I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni, and I'm
wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly simple terms), why
(and how) lisp differs from standard programming languages such as C++.
I think I sort of get the idea. Lisp is an AI language for starters, and
it is based on logic, but after that I'm lost. I just need a bit more of
an in depth (not TOO deep) explaination as to why this is so.
TIA
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
> I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni, and I'm
> wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly simple terms), why
> (and how) lisp differs from standard programming languages such as
> C++.
Given that Lisp predates C++ by a couple decades, and is the first
object oriented programming language to have an ANSI standard, the
term `standard' as used in the above sentence is perhaps of
questionable semantic content... :-)
Anyway I'd say the primary difference is that C++, C, even Java are
`batch programming languages', while Lisp is designed for interactive
use. This is not, by the way, the same thing as the difference
between `compiled' and `interpreted'. You might even say that Lisp is
an `on-line' programming language --- all the features of the language
environment are always there. When you run a C++ program it's like
pushing a bird out of the nest --- it either flies or falls on its
own, and if it falls you have to scrape the results off the ground
with a post-mortem debugger. With Lisp, your program has all of Lisp
there with it; if you have a bug, the vast majority of the time you
will be able to view the state of your program in mid execution, fix
the bug, and sometimes even pick up where you left off.
I had an example of this at a demo I gave once; my user interface
program crashed with a segmentation violation (!) and landed in the
debugger because it didn't properly check its input. I restarted the
offending routine, properly typed my input, and was back up in less
than ten seconds. No core dumps, no restarting the system from
scratch, no unhappy demo viewer.
In typical use one writes code, watches it run, and if it is not
running the way one likes, one modifies the code and forces the
(compiled) modifications into the running program. This allows you to
see the effects of your changes immediately. Imagine a program
running under Emacs with the Ilisp IDE. You see that it's giving the
wrong output. You look at your code, see the bug, fix it, hit ^c^c,
and suddenly your program starts giving the right output (without
having to restart it). I've done this often. You can see how this
would speed up the development process. The only thing you have to do
is remember to save your files from time to time. :-)
This compares to `edit, compile, link, run, debug, edit....' where the
`compile, link, run' steps can sometimes be quite time consuming.
The interactive aspect of Lisp is not only useful for debugging; it
allows a more dynamic approach to program construction. Your program
can compile pieces of itself while it is running. It can even write
pieces of itself while running. This can give a whole different view
to what a program is and what it does.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Jordan Hubbard: We have a crash bug. It needs to be fixed. We DO NOT
need to know how to print 3000 spaces in 11 different languages! :-)
Daniel Sobral: I concur. But if anyone wants to do it with loader,
: 3kbl 3000 0 do bl emit loop ; 3kbl will do the trick.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 01:10:58AM +0930, arien wrote:
> I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni, and I'm
> wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly simple terms), why
> (and how) lisp differs from standard programming languages such as C++.
> I think I sort of get the idea. Lisp is an AI language for starters, and
> it is based on logic, but after that I'm lost. I just need a bit more of
> an in depth (not TOO deep) explaination as to why this is so.
I think a good way to approach this would be first to excise the concept
that there is some "standard" for programming languages which C++ obeys
and Lisp does not (and I don't mean ANSI standards), and the concept
that Lisp is an AI language. And also, there isn't such a thing as a
programming language not based in logic (as JB has mentioned) ;) It
wouldn't be for any computers I know of, anyway.
Perhaps you mean to say that C++ is what you are accustomed to; in which
case I advise approaching Lisp with a fresh viewpoint. And Lisp is not
an "AI language", it just happens to be popular with people working in
the AI problem domain due to flexibility.
The best way for you to understand the differences would be to know
both, but I'll list a few key points to get you started:
* There is no such thing as a "statement" in Lisp syntax, even though
there may be constructs which act similarly. Every form is an
expression which evaluates to a value.
* Functions, for the most part, are the unit of "thought" within the
language. I couldn't think of a better word, so here's a description:
You will organize your thoughts/programs around writing functions,
using functions, generating functions (and methods, macros, etc... as
well). They also are the primary unit of compilation.
* Lisp code IS Lisp data. Most other languages hide the abstract syntax
tree of the language behind a veneer of sugary syntax. Lisp
programmers have chosen to work with the tree almost directly, which
makes writing operations on the tree (macros) simple. It also
provides an obvious choice for data-representation. And if you use an
editor which understands Lisp (ie. Emacs), you get the benefit of
structure-editing commands.
* Lispers work in a dynamic language and a dynamic environment. Change
and redefinition are normal parts of the language, not something that
one pretends not to exist. You modify a program while it continues
to run and maintain state, rather than restarting it all the time like
with C++.
URLs to start at:
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/index
http://www.lisp.org/
http://www.psg.com/~dlamkins/sl/cover.html
--
; 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."
"arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni, and I'm
> wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly simple terms), why
> (and how) lisp differs from standard programming languages such as C++.
why...
Lisp was initially created 40+ years ago when computing was fresh and
new ideas were not constrained by what went before. There was no
C++ syntax back then, it is only a modern phenomena that current languages
like C++/Java have strained to retain some C like syntax. Lisp is the way
it is because of a number of factors; its syntax; the computing theory behind
it; and its evolution by people who (over decades) programmed hard and difficult
problems like AI. Many of what are now considered everyday computing
applications and techniques were first done in Lisp.
how..
See above, plus, it is much more complete as a programming environment.
Lisp is simply a better programming language and environment than C++.
Wade
> I think I sort of get the idea. Lisp is an AI language for starters, and
> it is based on logic, but after that I'm lost. I just need a bit more of
> an in depth (not TOO deep) explaination as to why this is so.
>
> TIA
>
>
> --
> Mel
>
> Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
>
> See above, plus, it is much more complete as a programming environment.
> Lisp is simply a better programming language and environment than C++.
>
I wonder what the C++ programmers would say if I asked this :-)
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> > See above, plus, it is much more complete as a programming environment.
> > Lisp is simply a better programming language and environment than C++.
>
> I wonder what the C++ programmers would say if I asked this :-)
Well, it depends. Do those C++ programmers also know ANSI Common Lisp
well? I'm competent in both, and I find CMUCL+Hemlock+Garnet+Solaris
the nicest, most productive environment I've found yet. I use other
things, and I can appreciate some of the niceties in the Forte IDE or
MSVC++, but I'm just so much more productive in Lisp.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
>> > See above, plus, it is much more complete as a programming environment.
>> > Lisp is simply a better programming language and environment than C++.
>>
>> I wonder what the C++ programmers would say if I asked this :-)
>
> Well, it depends. Do those C++ programmers also know ANSI Common Lisp
> well? I'm competent in both, and I find CMUCL+Hemlock+Garnet+Solaris
> the nicest, most productive environment I've found yet. I use other
> things, and I can appreciate some of the niceties in the Forte IDE or
> MSVC++, but I'm just so much more productive in Lisp.
Heh. After a bit of C++, hemlock doesn't seem like such a bad idea ;)
Huw
--
That's the thing about people who think they hate computers. What they
really hate is lousy programmers.
- Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle in "Oath of Fealty"
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message news:<··························@news.adl.ihug.com.au>...
> >
> > See above, plus, it is much more complete as a programming environment.
> > Lisp is simply a better programming language and environment than C++.
> >
>
> I wonder what the C++ programmers would say if I asked this :-)
Unless those C++ programmers know a lot about Lisp, why would you care
what they say? If you pay attention in this newsgroup for a while, you
will discover that the Lisp programmers here are also practitioners of
languages other than Lisp, reluctantly so or otherwise. I can confess,
for instance, that I currently make my living by developing in C++.
The typical C++ programmer thinks that Lisp is some 1960's thing
involving slow interpretation, lots of parentheses and list
processing. Or that it's the same thing as Scheme. You can't even
begin to explain to some average programmer using a dumbed-down
programming language like Java what the advantages in Lisp are;
because you have to translate everything into the inadequate concepts
that he already understands. This thing is kind of like that thing in
C++, except, well, not really. Do you know what I mean? No? Ah well.
C++ owes big time to Common Lisp. Consider the idea behind C++
exception handling, that errors can be represented as classes, and
that inheritance can play a role in matching an exception to a
handler. That was in Lisp long before Koenig and Stroustrup wrote that
paper back in 1990 about how to hack exception handling into C++. They
did a poor, sloppy job. They missed one important idea from from the
condition handling system of Lisp; namely that you find the error
handler first, call it and give *it* the opportunity to trigger
unwinding. The poor choice to unwind while searching for a handler
leads to an idiotic exception handling system which conflates
non-local control transfers with error recovery. So at best, C++
exception handling can only contain errors, rather than provide a
substrate for error recovery protocols. By the time a matching catch
clause receives an exception, nearly all useful information about the
problem has been erased. Moreover, there is absolutely no way to fix
the problem and continue running near the point where it happened.
That's because the non-local exit is the *last* resort, the *last*
step in handling an error, after considering all options and all
advice. Lisp has throw and catch, but they are a mere control
mechanism for non-local exits; the language has a separate,
intelligently designed condition handling system. The result is that
Lisp programers can write programs that work right in every situation,
rather than contain and sweep problems under the rug, or give up and
terminate.
If you look at the C++ template library and things under #include
<functional> and #include <algorithm>, not only do the ideas come
straight from Lisp, but so do the names! Where you do you think count,
count_if, find, find_if, remove, remove_if and set_difference come
from? Lisp's sequences library has count, count-if, find, find-if,
remove, remove-if and set-difference, and it was here first, long
before C++ had these things. Coincidence, or plagiarism? String
streams? Lisp again.
The programming language designers of the world should hold a big
conference in which they all one by one confess where they obtained
their ideas, and how they compromised those ideas to fit into their
narrow-minded visions of computing.
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> C++ owes big time to Common Lisp. Consider the idea behind C++
> exception handling, that errors can be represented as classes, and
> that inheritance can play a role in matching an exception to a
> handler. That was in Lisp long before Koenig and Stroustrup wrote that
> paper back in 1990 about how to hack exception handling into C++. They
> did a poor, sloppy job. They missed one important idea from from the
> condition handling system of Lisp; namely that you find the error
> handler first, call it and give *it* the opportunity to trigger
> unwinding. The poor choice to unwind while searching for a handler
> leads to an idiotic exception handling system which conflates
> non-local control transfers with error recovery. So at best, C++
> exception handling can only contain errors, rather than provide a
> substrate for error recovery protocols.
Bah, you can too build error recovery protocols on top of it, it's
just really difficult (which maybe means it was the right choice for
C++?). And your system will be incompatible with mine. But if you
pass around enough state, you can wrap up enough information in your
exception object to correct an error and restart the computation.
I've done it, cursing Stroustrup's name the entire time...
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> C++ owes big time to Common Lisp. Consider the idea behind C++
> exception handling, that errors can be represented as classes, and
> that inheritance can play a role in matching an exception to a
> handler. That was in Lisp long before Koenig and Stroustrup wrote that
> paper back in 1990 about how to hack exception handling into C++.
i think that this form of exceptions (as opposed to PL/1 design) is due
to clu. [can anyone familiar with liskov's design comment?]
oz
--
needless to say, debating the pope is the ultimate exercise in futility.
-- steven pinker
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) wrote:
> C++ owes big time to Common Lisp. Consider the idea behind C++
> exception handling, that errors can be represented as classes, and
> that inheritance can play a role in matching an exception to a
> handler. That was in Lisp long before Koenig and Stroustrup wrote that
> paper back in 1990 about how to hack exception handling into C++. They
> did a poor, sloppy job. They missed one important idea from from the
> condition handling system of Lisp; namely that you find the error
> handler first, call it and give *it* the opportunity to trigger
> unwinding. The poor choice to unwind while searching for a handler
> leads to an idiotic exception handling system which conflates
> non-local control transfers with error recovery.
