!
Three? France and Denmark also have territory in North America.
Mexicans use the term "norte-americano" and don't include themselves
in it's scope, but if you want North America to include Mexico, you
really have to include the nations of Central America and the
Caribbean to boot. Lots more than three...
In article <··············@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>, Christopher Browne
<········@acm.org> writes:
>It's still fair to say that "America" can be reasonably considered to
>tie to the name of the continent, which is comprised of three
>countries.
But there is no conitnent "America" that is comprised of three countires. North
America is comprised of three countires. America is compirised of North
America, Central America (which for some purposes is considered part of North
America), South America, and, for some purposes, off shore islands and
archipeligos, chiefly the Caribbean.
Except from you, I have never heard "America" used to refer to all of North
America and nothing else.
-- Attaining and helping others attain "Aha!" experiences, as satisfying as
attaining and helping others attain orgasms.
From: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Li
Date:
Message-ID: <uptyeihif.fsf@telus.net>
········@aol.comNOSPAM (Dvd Avins) writes:
> But there is no conitnent "America" that is comprised of three
> countires. North America is comprised of three countires. America is
> compirised of North America, Central America (which for some purposes is
> considered part of North America), South America, and, for some purposes,
> off shore islands and archipeligos, chiefly the Caribbean.
"For some purposes" like geography, North America includes Greenland, Canada,
the United States, Mexico, all of Central America and the Carribean
islands. It goes past the Panama canal right to the Columbian border.
To refer to both North and South America at once, I have only heard of "the
Americas".
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
"Ray Blaak" <·····@telus.net> wrote in message
··················@telus.net...
| "For some purposes" like geography, North America includes Greenland,
Canada,
| the United States, Mexico, all of Central America and the Carribean
| islands. It goes past the Panama canal right to the Columbian border.
How about Bermuda or the Azores?
| To refer to both North and South America at once, I have only heard of
"the
| Americas".
I sometimes got the feeling that the term Americas unfortunately refers to
areas south of the US only, thus acting as a eufemism for Latin-America.
IIRC, Price Waterhouse broke down financial performance to the US, Canada
and "the Americas". The headquarters of Price Waterhouse was on the Avenue
of the Americas (pronounced "siksth avenue") in Manhattan.
Robert
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Li
Date:
Message-ID: <3D19C1F1.7060204@hotmail.com>
Dvd Avins wrote:
> But there is no conitnent "America" that is comprised of three
> countires. ... and, for some purposes, off shore islands and
> archipeligos, chiefly the Caribbean.
Are you including the falklands and tierra del fuego in this?
:)w
From: Marcin Tustin
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <af5i0n$dci$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>
Uzytkownik "Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.net> napisal w wiadomosci
·····················@naggum.net...
> * John Wiseman
> | From what I've read in multiple places, it's more the other way around.
"He"
> | as a gender-neutral pronoun came about because of meddling
prescriptivist
> | grammarians and an act of English Parliament.
>
> Huh? An act of British Parliament? Never heard that one before. (I
have no
> idea what an English Parliament is, so I assume it is British. If it is
the
> language English that has a Parliament, I have never heard of that,
either.)
It depends whether or not the act was passed before the Act of Union
16xx, when it becomes sensible to talk of a "British" parliament as opposed
to purely english and scottish parliaments (Traditionally Wales is
considered an appendage to England in these sorts of discussions).
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3D139C3A.39F016BA@nyc.rr.com>
John Wiseman wrote:
> Long-standing tradition before then, and the custom I use because it
> feels quite natural, is to use "they" as a singular gender-neutral
> pronoun.
>
> I recommend trying it. It feels good.
That is what I noticed...
"A Lisp programmer does not want a compiler telling them what they can
or cannot do."
While there is a mismatch in number between "a...programmer" and
them/they, the sentence itself is about all Lisp programmers. Indeed,
one way I duck the PC crowd is to rewrite the sentence...
"Lisp programmers do not want a compiler telling them what they can or
cannot do."
I think that is why them/they "feels good" to me when for some reason a
simple rewrite like that won't do.
--
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
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3233697854039566@naggum.net>
* Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
| "Lisp programmers do not want a compiler telling them what they can or
| cannot do."