While I agree with you that unwinding the stack before selecting the
handler is inferior, you are quite incorrect in saying that Stroustrup
et al "missed" the alternative. I was using C++ at the time, and there
were extensive discussions in places such as comp.lang.c++ and the C++
group on BIX (a small, high quality discussion group that included
Stroustrup, Mike Vilot, Greg Comeau, Walter Bright, Grady Booch and
others). Stroustrup debated for quite a while on whether to support
"termination" or "resumption" semantics for C++ exceptions. I think he
made the wrong choice, but it was certainly a conscious *choice* and not
done out of ignorance of thealternatives.
You can find a brief (3.5 pages) discussion of this in section 16.6 of
_The Design and Evolution of C++_. Among other things, the argument is
made that "resumption requires the key mechanisms for continuations and
nested functions without providing the benefits of those mechanisms".
I can certainly see the argument about nested functions, but then being
a Pascal and PL/I guy from way back I think you want those in a language
*anyway*. Continuations I'm not so sure about -- certainly the CL and
Dylan implementations of exceptions use "exit functions", which are
effectively single-use continuations that are valid for the dynamic
extent of the block that created them. Schemelike call/cc is *not*
required.
Gwydion Dylan manages to compile resumption exceptions into pretty
efficient (and not all that obscure) ANSI C code, so I can't see why
CFront couldn't also do it.
The _Design and Evolution_ discussion also recounts practical experience
of resumption semantics (p392):
"Then, at the Palo Alto meeting in November 1991, we heard a brilliant
summary of the arguments for termination semantics backed with both
personal experience and data from Jim Mitchell (from Sun, formerly from
Xerox PARC). Jim had used exception handling in half a dozen languages
over a period of 20 years and was an early proponent of resumption
semantics as one of the main designers and implementers of Xerox's
Cedar/Mesa system. His message was 'termination is preferred over
resumption; this is not a matter of opinion but a matter of years of
experience. Resumption is seductive, but not valid.'"
"He backed his statement with experience from several operating systems.
The key example was Cedar/Mesa: It was written by people who liked and
used resumption, but after ten years of use, there was only one use of
resumption left in the half million line system -- and that was a
context enquiry. Because resumption wasn't actually necessary for such
a context enquiry, they removed it and found a significant speed
increase in that part of the system. In each and every case where
resumption had been used it had -- over the ten years -- become a
problem and a more appropriate design had replaced it. BASICALLY, EVERY
USE OF RESUMPTION HAD REPRESENTED A FAILURE TO KEEP SEPARATE LEVELS OF
ABSTRACTION DISJOINT." (emphasis mine)
*Well*.
I'd be really interested to hear from people who know more about
Cedar/Mesa and can comment on the above.
-- Bruce
From: Erik Winkels
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <8765w86euc.fsf@xs4all.nl>
Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> wrote:
>
> The key example was Cedar/Mesa: It was written by people who liked
> and used resumption, but after ten years of use, there was only one
> use of resumption left in the half million line system -- and that
> was a context enquiry. Because resumption wasn't actually necessary
> for such a context enquiry, they removed it and found a significant
> speed increase in that part of the system. In each and every case
> where resumption had been used it had -- over the ten years --
> become a problem and a more appropriate design had replaced it.
> BASICALLY, EVERY USE OF RESUMPTION HAD REPRESENTED A FAILURE TO KEEP
> SEPARATE LEVELS OF ABSTRACTION DISJOINT." (emphasis mine)
Does this piece not make a great case for resumption? Especially the
sentence you have emphasized.
That, while resumption has no place in an end-product, it is a great
development tool.
Erik
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) wrote:
>If you look at the C++ template library and things under #include
><functional> and #include <algorithm>, not only do the ideas come
>straight from Lisp, but so do the names! Where you do you think count,
>count_if, find, find_if, remove, remove_if and set_difference come
>from? Lisp's sequences library has count, count-if, find, find-if,
>remove, remove-if and set-difference, and it was here first, long
>before C++ had these things. Coincidence, or plagiarism? String
>streams? Lisp again.
Stepanov, the designer of the C++ template system, was heavily
influenced by Scheme. See:
http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html
"arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
>
> >
> > See above, plus, it is much more complete as a programming environment.
> > Lisp is simply a better programming language and environment than C++.
> >
>
> I wonder what the C++ programmers would say if I asked this :-)
90% probability that they would say, "What's Lisp?"
5% probablility that they would way, "Lots of silly parentheses"
3% probability that they would say, "I hated that Scheme course"
2% probability that they would say, "Damn, I wish I could get a job programnming in Lisp"
Wade
In article <·····················@news2.telusplanet.net>,
····@nospam.nowhere says...
>
> "arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
> ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> >
> > >
> > > See above, plus, it is much more complete as a programming environment.
> > > Lisp is simply a better programming language and environment than C++.
> > >
> >
> > I wonder what the C++ programmers would say if I asked this :-)
>
> 90% probability that they would say, "What's Lisp?"
> 5% probablility that they would way, "Lots of silly parentheses"
> 3% probability that they would say, "I hated that Scheme course"
> 2% probability that they would say, "Damn, I wish I could get a job programnming in Lisp"
>
> Wade
>
>
Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
Damn things ((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
"arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> In article <·····················@news2.telusplanet.net>,
> ····@nospam.nowhere says...
> >
> > "arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
> > ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > See above, plus, it is much more complete as a programming environment.
> > > > Lisp is simply a better programming language and environment than C++.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I wonder what the C++ programmers would say if I asked this :-)
> >
> > 90% probability that they would say, "What's Lisp?"
> > 5% probablility that they would way, "Lots of silly parentheses"
> > 3% probability that they would say, "I hated that Scheme course"
> > 2% probability that they would say, "Damn, I wish I could get a job programnming in Lisp"
> >
> > Wade
> >
> >
>
> Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
> error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
>
> Damn things ((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))
>
You are using the wrong editor.
Wade
Wade Humeniuk wrote:
> "arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
> ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
>
>>Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
>>error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
>>
>>Damn things ((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))
>
> You are using the wrong editor.
Arien,
Most Lisp development environments come with their own editors that
support you in "coping" with the parentheses. Another choice would be to
use the Lisp mode in Emacs/XEmacs. Whatever editor you have used
previously, you should definitely switch to one of these choices.
Pascal
--
Given any rule, however �fundamental� or �necessary� for science, there
are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the
rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
Hello!
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote:
>[...]
>Most Lisp development environments come with their own editors that
>support you in "coping" with the parentheses. Another choice would be to
>use the Lisp mode in Emacs/XEmacs. Whatever editor you have used
>previously, you should definitely switch to one of these choices.
In fact I found vim with
:set lisp ai showmatch
to work quite okay, too.
Kind regards,
Hannah.
In article <············@newsreader2.netcologne.de>, ········@web.de
says...
> Wade Humeniuk wrote:
> > "arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
> > ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> >
>
> >>Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
> >>error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
> >>
> >>Damn things ((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))
> >
> > You are using the wrong editor.
>
> Arien,
>
> Most Lisp development environments come with their own editors that
> support you in "coping" with the parentheses. Another choice would be to
> use the Lisp mode in Emacs/XEmacs. Whatever editor you have used
> previously, you should definitely switch to one of these choices.
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
I am using Xanalys Lispworks 4.2
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
In article <·····················@news1.telusplanet.net>,
"Wade Humeniuk" <····@nospam.nowhere> wrote:
> > Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
> > error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
> >
> > Damn things ((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))
>
> You are using the wrong editor.
Or maybe he just didn't notice that all the *other* sources of errors in
C++&Java have quietly disappeared.
-- Bruce
In article <·····················@news1.telusplanet.net>,
····@nospam.nowhere says...
>
> "arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
> ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> > In article <·····················@news2.telusplanet.net>,
> > ····@nospam.nowhere says...
> > >
> > > "arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
> > > ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > See above, plus, it is much more complete as a programming environment.
> > > > > Lisp is simply a better programming language and environment than C++.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I wonder what the C++ programmers would say if I asked this :-)
> > >
> > > 90% probability that they would say, "What's Lisp?"
> > > 5% probablility that they would way, "Lots of silly parentheses"
> > > 3% probability that they would say, "I hated that Scheme course"
> > > 2% probability that they would say, "Damn, I wish I could get a job programnming in Lisp"
> > >
> > > Wade
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
> > error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
> >
> > Damn things ((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))
> >
>
> You are using the wrong editor.
>
> Wade
>
>
The editor only makes sure that you have the right number of ()'s. It
doesn't guarentee that you have them in the right spot - which is my
problem!
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
> In article <·····················@news1.telusplanet.net>,
> ····@nospam.nowhere says...
> > "arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
> > ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> > > Damn things ((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))
> > You are using the wrong editor.
> The editor only makes sure that you have the right number of ()'s. It
> doesn't guarentee that you have them in the right spot - which is my
> problem!
That's a brain problem, not a parentheses problem. I don't mean that
you're stupid. What I mean is that if you're getting the parentheses
wrong, it's because you don't understand the structure of your code
correctly.
You would have this same problem with the syntax in any other language.
When I first learned pascal and C, around 15 years ago, I was driven
absolutely insane by the syntax requirements. It took me 18 hours
(about 15 of them spent in cursing) to get my first college CS
assignment to compile in MacPascal, though I'd written provably correct
pseudocode in about 5 minutes. I had been writing in nothing but basic
and assembler (Z80 and 6502) before that. I could have coded the
project in either Assembler in 1/10th the time it took for me to get my
code past that ridiculous pascal compiler.
While I've had some parenthesis slippage in Lisp, I haven't ever felt
myself fighting the syntax in the way I had to when I first learned C
and Pascal. Not even close. And I'd gotten quite used to infix and the
idiosyncrasies of C by the time I seriously looked at Lisp.
Michael
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
"arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
> error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
>
> Damn things ((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))
>
Oh I also forgot to mention, your brain has not adapted yet, give it some
time and you will not even see them after awhile. You will also discover
of amazingly markers they are for organizing your code.
Wade
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
> error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
>
> Damn things ((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))
Reminds me of a joke.
(Start of joke)
I was able to break into the DOD research computers and steal the
source code for the Star Wars project! It's written in Lisp. And to
prove it, here are the last few lines of the code:
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
(End of joke)
I think I understand what you're saying, though. When you first start
with lisp, you tend to do things like
(let (x (+ y 1))
(foo x))
or
(defun (foo x)
(bar x))
or
(cond (= x 3)
(foo x))
and so on. But it goes away after a while.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
The amazing thing is, back when I was a C++ programmer, I thought that
[Design Patterns] was SUCH a great book. And I guess it was, in a
way: it made it possible to use C++ and get something done. In the
long run, of course, that may have been a disservice... - Alain Picard
> (Start of joke)
>
> I was able to break into the DOD research computers and steal the
> source code for the Star Wars project! It's written in Lisp. And to
> prove it, here are the last few lines of the code:
>
>
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>
> (End of joke)
>
>
hehehehe. I love that one. I'm sending this one on to all my fellow
exasperated students!
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <u1jtdp43.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
> error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
Of course. It isn't as if you *could* put a curly brace, semicolon, comma,
etc. in the wrong spot.
Joe Marshall wrote:
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
>> Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I
>> haven't had a single error yet that wasn't caused by
>> parentheses being in the wrong spot!
>
> Of course. It isn't as if you *could* put a curly brace,
> semicolon, comma, etc. in the wrong spot.
I have had the experience that I do not make syntatic errors
often when I write Lisp. (Emacs takes care for the
parentheses and I very much miss this feature in Maple for
example). Syntatic errors in C++ or in Python occur much
more frequently (I always forget those /wretched/ /colons/
after else for example). (In Perl I tended to forget the
dollar signs.) Additionally in Python, the indentation can
play some nice tricks on you too.
Not that I have written much Lisp code until now.
I think that Lisp forces me to take a closer look at the
true structure of a statement and this is partly the reason
why errors do not happen so often.
--
J.... B....
-----------== 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 =-----
Janos Blazi wrote:
> I have had the experience that I do not make syntatic errors
> often when I write Lisp. (Emacs takes care for the
> parentheses and I very much miss this feature in Maple for
> example). Syntatic errors in C++ or in Python occur much
> more frequently (I always forget those /wretched/ /colons/
> after else for example). (In Perl I tended to forget the
> dollar signs.) Additionally in Python, the indentation can
> play some nice tricks on you too.
> Not that I have written much Lisp code until now.
With experience, the colons and whitespace in Python
disappear just like the parentheses in Lisp :-).
Curiously, most of my syntax errors when writing Python
are ... missing parentheses! :-)
--
Gareth McCaughan ················@pobox.com
.sig under construc
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> Janos Blazi wrote:
>
>> I have had the experience that I do not make syntatic
>> errors often when I write Lisp. (Emacs takes care for
>> the parentheses and I very much miss this feature in
>> Maple for example). Syntatic errors in C++ or in Python
>> occur much more frequently (I always forget those
>> /wretched/ /colons/ after else for example). (In Perl I
>> tended to forget the dollar signs.) Additionally in
>> Python, the indentation can play some nice tricks on you
>> too. Not that I have written much Lisp code until now.
>
> With experience, the colons and whitespace in Python
> disappear just like the parentheses in Lisp :-).
Most unfortunately, this is not the case at least as far as
I am concerned. I have written many thousand of lines o
Python code and still have this problem.
--
J.... B....
-----------== 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 <············@ccs.neu.edu>, ···@ccs.neu.edu says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> > Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
> > error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
>
> Of course. It isn't as if you *could* put a curly brace, semicolon, comma,
> etc. in the wrong spot.
>
At least curly brace, semicolon, comma etc are all different. It becomes
easier to find the error, and the compiler will even tell you which line
has the error.
In lisp, all you have is parentheses, parentheses, and more parentheses.
And if you get it wrong, lisp doesn't tell you. It just gives you a
bizarre error message such as:
"Likes is not a cons type"
(where Likes is the first atom of a list). *That's* why I have more
problems with ()'s than I ever had in Java.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <7kgie9hz.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, ···@ccs.neu.edu says...
> > arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> >
> > > Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
> > > error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
> >
> > Of course. It isn't as if you *could* put a curly brace, semicolon, comma,
> > etc. in the wrong spot.
> >
>
> At least curly brace, semicolon, comma etc are all different. It becomes
> easier to find the error, and the compiler will even tell you which line
> has the error.
I have always detested compilers that report things like:
``Expected a ; found a }''
If it is smart enough to know what ought to go there, why doesn't it
just fix it?
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3bs5ucsez.fsf@cley.com>
* Joe Marshall wrote:
> I have always detested compilers that report things like:
> ``Expected a ; found a }''
> If it is smart enough to know what ought to go there, why doesn't it
> just fix it?
I remember a (pascal?) compiler which did fix this kind of thing (not
in the source file, but on the fly, so it would mutter each time you
ran it).
--tim
Oops! Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> * Joe Marshall wrote:
>
>> I have always detested compilers that report things like:
>> ``Expected a ; found a }''
>
>> If it is smart enough to know what ought to go there, why doesn't it
>> just fix it?
>
> I remember a (pascal?) compiler which did fix this kind of thing (not
> in the source file, but on the fly, so it would mutter each time you
> ran it).
This is /exactly/ the C notion of "LINT."
The latest "evangelism installment" for this comes in _Bulletproofing
Web Applications_ <http://www.parasoft.com/book>, which is essentially
a cheering-session-as-book for Parasoft's jtest and c++test toolsets.
(Guess what languages they're for? :-))
There /is/ logic to it; in languages where you have the clasic
"compile-link-test" cycle, it makes a lot of sense to hook additional
tools to the compiler to enforce coding standards. And there
certainly are constructs that are error prone. Consider the classic:
if (a = b)
foo(a);
Probably 95% of the time, that code fragment is /wrong/.
I would most certainly /want/ the compiler to whine as opposed to
changing the code. If the compiler changes the code, that adds some
horrible error conditions.
"Filesystem ran out of space while running make. Oops; the
previously-working source code just got corrupted!"
One thing I /like/ about TeX is that it has /never/ destroyed my
source files. Don't change a good thing...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ····················@" "454aa"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linuxxian.html
"I don't have to take this abuse from you -- I've got hundreds of
people waiting to abuse me." -- Bill Murray, Ghostbusters
Oops! Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> * Christopher Browne wrote:
>
>> This is /exactly/ the C notion of "LINT."
>
> lint never corrected anything that I remember.
No, the point was that it reported "bad constructs." That's exactly
what this thread has been talking about.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ····················@" "454aa"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/internet.html
Users should cultivate an ability to make the simplest molehill into a
mountain by finding controversial interpretations of innocuous
sounding statements that the sender never intended or imagined.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3k7kgviqk.fsf@cley.com>
* Christopher Browne wrote:
> No, the point was that it reported "bad constructs." That's exactly
> what this thread has been talking about.
But the specific thing I followed up to was saying:
I have always detested compilers that report things like:
``Expected a ; found a }''
If it is smart enough to know what ought to go there, why doesn't it
just fix it?
In general that kind of annoying-but-trivial error is not the sort of
thing lint detected (it probably did detect it, but so did the
compiler, at least in most cases (I seem to remember the early C
compilers were pretty sloppy)), and neither did it correct these
things. Lint was useful for picking up things that were dubious,
(like the classic if (a = b) ...;), not things that were just
wrong-but-correctable like a missing but inferrable semicolon.
--tim
In article <···············@cley.com>, ···@cley.com says...
> * Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> > No, the point was that it reported "bad constructs." That's exactly
> > what this thread has been talking about.
>
> But the specific thing I followed up to was saying:
>
> I have always detested compilers that report things like:
> ``Expected a ; found a }''
>
> If it is smart enough to know what ought to go there, why doesn't it
> just fix it?
>
Because the solution may not be missing a ; at all. Although the
compiler reports this, it may actually be something missing eariler in
the code. Look at this Java code for example:
System.out.print ("Print this statement);
now this is just an example. When you try to compile this, it reports
that a ) and ; is missing. Now, they're not missing at all. The " is
missing, so the compiler leaves this up to you to intepret the problem
and fix it.
But like I said, at *least* Java takes you to the line that the error
has occured. The quote mark is also pretty easy to identity in any
editor.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Johan Kullstam
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <87smyvzllt.fsf@attbi.com>
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> In article <···············@cley.com>, ···@cley.com says...
> > * Christopher Browne wrote:
> >
> > > No, the point was that it reported "bad constructs." That's exactly
> > > what this thread has been talking about.
> >
> > But the specific thing I followed up to was saying:
> >
> > I have always detested compilers that report things like:
> > ``Expected a ; found a }''
> >
> > If it is smart enough to know what ought to go there, why doesn't it
> > just fix it?
> >
>
> Because the solution may not be missing a ; at all. Although the
> compiler reports this, it may actually be something missing eariler in
> the code. Look at this Java code for example:
>
> System.out.print ("Print this statement);
>
> now this is just an example. When you try to compile this, it reports
> that a ) and ; is missing. Now, they're not missing at all. The " is
> missing, so the compiler leaves this up to you to intepret the problem
> and fix it.
>
> But like I said, at *least* Java takes you to the line that the error
> has occured. The quote mark is also pretty easy to identity in any
> editor.
This is true. I was baffled by how to find the error line. Learning
lisp for me is as much about unlearning habits and techniques of other
languages as it is in learning lisp.
Here is my way of dealing with this.
Make smallish functions and use the link between your editor and the
running lisp environment. In emacs with ilisp, I go to the end of a
defun and hit C-c C-e. This executes the defun and when the compiler
complains there are only a few lines which are in play. It is then
*much* easier to find the error.
--
Johan KULLSTAM
Johan Kullstam wrote:
> Make smallish functions and use the link between your editor and the
> running lisp environment. In emacs with ilisp, I go to the end of a
> defun and hit C-c C-e. This executes the defun and when the compiler
> complains there are only a few lines which are in play. It is then
> *much* easier to find the error.
FWIW I use xemacs. However, I tend to put stuff in a xemacs buffer,
compile the blessed thing and then M-x goto-char <nnn> at the whinge point.
:)w
From: Erik Winkels
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <874rbmo30r.fsf@xs4all.nl>
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> I have always detested compilers that report things like:
> ``Expected a ; found a }''
>
> If it is smart enough to know what ought to go there, why doesn't it
> just fix it?
Wouldn't things get ugly very quickly? Should the compiler:
1) Fix the source file?
2) Just fix it for the current compilation and give a warning?
I think the current situation is the least bad of all. Case 1 seems
an absolute no-no to me and case 2 just leads to people leaving a ';'
where there should be a '}' because the compiler'll fix it anyway.
Nevertheless, I do find such messages pretty annoying and they give me
a good opportunity to start swearing at the computer (actually, at my
own stupidity) :-)
Erik
--
"However, anybody who would have designed Perl has an aesthetic sense
sufficiently different from mine that it simply does not apply to me.
Sort of like anybody who thought E.T. was a profound and moving movie,
only more so." -- David Thornley in comp.lang.lisp
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote in message
·················@ccs.neu.edu...
> I have always detested compilers that report things like:
> ``Expected a ; found a }''
>
> If it is smart enough to know what ought to go there, why doesn't it
> just fix it?
>
Some compilers do something like this ...
(defun statement-list ()
(and (statement) (sl*)))
(defun sl* ()
(if (match '|;|)
(or (and (statement) (sl*)) t)
(error "Expected \";\" on line ~s, but read \"~a\""
*line-number* *lookahead*)))
where statement is some function that breaks down to parsing assignments and
expressions.
When parsing
b = a/(b+23) * a/b-1);
everything looks all good if you read as far as
b = a/(b+23) * a/b - 1
then you hit the dangling paren instead of the end of a valid statement.
the parser can't just throw in a ; ... what the programmer actually meant
is ambiguous:
b = a/(b+23) * a/b -1; or
b = a/(b+23) * (a/b -1); or
b = a/(b+23) * a/(b-1); or
b = a/((b+23) * a/b -1);
--
Jason Kantz
http://kantz.com/jason
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3r8egcex3.fsf@cley.com>
* Jason Kantz wrote:
> then you hit the dangling paren instead of the end of a valid statement.
> the parser can't just throw in a ; ... what the programmer actually meant
> is ambiguous:
> b = a/(b+23) * a/b -1; or
> b = a/(b+23) * (a/b -1); or
> b = a/(b+23) * a/(b-1); or
> b = a/((b+23) * a/b -1);
Then the compiler shouldn't report this as `expecting a x got a y', it
should report it in some more informative way.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> wrote in message
····················@cley.com...
> * Jason Kantz wrote:
>
> > then you hit the dangling paren instead of the end of a valid statement.
> > the parser can't just throw in a ; ... what the programmer actually
meant
> > is ambiguous:
>
> > b = a/(b+23) * a/b -1; or
> > b = a/(b+23) * (a/b -1); or
> > b = a/(b+23) * a/(b-1); or
> > b = a/((b+23) * a/b -1);
>
> Then the compiler shouldn't report this as `expecting a x got a y', it
> should report it in some more informative way.
>
> --tim
>
yeah, I think something like "b = a/(b+23) * a/b-1) on line x is not a valid
statement." would be more informative.
the point was that just because the compiler knows what it is expecting,
doesn't mean it has the info to know what you meant.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <r8egsztk.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
"Jason Kantz" <··········@kantz.com> writes:
> Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> wrote in message
> ····················@cley.com...
> > * Jason Kantz wrote:
> >
> > > then you hit the dangling paren instead of the end of a valid statement.
> > > the parser can't just throw in a ; ... what the programmer actually
> meant
> > > is ambiguous:
> >
> > > b = a/(b+23) * a/b -1; or
> > > b = a/(b+23) * (a/b -1); or
> > > b = a/(b+23) * a/(b-1); or
> > > b = a/((b+23) * a/b -1);
> >
> > Then the compiler shouldn't report this as `expecting a x got a y', it
> > should report it in some more informative way.