"Lisp programmers want to instruct the compiler what it can and cannot do,
not vice versa."
| I think that is why them/they "feels good" to me when for some reason a
| simple rewrite like that won't do.
I think I shall have to scratch third person personal pronouns entirely.
Eller enda bedre, jeg kan bare skrive p� norsk, s� slipper vi alt tullet.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> "Lisp programmers want to instruct the compiler what it can and cannot do,
> not vice versa."
Which is why pretend Lisp programmers like nOGgUm endlessly instruct
people on what they can do.
What is the ratio of the Lisp code you write to the line count of the
Usenet drivel you post ?
> I think I shall have to scratch third person personal pronouns entirely.
Why not just scratch your perianal region more often ?
·······@panix.com (David Combs) wrote in message news:<············@reader1.panix.com>...
> Even assuming you're correct, and in fact
> you could get the task done in 1/5th the time
> (add that into your above proposal), do
> you think he or her is going to *believe* you.
A good software development proposal includes working code. Common
Lisp is part of what makes that working code feasible at the proposal
stage.
Thinking in terms of getting the task done in 1/5 the time is the
wrong way to think about it. Most of the time spent in software
development is spent in learning. A typical proposal to accomplish
something with Common Lisp is proposed by someone who doesn't yet know
Common Lisp well enough to use it fluently and doesn't yet know the
domain of the application well enough to be able to work in it
fluently. Working code is important because it shows that you've done
your homework, so to speak.
Most programmers' proposals are not taken seriously because the
programmers are known to have ulterior motives. They want to get
experience with something new to them, such as Java or Corba or XML,
so they propose using it. They might talk it up week after week, till
they become known as fanatics for whatever they're proposing. But
most of them could not even get past a job interview to use whatever
it is they're proposing. The same is probably true of most proposals
to use Common Lisp.
I already knew about Norvig's 1997 PAIP retrospective. A few days ago I
noticed the 2002 update, and I was meaning to privately send him some
comments. Since Marc started this thread in comp.lang.lisp, I decided to
publicly post my--lengthy, sorry--comments there and Cc: Norvig, so that he
can get a chance to watch the thread.
On Fri, 17 May 2002 22:09:07 +0200, "Marc Battyani"
<·············@fractalconcept.com> wrote:
> The latest paper I've seen on the subject is from Peter Norvig (whose PAIP
> was the book that made me come back to Lisp) :
> http://www.norvig.com/Lisp-retro.html
His book motivated me to study Common Lisp in more depth. At the time I
knew mostly Scheme.
> In this paper he writes : "In 2002, the situation for Lisp is more bleak:
I also found his statements surprising, inaccurate and possibly uninformed.
Although Norvig occasionally posts to comp.lang.lisp, I'm not sure whether
he regularly lurks here. It seems that he is not up to date with most of
what goes on in the Lisp community, at least the active part whose avenues
are project mailing lists, and often also this newsgroup.
I question both the usefulness of caring too much about popularity, and the
popularity metrics used by Norvig.
If the purpose of popularity is job security or availability of third party
tools and resources, then things are simple: just jump on the bandwagon of
one of the 2-3 most popular languages, i.e. Java, C++ and Perl according to
Norvig's figures (and the marketing resources behind Java are so huge that
its mere presence may "contaminate" the sample :) In this case there's no
point in comparing language features: just live with your mainstream tools.
The bandwagon attitude also seems to contradict what he wrote in his "Learn
Programming in 21 Days? Or 10 Years?" eaasy.
If we do insist with popularity, there may be other metrics missed by
Norvig. Franz, Inc., for example, was among the relatively few (according
to the event's program; I was not there) companies with a booth at a recent
OOPSLA, I think it was in 2000 or 2001.
Another possible example of Lisp's popularity is that it is being more or
less regularly mentioned in a mainstream Linux online publication, Linux
Weekly News, since last fall (see the Lisp entries in the
Development/Programming Languages section of past issues):
http://lwn.net
I have been "unofficially officially" contributing Lisp news to them since
then, and most of the news item get published (I can provide actual figures
if you are interested). And, of course, let's not forget the KMP interview
in Slashdot. Is this the kind of popularity for Lisp that Norvig is
interested in?
But is the kind of popularity that Norvig mentions in his paper a good
thing for Lisp in the first place? Is Lisp an appropriate language for the
same kind of audience of other popular languages?
> the language standard has stagnated, while other languages regularly add new
What Norvig calls "stagnation" may be considered maturity. The reason why
other language standards change more often may be that those languages are
less mature.
That said, it is still possible to have layered, community standards (and a
recent post suggests that such standards may be added to ANSI via a fast
track procedure). This is indeed happening with Franz's simple streams
(already available) and hierarchical packages (recently unofficially
announced).
It's no coincidence that such standards mostly come from a company, which
presumably can allocate resources to this as Sun is doing for Java (well,
to a "considerably greater" extent, actually...). But if other language
communities consider a reference implementation a standard, then there are
many such Lisp standards according to this definition.
> standards for protocols like HTTP, HTML, XML, SOAP..."
Marc and others have already mentioned Lisp implementations of such
standards. I only add that the best way of realizing about such work is to
subscribe to individual project mailing lists, especially those for CVS
commit logs.
I think that Norvig's claims about the alleged bleak situation of Lisp in
2002 are unfair to the many Lispers who work on commercial and open-source
projects, whose number is actually increasing, as closely watching the Lisp
community suggests.
To summarize my thoughts. If Norvig's popularity metrics are appropriate,
then other languages may surely win, hands down. After the worse is better
paper, this is hardly surprising.
If instead there's life--and business--beyond tha main stream, if the
absolute value of Lisp's market and community is acceptable and growing, as
other hints seem to suggest, then Lisp's situation is far from bleak.
Insisting that it is bleak may be a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
[http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/]
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> If instead there's life--and business--beyond tha main stream, if the
> absolute value of Lisp's market and community is acceptable and growing, as
> other hints seem to suggest, then Lisp's situation is far from bleak.
> Insisting that it is bleak may be a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
In fact, there's one potentially huge value in picking a language
that's strong, but not mainstream: if you insist on a mainstream
language, and you expect your code to be long-lived, you'll be
condemned to constantly rewriting it in the new language of the
decade. Look at Garnet->Amulet, for example. And if you don't want
to rewrite your code, you need to be prepared for the time when
today's langages de jour become has-beens. Like Pascal, Smalltalk, or
Lisp. When Java falls off, would you rather be stuck with
no-longer-mainstream Java or with no-longer-mainstream Lisp?
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Paolo Amoroso schrieb:
> I think that Norvig's claims about the alleged bleak situation of Lisp in
> 2002 are unfair to the many Lispers who work on commercial and open-source
> projects, whose number is actually increasing, as closely watching the Lisp
> community suggests.
Well. I read this and the above postings, something comes to my mind:
When someone comes from java to lisp, he wish to have a java-like lisp.
This is automatically done by brain, name it habit. Now, when 1000
people come from java to lisp, this may become a problem, because it is
possible that lisp adapt by the years to be a bit more like java. Same
position about c++ or what else.
In this case lisp will not go his own way, it will orient itself on the
programming world around. And I mean, this could be a step downstairs.
Think about lisp in 1980 or so. It stands like an unreachable mountain
in the coding world and all the others try to reach this flair. And as
you can see, they do their jobs well.
But I remember some simple words from Sam Steingold: " ... it is not
lispy". So this is exactly the point. Keep this monster lispy. This is
what the first ~20 years happend. Maybe today there is reached a point
of turn-around? Maybe, no one finds an idea how to top this language? Or
maybe, lisp is no longer called the best? I don't know. But the readers
here are lispners. And every lispner has some thoughts inside, that puts
the wheel go on.
For example, when the development power goes to some magical internet
applications, who should prepare lisp to what comes next after the AI
hype? Or when most developers work on compatibility, who will thought
about that what happens next after the object oriented features? Or when
the qualify man power trashes in very important flame wars, who will
work on that what follows the generic algorithms?