> >
> > --tim
> >
>
> yeah, I think something like "b = a/(b+23) * a/b-1) on line x is not a valid
> statement." would be more informative.
>
> the point was that just because the compiler knows what it is expecting,
> doesn't mean it has the info to know what you meant.
The parser might be in a particular state where it is expecting to
find a semicolon, but *semantically* the program is expecting a
complete statement. A parser that worked in a different order might
discover the error in a different place. So reporting `expected x,
got a y' is telling me some irrelevant minutae about the parser state
when it got confused, not something about what is wrong with the
program like your suggestion of "a/(b+23) * a/b-1) is not a well
formed expression".
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3n0p3c36e.fsf@cley.com>
* Joe Marshall wrote:
> The parser might be in a particular state where it is expecting to
> find a semicolon, but *semantically* the program is expecting a
> complete statement. A parser that worked in a different order might
> discover the error in a different place. So reporting `expected x,
> got a y' is telling me some irrelevant minutae about the parser state
> when it got confused, not something about what is wrong with the
> program like your suggestion of "a/(b+23) * a/b-1) is not a well
> formed expression".
Right, and this is what I'm complaining about. As a user of the
compiler I have no interest in the implementation of the parser. If
it tells me `I expected a `;' here' I expect that it means just that,
and that inserting a `;' on the fly (with a warning) would be a
reasonable thing for it to do to let it carry on and compile the
file. What I don't expect it to mean is `I got confused somewhere or
other, and as a result of this confusion I'm expecting a `;' but I
didn't find one, and this is because I'm implemented using yacc and
I'm using such and such an algorithm and ...'. If the parser is
confused then it should *say* that it's confused, not that it was
expecting something but saw something else.
We have a system that (among many other things) reads XML
configuration files (it uses expat as the tokenizer). There are some
places where it knows what it expects but gets something else, and it
tries to say what it was expecting (it doesn't attempt to repair
things, because we have finite manpower...). But there are other
cases where it just has to decide it's confused, and in these cases it
tends to signal an error whose text is some combination of `mutant
horror death' (I think it has at least mutant horror death, horror
mutant death and probably some others). All of these things mean
`something bad happened, but I don't really know what it was because
I've lost too much context at this point'. And I claim that these
error messages are *better* than `I was expecting x but I saw y'
(which, in general, is the proximal thing that happened), because the
user just shouldn't have to care about that kind of implementation
detail of the parser. Either it should be fixed to report a
semantically meaningful error, or it should carry on reporting
something which is obviously `oops, a bad thing happened, you need to
report this'.
--tim
Jason Kantz <··········@kantz.com> wrote:
> Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> wrote in message
> ····················@cley.com...
> > * Jason Kantz wrote:
> >
> > > then you hit the dangling paren instead of the end of a valid statement.
> > > the parser can't just throw in a ; ... what the programmer actually
> meant
> > > is ambiguous:
> >
> > > b = a/(b+23) * a/b -1; or
> > > b = a/(b+23) * (a/b -1); or
> > > b = a/(b+23) * a/(b-1); or
> > > b = a/((b+23) * a/b -1);
> >
> > Then the compiler shouldn't report this as `expecting a x got a y', it
> > should report it in some more informative way.
> >
> > --tim
> >
>
> yeah, I think something like "b = a/(b+23) * a/b-1) on line x is not a valid
> statement." would be more informative.
> the point was that just because the compiler knows what it is expecting,
> doesn't mean it has the info to know what you meant.
Or better yet, "unmatched ')' found in line ___"
The problem isn't that the right paren isn't a semicolon, it's that
there is no matching left paren.
Michael
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> In lisp, all you have is parentheses, parentheses, and more parentheses.
> And if you get it wrong, lisp doesn't tell you.
Have patience and learn to use your tool:
In another posting, you said you were using LW 4.2, which has a
sophisticated debugger which e.g. can take you to the source code
where the error happened.
--
(espen)
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3n0pecyqn.fsf@cley.com>
* spammers suck wrote:
> In lisp, all you have is parentheses, parentheses, and more parentheses.
No, you have words too. Don't obsess about the parens, read the
words. C (for instance) uses a small number of characters to indicate
different sorts of constructs in the language, while Lisp uses words
to indicate a much larger (indeed, potentially infinite) number of
constructs.
So whereas in C you might have:
{ /* this means `begin a block' */
int a = 3;
...
}
In Lisp you have:
(let ; this means `begin a binding'
((a 3))
...)
or
(progn ; this means `begin a group of expressions'
... )
or
(block foo ; this means `begin a block named FOO from which you
; can return'
...)
(synchronized (x) ; this means `begin a block, synchronizing on X'
; (this is not part of the standard language)
...)
--tim
"Tim Bradshaw" <···@cley.com> wrote in message
····················@cley.com...
> different sorts of constructs in the language, while Lisp uses words
> to indicate a much larger (indeed, potentially infinite) number of
> constructs.
Now Tim! I thought you were a mathematician, or a physicist from some of
your posts....now what's this "infinity" non-sense! ;o)
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
PS Hmm...now i thought there was a limit somewhere in CLHS for the length
of an identifier but I don't find it...maybe infinity is not so far off
after all.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey37kghsdrc.fsf@cley.com>
* Coby Beck wrote:
> PS Hmm...now i thought there was a limit somewhere in CLHS for the length
> of an identifier but I don't find it...maybe infinity is not so far off
> after all.
Yes, I think it is infinite, but nly deviously so. The length of a
name is probably bounded by how big an array may be, which is, I
think, not allowed to be infinite (they should have allowed this -
ARRAY-DIMENSION-LIMIT should be allowed to be T meaning `no limit'
(:-)). So that looks bad. But wait! we have packages too,
unfortunately still named by strings. But, hah! *uninterned symbols*!
No measly limits on them now, albeit somewhat hard to use in practice
(though everyone must have a hack somewhere that uses uninterned
symbols for slot names to make private slots...).
--tim
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <u3cr4fjlm.fsf@poboxes.com>
On 17 Oct 2002 08:52:55 +0100, Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> said:
* Coby Beck wrote:
CB> PS Hmm...now i thought there was a limit somewhere in CLHS for the length
CB> of an identifier but I don't find it...maybe infinity is not so far off
CB> after all.
[...]
TB> But, hah! *uninterned symbols*!
TB> No measly limits on them now
They also have names.
---Vassil.
--
Non-googlable is googlable.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey33cr4uios.fsf@cley.com>
* Vassil Nikolov wrote:
> They also have names.
But that doesn't matter, since two uninterned symbols with the same
name can nevertheless be distinct:
(let ((s1 (make-symbol "FOO"))
(s2 (make-symbol "FOO")))
(values (eq s1 s1)
(string= (symbol-name s1) (symbol-name s2))))
-> nil, t
--tim
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <u8z0vriz0.fsf@poboxes.com>
On 18 Oct 2002 11:48:03 +0100, Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> said:
* Vassil Nikolov wrote:
VN> They also have names.
TB> But that doesn't matter, since two uninterned symbols with the same
TB> name can nevertheless be distinct:
[...]
I was referring to the fact that the limit on the length of a
string still applies to uninterned symbols. Re-reading the thread,
I can see you were in fact referring to the absence of explicit
limits on the total number of distinct uninterned symbols, even in
the presence of an explicit (albeit *very* large) limit on the
number of distinct symbol names (as a consequence of the limit on
their length). So I was not in fact responding to what you had
written, my bad.
---Vassil.
--
Non-googlable is googlable.
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> PS Hmm...now i thought there was a limit somewhere in CLHS for the length
> of an identifier but I don't find it...maybe infinity is not so far off
> after all.
The name of a symbol is a string, which is an array, so I guess
ARRAY-DIMENSION-LIMIT must be an upper bound.
arien wrote in message ...
>In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, ···@ccs.neu.edu says...
>> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>>
>> > Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
>> > error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
>>
>> Of course. It isn't as if you *could* put a curly brace, semicolon,
comma,
>> etc. in the wrong spot.
>>
>
>At least curly brace, semicolon, comma etc are all different. It becomes
>easier to find the error, and the compiler will even tell you which line
>has the error.
>
>In lisp, all you have is parentheses, parentheses, and more parentheses.
>And if you get it wrong, lisp doesn't tell you.
Welllllll, I hope your Lisp editor also supports automatic indentation. If
not, change editors. If so, I think you will agree that that puts you
leagues ahead of editing other languages. Using
matching-parens-highlighting, the /editor/ will tell you /as you type/
whether or not to hit the ")" key and when you have hit it too often. The
auto-indent will tell you when you put the parens inthe wrong place.
The only problem is that the auto-indent is a clear guide only after you
have done sufficient (not much) CL coding to know where you are expecting
the next line to start. When it starts somewhere else, you got a parens in
the wrong place. So you have to bootstrap a little. And you do have to be
generous with the line-breaks so you get the feedback.
And /do/ break up big functions into smaller ones if only to divide and
conquer the visual mass.
Finally, end this thread and write some code. Then the parentheses will
simply disappear.
kenny
clinisys
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| At least curly brace, semicolon, comma etc are all different. It becomes
| easier to find the error, and the compiler will even tell you which line
| has the error.
This is a matter of what you have become used to. The belief that what
you became used to /first/ should be the one and only guide for what you
will do for the rest of your life, makes the random flow of experiences
that you will encounter in your life a dangerous lottery instead of a
continuous opportunity to revise and improve your views and opinions.
Let me quote from Chapter 5 The Basics of Using Typefaces of a book that
arrived today, as hot off the press as it gets when you ship books through
our miserable fall temperatures:
Readability
Empirically we know that some typefaces are easier to read than others.
Quite apart from the way texts are set--their typographic qualities--some
typefaces are simply eaiser on the eyes and someare more difficult. This
fact has always intrigued the scientifically minded of the type world,
leading to decades of effort and scores of research projects dedicated to
readability studies. The goals of these studies have been to learn what
typographic practices enhance readability and to determine what kinds of
typefaces are the most readable.
Readability studies are notorious for coming to clouded and contradictory
conclusions. Even consensus opinions have been cast into doubt. For
example, it has long been an article of faith that seriffed types are easier
to read than sans serif types (studies, naturally, disagree on the subject).
Likewise, roman types have long been assumed to be more readable than
italic types (one study even specified that they were 3% more readable).
But yet another recent study has cast doubt on these stereotypes. The
study compared the reading speeds of a group reading texts set in roman
typefaces with those of a group reading texts set in the /Fraktur/, or
/black-letter/, type popular in Germany until World War II. It has
generally been assumed that because the strokes used in Fraktur types are
so similar and so closely spaced, readers need more time to decipher the
letters. Wrong. The study found that the reading speeds of those accustomed
to reading Fraktur type were essentially the same as those used to reading
text set in roman types. Bad typesetting and bad typeface design aside,
the fact seems to be that the most readabale typefaces are the ones you're
accustomed to reading.
The study's conclusions don't mean that the stereotypes of sans serif and
italics as being less readable aren't true. Popular design and typographic
practice have made them true by using seriffed roman types as teh standard
faces for books, magazines, and newspapers. Because they are what we're
accustomed to, seriffed faces are more readable for us.
I recommend this book:
DDC 686.22 (typography); ISBN 0-321-12730-7; LCCN <unavailable>; 2003
James Felici
The Complete Manual of Typography, a guide to setting perfect type
| In lisp, all you have is parentheses, parentheses, and more parentheses.
In reality, this is all you /see/, because you have been sensitized to
the parentheses from your previous exposure. I have written previously
on the pain factor of parentheses in the C family which causes people who
come from that background to feel them acutely painful. Search google.
| And if you get it wrong, lisp doesn't tell you.
Yes, it does (insofar as "lisp" here refers to an implementation), but
you have to accustom yourself to what the compiler expects and complains
about. You have already succeeded in this with your first programming
language. Now is the time to repeat that process with your next language.
| *That's* why I have more problems with ()'s than I ever had in Java.