As I see in the past, lisp do not walk, where the mainstream works. It
seemed to be invisible and prepared the next strike. And the rest of the
computing world keeps busy to copy this for his favorite language. So
yes, holding a leading position is very hard work, but you will be proud
tomorrow, when there is another work to do. And frankly, there are not
many humans which can do so ...
stefan
(sorry for my poor english)
* lin8080 <·······@freenet.de>
| When someone comes from java to lisp, he wish to have a java-like lisp.
| This is automatically done by brain, name it habit.
This applies only to some people, apparently a minority of about 30%, who
think they have a natural right or something to behave and think this way
and so are impossible to cause to think differently. You see this in
tourists, too, who come to some other country, and behave just like they
have a right to feel at home, who complain that local facilities are not
as good as those at home, etc. For some reason, Germans are known around
Europe for this particularly annoying tourist behavior, but I find it
kind of sad that you think this is so natural that you should not even
try to limit such clearly stupid tendencies.
| (sorry for my poor english)
It is quite ironic that you write so much German with English words and
English grammer, which is just what people of the habit you think is
unavoidable would naturally do. However, many people actually manage to
learn to speak and write a new language on its own terms, and retain only
minor vestiges of their previous languages. I think this is the natural
behavior, and that getting stuck in whatever you first learned or saw is
the aberration -- and it usually leads to serious problems, too.
In other words, I reject your belief in the automaticity of this habit.
It is a failure to think that causes this, and while one may call it some
kind of default, and that thinking is not automatic, but requires effort
-- claiming that non-thinking is automatic means you do not have the
choice to think, and that is just plain wrong. Believe it, though, and
it becomes true for you. Change that belief. Reverse it: Do not make a
conscious effort to think, _always_ make the effort to think, and then
see that some things do not change, and then you do not need to think
about them.
--
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:
> as good as those at home, etc. For some reason, Germans are known around
> Europe for this particularly annoying tourist behavior,
Did you ever visit Tenerifa? Last time I checked there were svenska
kj�ttbullar and norwegian boulevard newspapers on every corner in the
"pittoresque fishermans village" in which I was lucky enough only to
stay for a few hours. On the other hand, La Gomera was absolutely _full_
with germans, mainly because it was not that easy to get sauerkraut there.
Germans have longer holidays than norwegians and there are almost 20 times
as many of them. In addition, norwegians are usually mistaken for swedes.
So it's still possible for you and me to have a nice holiday in souther
europe without getting blamed for puking on the flowers...
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre wrote:
> On the other hand, La Gomera was absolutely _full_
> with germans, mainly because it was not that easy to get sauerkraut there.
Urg - I _hate_ sauerkraut...
ciao,
Jochen
Jochen Schmidt <···@dataheaven.de> writes:
> Espen Vestre wrote:
> > On the other hand, La Gomera was absolutely _full_ with germans,
> > mainly because it was not that easy to get sauerkraut there.
>
> Urg - I _hate_ sauerkraut...
Sauerkraut can be absolutely great, it only depends on how you prepare
it (as always). Especially people from Alsace are known to do
wonderful things with sauerkraut. Google for ``choucroute haute
cuisine'' or something like that to find some examples.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x42B32FC9
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> Sauerkraut can be absolutely great, it only depends on how you prepare
> it (as always). Especially people from Alsace are known to do
> wonderful things with sauerkraut.
Their cousins just above the border (from S�dliche Weinstra�e) as well,
I think it's a great treat with other traditional supper food and a
dry Riesling, served at a tiny backyard Weinstube :-)
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre wrote:
> Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
>
>> Sauerkraut can be absolutely great, it only depends on how you prepare
>> it (as always). Especially people from Alsace are known to do
>> wonderful things with sauerkraut.
>
> Their cousins just above the border (from S�dliche Weinstra�e) as well,
> I think it's a great treat with other traditional supper food and a
> dry Riesling, served at a tiny backyard Weinstube :-)
My parents never understood why I as a "Franke" (in the northern south of
Germany, the north of Bavaria) do not like Sauerkraut or Sauerbraten. I
origninally come from Rothenburg o. d. T. (known for it's medieval city)
and actually live in Nuremberg. Sauerkraut is a traditional meal here
(particularily combined with "Bratwurst"). Nuremberg is also called the
"Bratwurst-Metropole" sometimes.
ciao,
Jochen
--
http://www.dataheaven.de
Erik Naggum wrote:
> This applies only to some people, apparently a minority of about 30%,
> who think they have a natural right or something to behave and think
> this way
> and so are impossible to cause to think differently. You see this in
> tourists, too, who come to some other country, and behave just like they
> have a right to feel at home, who complain that local facilities are not
> as good as those at home, etc. For some reason, Germans are known
> around Europe for this particularly annoying tourist behavior, but I
> find it kind of sad that you think this is so natural that you should
> not even try to limit such clearly stupid tendencies.
This is because in Germany everything is perfect. It is the best of all
possible worlds. I think, "CANDIDE" was written about Germany. And when we
travel abroad and see those wretched poor creatures who do not know how to
organize things and how to organize themselves, etc, we feel kind of sorry
for them and are trying to teach them according to our saying "Am deutschen
Wesen soll die Welt genesen!".
--
Janos Blazi
"Il n'y a gu�re dans la vie qu'une pr�occupation grave: c'est la mort;"
(Dumas)
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Erik Naggum schrieb:
> * lin8080 <·······@freenet.de>
Hey Erik N.. Nice to read this. But there are some comments about.
> | When someone comes from java to lisp, he wish to have a java-like lisp.
> | This is automatically done by brain, name it habit.
> This applies only to some people, apparently a minority of about 30%, who
> think they have a natural right or something to behave and think this way
> and so are impossible to cause to think differently.
This I saw a bit different. As I write: automatically done by brain. So
every brain-carrying-person acts this way. There are models of the world
around in every head. And when someone comes to a new situation the
brain looks for a corresponding model and brings it on top. The person
will not recognize about that, the person acts and thought " I do ...".
As long it works, there is no problem. In case the result is not
acceptable, more information goes inside, one or more modified models
comes out (not normaly a new model, and this is the point in this event.
Maybe this is the reason why a learning-curve goes down by the years,
the brain looses the possibility to create new models or can't delete
old ones).
> You see this in
> tourists, too, who come to some other country, and behave just like they
> have a right to feel at home, who complain that local facilities are not
> as good as those at home, etc. ...
Yes "tuuries". (hihi) This is one of the main German-Production,
originaly "made in German", isn't it? But I visit China and this was
very funny.
> | (sorry for my poor english)
> It is quite ironic that you write so much German with English words and
> English grammer, which is just what people of the habit you think is
> unavoidable would naturally do. However, many people actually manage to
> learn to speak and write a new language on its own terms, and retain only
> minor vestiges of their previous languages. I think this is the natural
> behavior, and that getting stuck in whatever you first learned or saw is
> the aberration -- and it usually leads to serious problems, too.
See above. As long it makes no problem, no new model is created and no
model is modified, all seems usual. Learning something "new" is kind of
look exactly what goes on. This needs big attention, but by the time the
brain compares its models and sort / link the new to the wellknown. That
makes habits. So, normaly no one (except job-writers) looks precise to
the language he grows up with, this causes no problems and the thought
is: "I know ... (how to use 5000 words)"
Example: someone flys a plane for the first time and after he climbs
out, the words are: just like driving a car, but in 3d. The brain
modifies the car-model.
Now, when I change the words "English, German" above with "Lisp, Java"
and saw it like a function (learn), what you think is: learning stands
for find and mark the difference. Do I understand this correct?
> In other words, I reject your belief in the automaticity of this habit.
Yes, Erik N. you can do so. I will not think bad about, but thank you,
to put my nose on this. You see things different as I do and this needs
more input. Here I have try to explain a bit more.
> It is a failure to think that causes this, and while one may call it some
> kind of default, and that thinking is not automatic, but requires effort
> -- claiming that non-thinking is automatic means you do not have the
> choice to think, and that is just plain wrong. Believe it, though, and
> it becomes true for you. Change that belief. Reverse it: Do not make a
> conscious effort to think, _always_ make the effort to think, and then
> see that some things do not change, and then you do not need to think
> about them.