People actually forget the pain of learning something and assume that
when they know the first thing well, they should be able to learn the
next thing with the same ease that they use the first thing. This is so
horribly misguided that I fail to see how people can possibly believe it,
but many people evidently do. I think it is because people only really
learn one thing of each kind, the first they ever encounter, and hence
never realize what it costs to learn anything, or they may actually fail
at learning something and hence only accumulate simple-minded coping
strategies in the face of repeated failure. Learning is /work/, however.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message ·····················@naggum.no...
> | *That's* why I have more problems with ()'s than I ever had in Java.
>
> People actually forget the pain of learning something and assume that
> when they know the first thing well, they should be able to learn the
> next thing with the same ease that they use the first thing. This is so
> horribly misguided that I fail to see how people can possibly believe it,
> but many people evidently do. I think it is because people only really
> learn one thing of each kind, the first they ever encounter, and hence
> never realize what it costs to learn anything, or they may actually fail
> at learning something and hence only accumulate simple-minded coping
> strategies in the face of repeated failure. Learning is /work/, however.
Like I was saying before, arien's brain has not adapted yet. It literally takes
time and work that reinforces the brain's pathways. It takes time. Even if one
is extremely intelligent the brain still needs time and repeated exposure. I
think some people have extremely pliable minds and adapt quickly, but
it takes a conscious letting go of what you think you know.
We had the perfect example of this in Canada where we officially converted
from English to Metric measurements. Many people still cannot function
(its been almost 25 years) and when they hear temperatures in Celsius,
they still have to convert from Fahrenheit. My tactic was to hear the
temperature, go outside, feel how warm or cold it was and get an
internalized experience of what it meant. I stayed away from converting, it
would not have helped in the end.
Wade
* Wade Humeniuk
| We had the perfect example of this in Canada where we officially
| converted from English to Metric measurements. Many people still cannot
| function (its been almost 25 years) and when they hear temperatures in
| Celsius, they still have to convert from Fahrenheit. My tactic was to
| hear the temperature, go outside, feel how warm or cold it was and get an
| internalized experience of what it meant. I stayed away from converting,
| it would not have helped in the end.
Interesting. I spent half a year in California in 1993, and found myself
flooded with new impressions the first few times I visited the grocery
store to buy food. Then I let go of the notion that I should compare
things to what I was used to, including prices in various currencies, and
that drowning feeling vanished. The interesting thing about the USD is
that it is worth a lot compared to the NOK, so when you buy something for
RMU 10 (for "random monetary unit"), you get great value for money if the
RMU is NOK, but not if RMU is USD. This tends to make tourists overspend
in expensive currencies and underspend in inexpensive currencies, relative
to their "home currency". However, how many RMUs a thing costs is one of
those things you accept without question in your "home" currency and yet
fuss endlessly about when somewhere else, for no beter reason than that
/you believe you ought know/ because you had it all figured out where you
came from. But realizing that you did not know how fast 80 km/h is other
than the readout from the speedometer and the speed limit signs along the
road, means that you can accept that you have no idea how fast 55 mph is
other than the readout from the speedometer and the speed limit signs
along the road. The "exchange rate" between mph and km/h is about as
interesting as that between USD and NOK when you have to buy the food or
get from A to B without invoking the wrath of the state patrol.
It seems we share the observation that letting go of the desire to convert
or compare relative to what is already known is "more conscious" than
giving in to it when the amount of change is sufficiently large. This is
supported by the observation on the machine floor when industrial plants
wanted to optimize the time a worker would need on a particular task --
that if the change was small enough that it was comfortable, the workers
would revert to their old ways very shortly, but if it was uncomfortably
large, the cost of going back would be larger than adapting, and workers
often fought these changes, but eventually gave in, so it was necessary
to cause an uncomfortable conflict in order to make improvements, or the
workers would simply defy all changes. I think this goes to show that
the ability to deal with change comes with thinking and that we evolved
all this capacity because the rate of change was too high for a brain that
learned things only once. Despite the enormous high rate of change in
our modern society, it appears that many people have not seen the light
and figured out how to cope with change. I am reminded of a book that
influenced my view on this many, many years ago, and it seems to be in
circulation still:
DDC 303.49 [301.24]; ISBN 0-553-27737-5; LCCN 67012744; 1970
Alvin Toffler
Future Shock
It is still well worth a read, 30+ years after its publication and it is
still in print an d
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> It seems we share the observation that letting go of the desire to convert
> or compare relative to what is already known is "more conscious" than
> giving in to it when the amount of change is sufficiently large.
This could be related to observations I have made about trying to learn a
new language. People who need to keep translating to and from their mother
tongue seem to have a much harder time mastering a new language than those
who actually manage to think in it. If they never get over the need to
translate, they never really seem to get the hang the new language
either. It is a strategy that fails to get them where they need to
be. Kind of obvious really, but a lot of people do not seem to realize
this.
The basic skills you need to acquire to be able to stop translating in
your mind, should then be analogous to Wade Humeniuk's trips outside to
get a feel for the temperature. Now I know what to do next time I am in
America and the forecast says temperatures in the low 50's.
Bj�rn B
--
E++>+++
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message ·····················@naggum.no...
> It seems we share the observation that letting go of the desire to convert
> or compare relative to what is already known is "more conscious" than
> giving in to it when the amount of change is sufficiently large. This is
> supported by the observation on the machine floor when industrial plants
> wanted to optimize the time a worker would need on a particular task --
> that if the change was small enough that it was comfortable, the workers
> would revert to their old ways very shortly, but if it was uncomfortably
> large, the cost of going back would be larger than adapting, and workers
> often fought these changes, but eventually gave in, so it was necessary
> to cause an uncomfortable conflict in order to make improvements, or the
> workers would simply defy all changes. I think this goes to show that
> the ability to deal with change comes with thinking and that we evolved
> all this capacity because the rate of change was too high for a brain that
> learned things only once. Despite the enormous high rate of change in
> our modern society, it appears that many people have not seen the light
> and figured out how to cope with change. I am reminded of a book that
> influenced my view on this many, many years ago, and it seems to be in
> circulation still:
People make observations of how easy it is for children to learn new things, this
is partly because they do not resist change (in fact they have nothing to change
from). For an adult to change, with ingrained neural pathways, the choice needs
to be made to subject oneself to situations where one can potentially come into
conflict with how the brain is currently wired. You have to choose
to be uncomfortable (the insecurity of being a child again), and the faith that the
brain/mind will adapt once again and everything will be fine. I do not think that adult's
brains are any less pliable than a child's, its just we have more baggage (ingrained
neural pathways that fight the new ones). That is very interesting about the
companies making large changes, the resistence, and then the giving in ( the new
pathways taking hold). Brains have inertia, nor are they one monolithic system.
Marvin Minsky's draft section on Consciousness is an interesting read.
http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html
To be able to change, one would surmise that you need a fairly secure
environment (like a secure job) until the transition is complete (as one is fairly vulnerable
during large changes), and some assurrance that you are making a good change
(or at least a neutral one). Also some mental image (imagination) of the desired
outcome is needed to help motivate and spur change.
Wade
* Wade Humeniuk
| People make observations of how easy it is for children to learn new
| things, this is partly because they do not resist change (in fact they
| have nothing to change from). For an adult to change, with ingrained
| neural pathways, the choice needs to be made to subject oneself to
| situations where one can potentially come into conflict with how the
| brain is currently wired.
If what one already knows is reasonably consonant with reality, learning
should be so much faster when you know a lot. For instance, a surgeon
with 15 years' worth of experience regularly learns a new technique in
one tutored session while a novice surgeon may require a dozen. I think
it all depends on whether you are "open for learning" or not, and this is
a mental state that appear to require significant energy. Evolutionarily
unsurprising, since it should be effortless to use internalized knowledge
(or as close to effortless as possible) and most things needing learning
should be learnable only once. Many animals, even insects, are touted as
being particularly "intelligent" this way -- they learn from all mistakes
and do not repeat them. (E.g., my cat now knows all the prepartory steps
I have not been fully aware that I took preceding a trip to the vet. It
now takes significant effort for me to be creative enough each time that
I actually make the appointment. She is even smart enough to become
suspicious if I close off certain places with good hiding places and run
hide elsewhere.)
| You have to choose to be uncomfortable (the insecurity of being a child
| again), and the faith that the brain/mind will adapt once again and
| everything will be fine.
Quite. The confidence that you most probably will end up better off, and
certainly no worse off on the other side of the learning experience than
you would if you did not engage in it must be established. It usually
works very well to artificially lower the predictable outcome of not
learning, however, but some of the best ways to do this (such as grades
and exams and making people feel bad for not knowing) unfortunately cause
a minority of people to get stuck at the artificially lower level despite
efforts to return it to normal.
| Marvin Minsky's draft section on Consciousness is an interesting read.
Thanks for the pointer.
| To be able to change, one would surmise that you need a fairly secure
| environment (like a secure job) until the transition is complete (as one
| is fairly vulnerable during large changes), and some assurrance that you
| are making a good change (or at least a neutral one). Also some mental
| image (imagination) of the desired outcome is needed to help motivate and
| spur change.
I appears to me that there are some problems caused by the way children
are encouraged to work in school that could need some improvement. I do
not think that one needs to motivate people to take small risks to get
something better even with a low probability of success -- if that were
the case, we would have serious problems with the sorts of things that
are financed by the stupid tax, better known as "lotteries". I think the
only /really/ important task is to instill in children or others you care
about personally a confidence that they will never be worse off for
trying to learn something. Even if they fail, they could not /possibly/
be worse off than if they did not try, but for some reason, some people
take failure personally and feel or actually believe they are measured by
their failures, not by their successes.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message ·····················@naggum.no...
> Many animals, even insects, are touted as
> being particularly "intelligent" this way -- they learn from all mistakes
> and do not repeat them. (E.g., my cat now knows all the prepartory steps
> I have not been fully aware that I took preceding a trip to the vet. It
> now takes significant effort for me to be creative enough each time that
> I actually make the appointment. She is even smart enough to become
> suspicious if I close off certain places with good hiding places and run
> hide elsewhere.)
My dog (a beagle) is not quite so smart, but he does know all the prepatory
steps for going for a walk (his favorite activity). Even though I think I am
performing the same activities, getting ready to leave the house, etc., he
seems to sense my intention if I am taking him or not. BTW my dog
actually likes going to the vet, when we pull into the parking lot he gets
very excited and can't wait to go in.
> | To be able to change, one would surmise that you need a fairly secure
> | environment (like a secure job) until the transition is complete (as one
> | is fairly vulnerable during large changes), and some assurrance that you
> | are making a good change (or at least a neutral one). Also some mental
> | image (imagination) of the desired outcome is needed to help motivate and
> | spur change.
>
> I appears to me that there are some problems caused by the way children
> are encouraged to work in school that could need some improvement. I do
> not think that one needs to motivate people to take small risks to get
> something better even with a low probability of success -- if that were
> the case, we would have serious problems with the sorts of things that
> are financed by the stupid tax, better known as "lotteries". I think the
> only /really/ important task is to instill in children or others you care
> about personally a confidence that they will never be worse off for
> trying to learn something. Even if they fail, they could not /possibly/
> be worse off than if they did not try, but for some reason, some people
> take failure personally and feel or actually believe they are measured by
> their failures, not by their successes.
I have two kid's, my son seems to unaffected by failure and just keeps plugging
along. My daughter takes failure harder. The only environmental explanation
I can think of is that we did not coddle our son like we did to our daughter
when he was a baby. (our son was the second child)
I understand about taking failure personally. I had major surgery two months
ago and it would have been very easy to take the disease and resultant
sugery as a very personal failure. It was a very personal thing. I was
extremely impressed by the Surgeon's compassion in not treating my
physical state as a personal failure on my behalf. Amazing enough I found
the Surgeons to be the easiest personalities to interact with, in addition
to this compassion I found that they were very intelligent and capable. It
took a minimum of conversation to communicate. Though it was
difficult to decide to do it, and actually go thorugh it, it was a great learning
experience. I have always learned from every situation I have been in, though
sometimes it takes a long time to figure out what it was.
Wade
In article <·······················@news0.telusplanet.net>,
····@nospam.nowhere says...
>
> "Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message ·····················@naggum.no...
> > | *That's* why I have more problems with ()'s than I ever had in Java.
> >
> > People actually forget the pain of learning something and assume that
> > when they know the first thing well, they should be able to learn the
> > next thing with the same ease that they use the first thing. This is so
> > horribly misguided that I fail to see how people can possibly believe it,
> > but many people evidently do. I think it is because people only really
> > learn one thing of each kind, the first they ever encounter, and hence
> > never realize what it costs to learn anything, or they may actually fail
> > at learning something and hence only accumulate simple-minded coping
> > strategies in the face of repeated failure. Learning is /work/, however.
>
>
> Like I was saying before, arien's brain has not adapted yet. It literally takes
> time and work that reinforces the brain's pathways. It takes time. Even if one
> is extremely intelligent the brain still needs time and repeated exposure. I
> think some people have extremely pliable minds and adapt quickly, but
> it takes a conscious letting go of what you think you know.
>
> We had the perfect example of this in Canada where we officially converted
> from English to Metric measurements. Many people still cannot function
> (its been almost 25 years) and when they hear temperatures in Celsius,
> they still have to convert from Fahrenheit. My tactic was to hear the
> temperature, go outside, feel how warm or cold it was and get an
> internalized experience of what it meant. I stayed away from converting, it
> would not have helped in the end.
>
> Wade
>
The problem is, that the only languages I have learnt are Java and C++.
Java first. Learning C++ wasn't much more difficult because the syntax
is similar. Then you get lisp thrown in your face, and all these
((((((()))))))'s. I mean, a missing ; at the end of a line is easy to
find, even in Notepad. The syntax of lisp makes it virtually impossible
to use without a suitable editor. Now this, regardless of what you all
say about how good it is, puts lisp behind the eight-ball when it comes
to readability. I have sat there with my lecturer going through the
code, trying to find where the error is. But like I said, Java never has
this problem.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <un0p593vc.fsf@poboxes.com>
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:22:40 +0930, arien <·············@getlost.invalid> said:
[...]
*> a missing ; at the end of a line is easy to find
But one usually learns quickly to not forget semicolons (whether at
the end of the line or elsewhere). Then one goes on to make much
more interesting syntax errors. The example given in another
article in this thread,
foo("bar);
at least will likely have the number of that same line in the error
message. I don't have a good example handy, but it is much more
fun when the reported line number is far off the place where the
problem is (and it does happen).
By the way, even in a language with C's syntax, using Emacs can be
very helpful because the moment you notice the current line does
not indent correctly, you know something is wrong, you don't have
to wait for the compiler to tell you.
---Vassil.
--
Non-googlable is googlable.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <n0p5clss.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> writes:
> By the way, even in a language with C's syntax, using Emacs can be
> very helpful because the moment you notice the current line does
> not indent correctly, you know something is wrong, you don't have
> to wait for the compiler to tell you.
Font-lock is even better! I have my emacs set up for `las vegas'
style color coding and have found that I can find some syntax errors
simply because the code is the wrong color.
Hello!
Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> wrote:
>[...]
> foo("bar);
>at least will likely have the number of that same line in the error
>message. I don't have a good example handy, but it is much more
>fun when the reported line number is far off the place where the
>problem is (and it does happen).
Oh yeah.
... foo(...)
{
... {
... {
/* Deeply nested in some function */
if (foo) /* See, I've forgotten a '{' */
bar;
baz;
blah;
}
blaz;
}
}
} /* It'll be here or even later that the error is recognized */
>By the way, even in a language with C's syntax, using Emacs can be
>very helpful because the moment you notice the current line does
>not indent correctly, you know something is wrong, you don't have
>to wait for the compiler to tell you.
Right. In my example, the baz statement will be indented to line up
with the "if".
And tools like paren-matching (:set showmatch in vim, that magic
paren highlighting thing in emacs, ...) help for C like syntaxes, too.
>[...]
Kind regards,
Hannah.
In article <·············@poboxes.com>, ········@poboxes.com says...
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:22:40 +0930, arien <·············@getlost.invalid> said:
> [...]
> *> a missing ; at the end of a line is easy to find
>
> But one usually learns quickly to not forget semicolons (whether at
> the end of the line or elsewhere). Then one goes on to make much
> more interesting syntax errors. The example given in another
> article in this thread,
>
> foo("bar);
>
> at least will likely have the number of that same line in the error
> message. I don't have a good example handy, but it is much more
> fun when the reported line number is far off the place where the
> problem is (and it does happen).
>
fun? this is your idea of fun?
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> In article <·············@poboxes.com>, ········@poboxes.com says...
>> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:22:40 +0930, arien <·············@getlost.invalid> said:
>> [...]
>> *> a missing ; at the end of a line is easy to find
>>
>> But one usually learns quickly to not forget semicolons (whether at
>> the end of the line or elsewhere). Then one goes on to make much
>> more interesting syntax errors. The example given in another
>> article in this thread,
>>
>> foo("bar);
>>
>> at least will likely have the number of that same line in the error
>> message. I don't have a good example handy, but it is much more
>> fun when the reported line number is far off the place where the
>> problem is (and it does happen).
>>
>
>
> fun? this is your idea of fun?
You really should get your sarcasm detector calibrated properly you
know. Or maybe you could insist that everyone deface their writing
with emoticons. That might work...
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
In article <··············@despairon.bofh.org.uk>, ········@bofh.org.uk
says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> > In article <·············@poboxes.com>, ········@poboxes.com says...
> >> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:22:40 +0930, arien <·············@getlost.invalid> said:
> >> [...]
> >> *> a missing ; at the end of a line is easy to find
> >>
> >> But one usually learns quickly to not forget semicolons (whether at
> >> the end of the line or elsewhere). Then one goes on to make much
> >> more interesting syntax errors. The example given in another
> >> article in this thread,
> >>
> >> foo("bar);
> >>
> >> at least will likely have the number of that same line in the error
> >> message. I don't have a good example handy, but it is much more
> >> fun when the reported line number is far off the place where the
> >> problem is (and it does happen).
> >>
> >
> >
> > fun? this is your idea of fun?
>
> You really should get your sarcasm detector calibrated properly you
> know. Or maybe you could insist that everyone deface their writing
> with emoticons. That might work...
>
>
er, no maybe *you* should get it calibrated. I was joking.
Sorry, I should really have added a :)
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
"arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> to readability. I have sat there with my lecturer going through the
> code, trying to find where the error is. But like I said, Java never has
> this problem.
Post the code you are having trouble with.
--
Wade
Email: (format nil ···@~A.~A" "whumeniu" "telus" "net")
In article <·······················@news2.telusplanet.net>,
····@nospam.nowhere says...
>
> "arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
> ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> > to readability. I have sat there with my lecturer going through the
> > code, trying to find where the error is. But like I said, Java never has
> > this problem.
>
> Post the code you are having trouble with.
>
> --
> Wade
>
> Email: (format nil ···@~A.~A" "whumeniu" "telus" "net")
>
>
The problem is solved now. I have been having these problems more than
once, and it takes very close inspection to find them.
Wait until I start on my next assignment, then it'll happen all over
again :-)
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| Wait until I start on my next assignment, then it'll happen all over
| again :-)
Do you admit to being learning-impaired or to think that being learning-
impaired is a joking matter? Either is pretty tasteless. If humor is
your calling, why are you not interested in joking about the silliness of
your mistakes and how easily you could have avoided them with a little
more concentration and dedication to your goal of making each and every
one of all the mistakes you ever make in your life once and only once?
Cockroaches can do it. Pigs can do it. Even sheep do not repeat their
mistakes. Granted, they live much shorter lives, do not vote for George
W. Bush except in Florida, and their death is usually well planned and
deemed for a good cause (just as in Texas), which could warp anyone's
ethics, but I think human beings should learn from their mistakes, too.
For instance, if I were to visit the USA soon, no doubt some IRS person
would have read comp.lang.lisp while waiting for the lines to grow long
enough, and I would regret the mistake of posting anti-Bush materials.
I can wait for the American people to correct /their/ mistake, but I do
not have particularly high hopes that the GOP will admit to theirs. See?
If people make the same mistake all over again, that sure is no laughing
matter. This is really, really serious. Learn from your mistakes today!
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no says...
> * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> | Wait until I start on my next assignment, then it'll happen all over
> | again :-)
>
> Do you admit to being learning-impaired or to think that being learning-
> impaired is a joking matter? Either is pretty tasteless. If humor is
> your calling, why are you not interested in joking about the silliness of
> your mistakes and how easily you could have avoided them with a little
> more concentration and dedication to your goal of making each and every
> one of all the mistakes you ever make in your life once and only once?
>
> Cockroaches can do it. Pigs can do it. Even sheep do not repeat their
> mistakes. Granted, they live much shorter lives, do not vote for George
> W. Bush except in Florida, and their death is usually well planned and
> deemed for a good cause (just as in Texas), which could warp anyone's
> ethics, but I think human beings should learn from their mistakes, too.
> For instance, if I were to visit the USA soon, no doubt some IRS person
> would have read comp.lang.lisp while waiting for the lines to grow long
> enough, and I would regret the mistake of posting anti-Bush materials.
> I can wait for the American people to correct /their/ mistake, but I do
> not have particularly high hopes that the GOP will admit to theirs. See?
> If people make the same mistake all over again, that sure is no laughing
> matter. This is really, really serious. Learn from your mistakes today!
>
>
wow, you are weird. What an insulting reply. I'm sure a learning
impaired person wouldn't be able to acheive High Distinctions in Java. I
have so far taken to programming like a duck to water. Unfortunately,
the water in Lisp is a little boggy, and I KNOW I'm not the only one
having this problem. I don't understand why you guys are all so
defensive of Lisp. Obviously lispers are forever defending their case,
and that many others in the world are having the same problem.
I never said I didn't like lisp, I'm just sure I like the people who use
it though.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| wow, you are weird.
Wow, you did not get the mesasge. Fascinating. You really must be hard
of learning and devoid of ability to find humor in anything, to boot.
| What an insulting reply.
No, this is an insulting reply. I really thought you were able to think.
I keep hoping for that in people. It is, however, entirely unpredictable
when someone will wake up from their comatose state and start to use
their brain. Sometimes it happens when they are subjected to something
that is out of the ordinary. That did not work with you at all. Instead,
you seek solace in groups of people who are as unable to think as yourself.
Some people congregate for things they have in common, others for things
they lack in common. This is generally a newsgroup for people who have
an apperciation for Lisp in common, not a newsgroup for people who lack
such an appreciation.
| I have so far taken to programming like a duck to water.
This is good.
| Unfortunately, the water in Lisp is a little boggy, and I KNOW I'm not
| the only one having this problem.
This is the kind of idiotic judgmentalism that marks you hopeless. Only
when you shed this stupid prejudice will you actually learn to program.
| I don't understand why you guys are all so defensive of Lisp.
We do not understand why you pathetic whiners come to this forum and
expect to be treated nicely when all you do is talk negatively about the
things we are fond of and actually come here because we appreciate.
You are the transgressor here. You are the whining non-thinking loser
who does not get the message. You keep whining instead of working to
solve your problem. You are the one who blames your tools, not your own
attitude and competence. Why /did/ you expect anyone to accept this as
normal human behavior?
| Obviously lispers are forever defending their case, and that many others
| in the world are having the same problem.
You come into a fine restaurant and refuse to read the menu but ask for
hamburgers because that is what you grew up with. You do not like to
have an unintelligible wine list offered to you, because you have no clue
what anything on it means and you could get a whole truckload of milk
shakes for the price of just one half-bottle of that french-looking stuff.
When you are asked if you would like any of the entr�es, you quip that
you already know which way you came in and you cannot understand why you
cannot order the apple pie for dessert at the same time as the McChicken.
And you wonder why you people are staring at you and quietly think you
make a spectacle of yourself, not the other way around?
| I never said I didn't like lisp, I'm just sure I like the people who use
| it though.