But in this � you wrote something very interesting, so in short I can
not write a comment. Btw. have you ever try to sit down and think
nothing?
stefan
* lin8080 <·······@freenet.de>
| Btw. have you ever try to sit down and think nothing?
Well, I read your article.
--
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:
>* lin8080 <·······@freenet.de>
>| Btw. have you ever try to sit down and think nothing?
>
> Well, I read your article.
Than !
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>* lin8080 <·······@freenet.de>
>| When someone comes from java to lisp, he wish to have a java-like lisp.
>| This is automatically done by brain, name it habit.
>
> This applies only to some people, apparently a minority of about 30%, who
> think they have a natural right or something to behave and think this way
> and so are impossible to cause to think differently. You see this in
> tourists, too, who come to some other country, and behave just like they
> have a right to feel at home, who complain that local facilities are not
> as good as those at home, etc. For some reason, Germans are known around
> Europe for this particularly annoying tourist behavior, but I find it
> kind of sad that you think this is so natural that you should not even
> try to limit such clearly stupid tendencies.
??????
This has something to do with Lisp ?
* Andrew Wolbrink
| This has something to do with Lisp?
Wow, a self-referential, possibly recursive complaint!
--
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.
* Andrew Wolbrink <···············@hotmail.com>
| Isnt wanking off topic?
Another hotmail.com user bites the dust.
--
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.
On Fri, 17 May 2002 22:09:07 +0200, Marc Battyani
<·············@fractalconcept.com> wrote:
>In this paper he writes : "In 2002, the situation for Lisp is more bleak:
>the language standard has stagnated, while other languages regularly add new
>standards for protocols like HTTP, HTML, XML, SOAP..."
I can't think of a single programming language which has new
``standards'' for these things. Only libraries.
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when ···@localhost.localdomain (Kaz Kylheku) would write:
> On Fri, 17 May 2002 22:09:07 +0200, Marc Battyani
> <·············@fractalconcept.com> wrote:
>>In this paper he writes : "In 2002, the situation for Lisp is more bleak:
>>the language standard has stagnated, while other languages regularly add new
>>standards for protocols like HTTP, HTML, XML, SOAP..."
>
> I can't think of a single programming language which has new
> ``standards'' for these things. Only libraries.
Common Lisp is nicely characteristic of a system in which this sort of
thing is almost intentionally ambiguous. There are large parts of the
CL standard that are kind of "libraries," but which are not
characterized as such in the standard.
In light of that, it seems not unreasonable to continue the trend,
leaving it ambiguous whether new functionality should be considered
"language" or "library."
In any case, what people care about is that:
-> They can expect to use STL with C++ in a standard way;
-> They can expect to use CORBA with C++ in a standard way;
-> They can expect to use SOAP::Lite with Perl in a quasi-standard way.
Whether it's library or language is less important than that it is
conveniently usable.
"Conveniently usable" is true of SOAP::Lite. (Whether you like SOAP
or Perl or not.)
The same is not true for RPC or socket access in CL.
Objecting on the basis that Perl only has one implementation is an
_excuse_, and someone who wants "conveniently usable" doesn't care
about excuses, just about whether the facility is "conveniently
usable."
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ····················@" "454aa"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/multiplexor.html
"Windows95, Word97, Office98: With all the criticisms of MICROS~1, at
least they include ``best-before'' dating on many of their
products..." -- ········@hex.net
Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
> In any case, what people care about is that:
>
> -> They can expect to use STL with C++ in a standard way;
> -> They can expect to use CORBA with C++ in a standard way;
> -> They can expect to use SOAP::Lite with Perl in a quasi-standard way.
>
> Whether it's library or language is less important than that it is
> conveniently usable.
>
> "Conveniently usable" is true of SOAP::Lite. (Whether you like SOAP
> or Perl or not.)
>
> The same is not true for RPC or socket access in CL.
>
> Objecting on the basis that Perl only has one implementation is an
> _excuse_, and someone who wants "conveniently usable" doesn't care
> about excuses, just about whether the facility is "conveniently
> usable."