The maitre'd has kindly suggested that you leave the establishment and
find yourself a restaurant or hot dog stand more suitable to your tastes.
Welcome back in a few years. We would like to serve your mature needs.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no says...
> * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> | wow, you are weird.
>
> Wow, you did not get the mesasge. Fascinating. You really must be hard
> of learning and devoid of ability to find humor in anything, to boot.
>
yep, you are still weird.
> | What an insulting reply.
>
> No, this is an insulting reply. I really thought you were able to think.
> I keep hoping for that in people. It is, however, entirely unpredictable
> when someone will wake up from their comatose state and start to use
> their brain. Sometimes it happens when they are subjected to something
> that is out of the ordinary. That did not work with you at all. Instead,
> you seek solace in groups of people who are as unable to think as yourself.
> Some people congregate for things they have in common, others for things
> they lack in common. This is generally a newsgroup for people who have
> an apperciation for Lisp in common, not a newsgroup for people who lack
> such an appreciation.
Perhaps you should re-read all the posts, right from the start. I never
came here winging about Lisp. I came here trying to seek understanding.
All I got is weird idiotic cyber freeks like you flaming me, trying to
tell me I dumb. I'm not, and all I could do is defend myself. Now I'm
getting flamed for defending myself - wow!
>
> | I have so far taken to programming like a duck to water.
>
> This is good.
>
> | Unfortunately, the water in Lisp is a little boggy, and I KNOW I'm not
> | the only one having this problem.
>
> This is the kind of idiotic judgmentalism that marks you hopeless. Only
> when you shed this stupid prejudice will you actually learn to program.
No, it's called defending myself following a barage of critism. Others
in the same thread have already admitted that the parentheses in lisp
can be difficult. I realise that it will get easier with time, and I may
even learn to like it. But you need to stop denying that the problem
doesn't exist - it does.
>
> | I don't understand why you guys are all so defensive of Lisp.
>
> We do not understand why you pathetic whiners come to this forum and
> expect to be treated nicely when all you do is talk negatively about the
> things we are fond of and actually come here because we appreciate.
I never came here whining. You need to learn how to read. Why don't you
start at the top.
>
> You are the transgressor here. You are the whining non-thinking loser
> who does not get the message. You keep whining instead of working to
> solve your problem. You are the one who blames your tools, not your own
> attitude and competence. Why /did/ you expect anyone to accept this as
> normal human behavior?
hmmm.......did I blame my tools did I. Your starting to state things
that are not true. Learn how to read.
>
> | Obviously lispers are forever defending their case, and that many others
> | in the world are having the same problem.
>
> You come into a fine restaurant and refuse to read the menu but ask for
> hamburgers because that is what you grew up with. You do not like to
> have an unintelligible wine list offered to you, because you have no clue
> what anything on it means and you could get a whole truckload of milk
> shakes for the price of just one half-bottle of that french-looking stuff.
> When you are asked if you would like any of the entr�es, you quip that
> you already know which way you came in and you cannot understand why you
> cannot order the apple pie for dessert at the same time as the McChicken.
> And you wonder why you people are staring at you and quietly think you
> make a spectacle of yourself, not the other way around?
Ah, an analogy. Wow, very impressive. Actually, I hate McDonalds, and I
enjoy fine wine. In fact, I used to live in the Barossa Valley. What
your talking is just trash.
>
> | I never said I didn't like lisp, I'm just sure I like the people who use
> | it though.
>
> The maitre'd has kindly suggested that you leave the establishment and
> find yourself a restaurant or hot dog stand more suitable to your tastes.
>
> Welcome back in a few years. We would like to serve your mature needs.
Be careful using 'we' on usenet. TINW, haven't you ever heard of that.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| yep, you are still weird.
You keep claiming that you have problems learning Common Lisp. Your real
problem, however, is that you appear to have to force-fit things to fit
your preconceived notions. This is not a Common Lisp problem. This is a
personal problem on your end. Your lack of ability to understand that
other people have a point of view that you may benefit from understanding
is downright annoying. This is all about you, you, you. Nothing you do
here is about understanding others. The whole fucking world has to adapt
to /your/ way of looking at things. People here have tried to help you,
in their spare time. Goddamn ungrateful egoist.
| Perhaps you should re-read all the posts, right from the start.
Other people are not like yourself. Other people read fast and have a
very high comprehension and retention of what they have read.
| I never came here winging about Lisp. I came here trying to seek
| understanding.
But only on your own terms. That is not understanding.
| All I got is weird idiotic cyber freeks like you flaming me, trying to
| tell me I dumb.
Have I said you are dumb? No. I have implied very strongly that unless
you have better ways of expressing yourself, your very stupid actions may
well reflect on your person. You have a choice here. You can either
confirm people's suspicions by not doing any better, or you can exercise
the freedom that I and many others (who are not like you) grant other
people at every interaction. You are obviously not used to being given
second chances, but insist on dwelling on the past instead of looking to
the future. Your whole obsession with how hard Common Lisp is compared
to Java just confirms this unhealthy dwelling on the past. Get over the
past. You can do nothing about you. You can do just about everything
about the future.
| I'm not, and all I could do is defend myself.
No, all you could do is do something better. Nobody is interested in
your how defend your past mistakes. Everyone is interested in how you
learn from them, improve yourself, and do not repeat them. Only you are
interested in defending yourself. It is indecent of you to force people
to sit through your egoistic self-defense. The purpose of criticizing
something you said was that you learn from it, think, and improve. If
you all you can do is defend yourself, you were a waste of time to
respond to.
| Now I'm getting flamed for defending myself - wow!
Defending yourself when /you/ are not attacked is incredibly stupid. It
means that whatever criticism was directed at your actions may have been
the best you can do and there is no hope to see you improve. For most
people, this is not how they should present themselves.
| No, it's called defending myself following a barage of critism.
Nobody is interested in your self-defense, only in your doing better.
| Others in the same thread have already admitted that the parentheses in
| lisp can be difficult
Some feel-good jerk does that in order to make you feel good. See how
much that really helped you understand anything. I know that people who
make whining noises like you do would seize upon any such feel-good crap
and use it as a reason not to exercise yourself. Ignore the feel-good
guys and just /do better next time/. I will applaud you if you do well
and reprimand you if you do not get the point but insist on defending
yourself. Unlike the feel-good guys, I have zero interest in you as a
person, only in what you came here to do: Learn Common Lisp.
| But you need to stop denying that the problem doesn't exist - it does.
The problem you perceive to exist does not exist. There is a problem,
but it is not what you think it is. You refuse to listen to people who
have seen literally hundreds of people before you whining just like you
do. This ignorant arrogance is not to your credit.
| I never came here whining. You need to learn how to read. Why don't you
| start at the top.
And just /when/ did your arrogance reach such heights that you think you
are here to give people advice? Geez, the snotty attitude of some people.
| hmmm.......did I blame my tools did I. Your starting to state things that
| are not true. Learn how to read.
Perhaps you should try to understand /why/ somebody reads you this way
instead of getting your stupid high horse to defend yourself? Nobody is
interested in your self-defense -- only you. Here we care about getting
the point and learning to program in Lisp. That is why you claim you
came here, but is not actually true, is it? You came here to ask people
to validate your pain. Some people are into this kind of touchy-feely
crap, and others are not. If you attack those who are not into these
psyche games, you run the risk of losing the sympathy even of the former.
| Ah, an analogy. Wow, very impressive. Actually, I hate McDonalds, and I
| enjoy fine wine. In fact, I used to live in the Barossa Valley. What your
| talking is just trash.
Your inability to get the point of the analogy does suggest a deficient
mind.
| Be careful using 'we' on usenet. TINW, haven't you ever heard of that.
Look who forgot their chill pill this morning! Did you want to learn
Lisp or did you come here to defend yourself when you /have/ been an
idiot and /continue/ to act like an idiot? Make a choice. If you have
been stupid, nobody will hold that against you, especially not I. If you
continue to be stupid when you have been asked to stop, that /will/ be
held against you. Get with the program! Focus on your stated goal.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no says...
> * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> | yep, you are still weird.
>
> You keep claiming that you have problems learning Common Lisp. Your real
> problem, however, is that you appear to have to force-fit things to fit
> your preconceived notions. This is not a Common Lisp problem. This is a
> personal problem on your end. Your lack of ability to understand that
> other people have a point of view that you may benefit from understanding
> is downright annoying. This is all about you, you, you. Nothing you do
> here is about understanding others. The whole fucking world has to adapt
> to /your/ way of looking at things. People here have tried to help you,
> in their spare time. Goddamn ungrateful egoist.
>
> | Perhaps you should re-read all the posts, right from the start.
>
> Other people are not like yourself. Other people read fast and have a
> very high comprehension and retention of what they have read.
>
> | I never came here winging about Lisp. I came here trying to seek
> | understanding.
>
> But only on your own terms. That is not understanding.
>
> | All I got is weird idiotic cyber freeks like you flaming me, trying to
> | tell me I dumb.
>
> Have I said you are dumb? No. I have implied very strongly that unless
> you have better ways of expressing yourself, your very stupid actions may
> well reflect on your person. You have a choice here. You can either
> confirm people's suspicions by not doing any better, or you can exercise
> the freedom that I and many others (who are not like you) grant other
> people at every interaction. You are obviously not used to being given
> second chances, but insist on dwelling on the past instead of looking to
> the future. Your whole obsession with how hard Common Lisp is compared
> to Java just confirms this unhealthy dwelling on the past. Get over the
> past. You can do nothing about you. You can do just about everything
> about the future.
>
> | I'm not, and all I could do is defend myself.
>
> No, all you could do is do something better. Nobody is interested in
> your how defend your past mistakes. Everyone is interested in how you
> learn from them, improve yourself, and do not repeat them. Only you are
> interested in defending yourself. It is indecent of you to force people
> to sit through your egoistic self-defense. The purpose of criticizing
> something you said was that you learn from it, think, and improve. If
> you all you can do is defend yourself, you were a waste of time to
> respond to.
>
> | Now I'm getting flamed for defending myself - wow!
>
> Defending yourself when /you/ are not attacked is incredibly stupid. It
> means that whatever criticism was directed at your actions may have been
> the best you can do and there is no hope to see you improve. For most
> people, this is not how they should present themselves.
>
> | No, it's called defending myself following a barage of critism.
>
> Nobody is interested in your self-defense, only in your doing better.
>
> | Others in the same thread have already admitted that the parentheses in
> | lisp can be difficult
>
> Some feel-good jerk does that in order to make you feel good. See how
> much that really helped you understand anything. I know that people who
> make whining noises like you do would seize upon any such feel-good crap
> and use it as a reason not to exercise yourself. Ignore the feel-good
> guys and just /do better next time/. I will applaud you if you do well
> and reprimand you if you do not get the point but insist on defending
> yourself. Unlike the feel-good guys, I have zero interest in you as a
> person, only in what you came here to do: Learn Common Lisp.
>
> | But you need to stop denying that the problem doesn't exist - it does.
>
> The problem you perceive to exist does not exist. There is a problem,
> but it is not what you think it is. You refuse to listen to people who
> have seen literally hundreds of people before you whining just like you
> do. This ignorant arrogance is not to your credit.
>
> | I never came here whining. You need to learn how to read. Why don't you
> | start at the top.
>
> And just /when/ did your arrogance reach such heights that you think you
> are here to give people advice? Geez, the snotty attitude of some people.
>
> | hmmm.......did I blame my tools did I. Your starting to state things that
> | are not true. Learn how to read.
>
> Perhaps you should try to understand /why/ somebody reads you this way
> instead of getting your stupid high horse to defend yourself? Nobody is
> interested in your self-defense -- only you. Here we care about getting
> the point and learning to program in Lisp. That is why you claim you
> came here, but is not actually true, is it? You came here to ask people
> to validate your pain. Some people are into this kind of touchy-feely
> crap, and others are not. If you attack those who are not into these
> psyche games, you run the risk of losing the sympathy even of the former.