Well, if ther person who wants conveniant usability doesn't mind
limiting him/herself to a single implementation, I think that most
combinations of Today's Buzzword Library are convenient. The only
time the issue of multiple implementations comes up is if a person
either insists in using /all/ implementations, or wants a combination
of libraries available for one implementation, but insists on using
another.
Which is not to say that there aren't holes, just that I've found
every combination I've needed, pretty easily. Well, except for a
general-purpose MIME parsing and generating library; I ended up just
doing an ugly hack that worked for any valid case that particular app
could encounter.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Hello!
In article <···············@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>,
Thomas F. Burdick <···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>[...]
>Which is not to say that there aren't holes, just that I've found
>every combination I've needed, pretty easily. Well, except for a
>general-purpose MIME parsing and generating library; I ended up just
>doing an ugly hack that worked for any valid case that particular app
>could encounter.
Oh yeah. I'd like some MIME parsing/manipulation library too.
I've not even seen something which makes me content under C++.
Only perl's MIME::Parser etc. looks not *too* bad.
Anyway: In my company, there'll be need for a *working* MIME library,
anyway. Unfortunately, it's needed in an already established C++
context, so I can't push Lisp (or anything else more sensible
than C++) that way. However, I have considered doing a prototype,
e.g. Lisp based, before doing the C++ thing, so I can learn about
the problem space in a sane environment, and only later "translate"
things to C++. If that's the case, I might be inclined to ask
for licence to release the prototype under a free license.
Kind regards,
Hannah.
······@schlund.de (Hannah Schroeter) writes:
> Oh yeah. I'd like some MIME parsing/manipulation library too.
> I've not even seen something which makes me content under C++.
> Only perl's MIME::Parser etc. looks not *too* bad.
Checking again, it looks like things haven't really improved much in
the last 2 years. MIME::Parser is probably new since then, but
there's no way I'm gonna trust a *Perl* module labeled as
"experimental".
> Anyway: In my company, there'll be need for a *working* MIME library,
> anyway. Unfortunately, it's needed in an already established C++
> context, so I can't push Lisp (or anything else more sensible
> than C++) that way. However, I have considered doing a prototype,
> e.g. Lisp based, before doing the C++ thing, so I can learn about
> the problem space in a sane environment, and only later "translate"
> things to C++. If that's the case, I might be inclined to ask
> for licence to release the prototype under a free license.
I'm not gonna hold my breath, but that would be really cool.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
* Christopher Browne <········@acm.org>
| "Conveniently usable" is true of SOAP::Lite. (Whether you like SOAP
| or Perl or not.)
|
| The same is not true for RPC or socket access in CL.
Some languages manage to survive with many ways to do the same thing,
others "die" as soon as two different ways to do the same thing crop up.
Apparently, Common Lisp is not big enough for multiple implementations of
core features. (I wonder why so many people insist on making their own
versions of almost everything, from whole environments to sockets, rather
than using or adapting existing systems. Clearly, the ability to make
design decisions that cannot be fixed, and hence produce "mistakes" is at
the core of this phenomenon, visible in particular in Scheme.)
This is somewhat like Unicode: It has managed to be sold as a unifying
coded character set, yet it is actually only _another_ one, and its
function as unifying depends on its acceptance as such. Common Lisp
should have been a unifying Lisp, too, but some clueless rebels have been
underminig it from the start with "alternatives" and think they are
offering people "choice" -- but choice is precisely what people do _not_
want: While I may want a great selection of fresh food, I do not want the
"option" of paying for the same item with different prices in different
currencies or using different credit or discount cards so I have to
become conscious of lots of stupid little details. While people may
regard the choice of political party and candidates to be essential to
democracy, most people would be confused beyond their sanity if they were
required to choose the political system in an election, such as by
running campaigns for competing constitutions.
Some things are better the fewer choices there are, and really good only
when there is no choice so you never even think about it. Some things
are better the more choices there are. It is an issue of considerable
wisdom, intelligence, and ability to yield to the bigger picture to
understand which is which. Choice per se is _not_ good. Standards that
_limit_ choice are actually phenomenally important social creations, just
like one, authoritative, correct spelling instead of personal "choice".
Like, in 1894, Norway passed a law to adopt a uniform time zone for all
of the kingdom of Norway, based on the Greenwich meridian, which is one
such very clever thing that solves a host of problems in its absence,
which I bet nobody was aware of, and still are not quite aware of, since
using a global UTC instead of a local time zone is so much smarter for
exactly the same reason. We have yet to _accept_ the standard way to
write dates that is globally unambiguous, however, but at least we have
standardized on a single calendar for (almost) the entire world, now.
Stuff like this is not really about limiting choice, it is about making
so many other choices available to us. This is really hard to see before
the fact, and sometimes even after.
--
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 an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> transmitted:
> * Christopher Browne <········@acm.org>
> | "Conveniently usable" is true of SOAP::Lite. (Whether you like SOAP
> | or Perl or not.)
> |
> | The same is not true for RPC or socket access in CL.
>
> Some languages manage to survive with many ways to do the same thing,
> others "die" as soon as two different ways to do the same thing crop up.
> Apparently, Common Lisp is not big enough for multiple implementations of
> core features. (I wonder why so many people insist on making their own
> versions of almost everything, from whole environments to sockets, rather
> than using or adapting existing systems. Clearly, the ability to make
> design decisions that cannot be fixed, and hence produce "mistakes" is at
> the core of this phenomenon, visible in particular in Scheme.)
Yes, this is a problem.
The problem isn't that any of the "ways" are necessarily particularly
bad.
It's not fundamentally a "problem" that people have tried various ways
of getting at SQL databases; tried various ways of generating HTML;
tried various ways of [whatever].
The problem comes when things don't settle down to something at least
vaguely resembling a standard.
If there are three "sockets" systems to work with, and I decide to
layer my HTTP library on top of one, and you decide to layer your
CORBA library on top of another, _that_'s where it starts being a
problem.
If I'm trying to figure out what to layer my HTTP library on top of,
and can't decide, or have something that's only usable with one CL,
there's where "problem" starts emerging more clearly.
The fact that there's only one Perl implementation means that it's
straightforward to expect to be able to layer one Perl extension atop
another Perl extension; you can layer all sorts of network
functionality atop the Perl sockets layer, because everyone knows
that's the defacto standard way to "do network stuff."
It's not a fundamental problem to have multiple implementations, just
as there exists Python, Jython, and possibly even Viper (Python atop
OCAML). It would be a problem if they had massively different ways of
handling the "base layers."
CL truly does need some "common networking" modules, whether based on
identity ("There Can Be Only One" -- The Highlander) or on
interoperability (where several "libre" libraries have provided
emulations of Franz libraries).
The problem that Unix "Make" got stuck with cruft that we can't get
rid of today demonstrates that design requires some care.
And I disagree; the issue _isn't_ that "CL is not big enough for
multiple implementations."
The issue is that if people get accustomed to the differences, then
you get to the point of it being impossible to fix them, just as with
Unix Make.
C++ is, if any system is, "big enough;" a big chunk of what it suffers
from is that it initially wasn't designed sufficiently carefully,
which meant that multiple implementations went their directions, and
when they decided to standardize those directions, they had to
compromise by saying "It's all standard!", making a standard that's
nasty to try to implement.
The same can easily happen with CL: If different vendors (commercial
or free) implement different crucial extensions that are crucial
enough to persist, that grows into a horrible fungus of
not-quite-interoperability. (IF*, anyone?)
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ··········@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/spreadsheets.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #51. "If one of my dungeon guards begins
expressing concern over the conditions in the beautiful princess'
cell, I will immediately transfer him to a less people-oriented
position." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
"Kaz Kylheku" <···@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
·······················@localhost.localdomain...
> On Fri, 17 May 2002 22:09:07 +0200, Marc Battyani
> <·············@fractalconcept.com> wrote:
> >In this paper he writes : "In 2002, the situation for Lisp is more bleak:
> >the language standard has stagnated, while other languages regularly add
new
> >standards for protocols like HTTP, HTML, XML, SOAP..."
>
> I can't think of a single programming language which has new
> ``standards'' for these things. Only libraries.
These words were from Peter Norvig and since them he has modified his page.
Marc