>
> | Ah, an analogy. Wow, very impressive. Actually, I hate McDonalds, and I
> | enjoy fine wine. In fact, I used to live in the Barossa Valley. What your
> | talking is just trash.
>
> Your inability to get the point of the analogy does suggest a deficient
> mind.
>
> | Be careful using 'we' on usenet. TINW, haven't you ever heard of that.
>
> Look who forgot their chill pill this morning! Did you want to learn
> Lisp or did you come here to defend yourself when you /have/ been an
> idiot and /continue/ to act like an idiot? Make a choice. If you have
> been stupid, nobody will hold that against you, especially not I. If you
> continue to be stupid when you have been asked to stop, that /will/ be
> held against you. Get with the program! Focus on your stated goal.
>
>
Look, there are others who *are* actually helping me here. Your wasting
usenet space with your abuse, and frankly, I'm tired of reading it. I'm
going to stick with those that are helping me.
If you can't post something helpful, well, I guess killfile will work.
Consider this only a warning. Any more abusive posts, and you'll be
kill-filed.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| Look, there are others who *are* actually helping me here. Your wasting
| usenet space with your abuse, and frankly, I'm tired of reading it. I'm
| going to stick with those that are helping me.
You are so goddamn egoistic that you cannot even imagine that there are
more people who benefit from articles than yourself. Christ almighty, I
have never seen such a selfish person before. Everything is about you
and you do not shed one microsecond of brain time on others. /Why/ would
I want to help anyone who is that selfish?
| If you can't post something helpful, well, I guess killfile will work.
| Consider this only a warning. Any more abusive posts, and you'll be
| kill-filed.
*laugh* Your selfishness and obsession with yourself is record-braking.
How on earth could such a moronic stunt on your part /punish/ me? What,
precisely, do you think your reading my articles is to me? What on earth
do /you/ post your articles here for? Wat would it mean to you to be
kill-filed by someone? To have someone tell you in public that they had
kill-filed you? It is hard to take someone seriously who is so incredibly
self-absorbed as to think that not being read by you can be used as a
threat when the purpose of the threat is to force someone to /help/ you
when you cannot behave well and stick to the point yourself. The sheer
magnitude of the arrogance you have to possess explains your problems
with Common Lisp extremely well.
You do not have to kill-file me to avoid getting help from me. I am not
going to help such a selfish, conceited person no matter whether you read
my other articles or not. Neither do I think anyone else should help you.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
> If you can't post something helpful, well, I guess killfile will work.
> Consider this only a warning. Any more abusive posts, and you'll be
> kill-filed.
>
This comment is *very very funny* HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
Are you going to hold your breath until you turn blue?
That will show us all. Please do not forget to stomp your feet also.
But seriously, in the time you have spent chatting here could not you have
done some work, you do have a deadline right? Or are you going to get an A
because the instructor does not want to hurt your feelings?
marc
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no says...
> > * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> > | yep, you are still weird.
> >
> > You keep claiming that you have problems learning Common Lisp. Your real
> > problem, however, is that you appear to have to force-fit things to fit
> > your preconceived notions. This is not a Common Lisp problem. This is a
> > personal problem on your end. Your lack of ability to understand that
> > other people have a point of view that you may benefit from understanding
> > is downright annoying. This is all about you, you, you. Nothing you do
> > here is about understanding others. The whole fucking world has to adapt
> > to /your/ way of looking at things. People here have tried to help you,
> > in their spare time. Goddamn ungrateful egoist.
> >
> > | Perhaps you should re-read all the posts, right from the start.
> >
> > Other people are not like yourself. Other people read fast and have a
> > very high comprehension and retention of what they have read.
> >
> > | I never came here winging about Lisp. I came here trying to seek
> > | understanding.
> >
> > But only on your own terms. That is not understanding.
> >
> > | All I got is weird idiotic cyber freeks like you flaming me, trying to
> > | tell me I dumb.
> >
> > Have I said you are dumb? No. I have implied very strongly that unless
> > you have better ways of expressing yourself, your very stupid actions may
> > well reflect on your person. You have a choice here. You can either
> > confirm people's suspicions by not doing any better, or you can exercise
> > the freedom that I and many others (who are not like you) grant other
> > people at every interaction. You are obviously not used to being given
> > second chances, but insist on dwelling on the past instead of looking to
> > the future. Your whole obsession with how hard Common Lisp is compared
> > to Java just confirms this unhealthy dwelling on the past. Get over the
> > past. You can do nothing about you. You can do just about everything
> > about the future.
> >
> > | I'm not, and all I could do is defend myself.
> >
> > No, all you could do is do something better. Nobody is interested in
> > your how defend your past mistakes. Everyone is interested in how you
> > learn from them, improve yourself, and do not repeat them. Only you are
> > interested in defending yourself. It is indecent of you to force people
> > to sit through your egoistic self-defense. The purpose of criticizing
> > something you said was that you learn from it, think, and improve. If
> > you all you can do is defend yourself, you were a waste of time to
> > respond to.
> >
> > | Now I'm getting flamed for defending myself - wow!
> >
> > Defending yourself when /you/ are not attacked is incredibly stupid. It
> > means that whatever criticism was directed at your actions may have been
> > the best you can do and there is no hope to see you improve. For most
> > people, this is not how they should present themselves.
> >
> > | No, it's called defending myself following a barage of critism.
> >
> > Nobody is interested in your self-defense, only in your doing better.
> >
> > | Others in the same thread have already admitted that the parentheses in
> > | lisp can be difficult
> >
> > Some feel-good jerk does that in order to make you feel good. See how
> > much that really helped you understand anything. I know that people who
> > make whining noises like you do would seize upon any such feel-good crap
> > and use it as a reason not to exercise yourself. Ignore the feel-good
> > guys and just /do better next time/. I will applaud you if you do well
> > and reprimand you if you do not get the point but insist on defending
> > yourself. Unlike the feel-good guys, I have zero interest in you as a
> > person, only in what you came here to do: Learn Common Lisp.
> >
> > | But you need to stop denying that the problem doesn't exist - it does.
> >
> > The problem you perceive to exist does not exist. There is a problem,
> > but it is not what you think it is. You refuse to listen to people who
> > have seen literally hundreds of people before you whining just like you
> > do. This ignorant arrogance is not to your credit.
> >
> > | I never came here whining. You need to learn how to read. Why don't you
> > | start at the top.
> >
> > And just /when/ did your arrogance reach such heights that you think you
> > are here to give people advice? Geez, the snotty attitude of some people.
> >
> > | hmmm.......did I blame my tools did I. Your starting to state things that
> > | are not true. Learn how to read.
> >
> > Perhaps you should try to understand /why/ somebody reads you this way
> > instead of getting your stupid high horse to defend yourself? Nobody is
> > interested in your self-defense -- only you. Here we care about getting
> > the point and learning to program in Lisp. That is why you claim you
> > came here, but is not actually true, is it? You came here to ask people
> > to validate your pain. Some people are into this kind of touchy-feely
> > crap, and others are not. If you attack those who are not into these
> > psyche games, you run the risk of losing the sympathy even of the former.
> >
> > | Ah, an analogy. Wow, very impressive. Actually, I hate McDonalds, and I
> > | enjoy fine wine. In fact, I used to live in the Barossa Valley. What your
> > | talking is just trash.
> >
> > Your inability to get the point of the analogy does suggest a deficient
> > mind.
> >
> > | Be careful using 'we' on usenet. TINW, haven't you ever heard of that.
> >
> > Look who forgot their chill pill this morning! Did you want to learn
> > Lisp or did you come here to defend yourself when you /have/ been an
> > idiot and /continue/ to act like an idiot? Make a choice. If you have
> > been stupid, nobody will hold that against you, especially not I. If you
> > continue to be stupid when you have been asked to stop, that /will/ be
> > held against you. Get with the program! Focus on your stated goal.
> >
> >
>
> Look, there are others who *are* actually helping me here. Your wasting
> usenet space with your abuse, and frankly, I'm tired of reading it. I'm
> going to stick with those that are helping me.
>
> If you can't post something helpful, well, I guess killfile will work.
> Consider this only a warning. Any more abusive posts, and you'll be
> kill-filed.
Look, you will not alter Erik. Others have tried and he remains
Erik. You must learn to deal with his presence in this newsgroup.
Hints --
* If you do not want Erik to respond to your posts, do not respond to
him. Erik *never* as far as i've seen follows up his own posts to
heap more invective. Just let it die. You man say, "but then Erik
wins!" So what. We *all* win by letting this stuff just end.
If you can't help but answer, just killfile him already. Don't talk
about it. Not to be harsh, but no one else cares.
* Erik has a lot of insight into complex problems. Ask a technical
question which you have done some research on (at a minimum look to
the common lisp hyperspec) and Erik may respond with a very useful
answer.
* It is also useful just to lurk and read what is going on here.
There are a lot of very good programmers with years of experience.
You can learn from them.
* Think about how you ask a question. Try to find out a bit on your
own. Ask humbly, but there's no need to grovel -- i.e., say "I saw
this but it doens't make sense to me, is this how it should work?"
instead of "This lanugage is pants because X does it some other
way." Lisp does a lot of things differently than other languages.
Many times there is a very good reason for that.
--
Johan KULLSTAM <··········@attbi.com> sysengr
arien wrote:
>
> If you can't post something helpful, well, I guess killfile will work.
> Consider this only a warning. Any more abusive posts, and you'll be
> kill-filed.
Wow, here we see a wonderful example of the Usenet-equivalent of not
liking someone else in the sandbox and covering your ears and shouting
"La la la la... I can't hear you... la la la la". You may be a mature
student (according to New Zealand standards, if such a thing exists),
but your actions are anything but mature.
On a bright note, I found a definition of "arien" which wholly applies
to you:
"The word 'humility' will not be found in their lexicon. In their
climb to power, some will ruthlessly liquidate anyone who stands
in their way. Such undeveloped Ariens put 'self' first and foremost
and not a few become megalomaniacs."
Putting "self" first... well, that just about explains everything now
doesn't it? Very apt choice of monikers, I must say.
In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
·····@invalid.dom says...
> arien wrote:
> >
> > If you can't post something helpful, well, I guess killfile will work.
> > Consider this only a warning. Any more abusive posts, and you'll be
> > kill-filed.
>
> Wow, here we see a wonderful example of the Usenet-equivalent of not
> liking someone else in the sandbox and covering your ears and shouting
> "La la la la... I can't hear you... la la la la". You may be a mature
> student (according to New Zealand standards, if such a thing exists),
> but your actions are anything but mature.
>
> On a bright note, I found a definition of "arien" which wholly applies
> to you:
>
> "The word 'humility' will not be found in their lexicon. In their
> climb to power, some will ruthlessly liquidate anyone who stands
> in their way. Such undeveloped Ariens put 'self' first and foremost
> and not a few become megalomaniacs."
>
> Putting "self" first... well, that just about explains everything now
> doesn't it? Very apt choice of monikers, I must say.
>
Oh please. Give me a break! I've been trying to tell you guys: "I don't
understand". Perhaps if I scream it you will hear better -
"I DON'T UNDERSTAND LISP"
I'd like to see you be 'humble' in the face of abuse! How can you stand
there and say I should be humble, when I have done nothing wrong??????
I've been abused for asking a question, I found out that I was wrong on
a couple of things, I ask for an explanation cuz I don't
understand........then I get abused! As an example, how I thought that
Lisp is an interpreted language. Wow, you guys went nuts when I said
that. Okay, I accept that you are all right, but I don't understand!
EXPLAIN IT TO ME FOR FUCKS SAKE! JUST STOP ABUSING ME!
Is there some sort of code in this group that I don't know about?
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <8z0iskw7.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> Is there some sort of code in this group that I don't know about?
Yes, but it is fully parenthesized.
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <kk9fzuqua4o.fsf@glug.org>
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> Is there some sort of code in this group that I don't know about?
to evaluate (+ (* 3 (+ 4 5) 6) 7) you first have to go all the way inside and
evaluate this part ^^^^^^^.
now suppose this expression is buggy at precisely that part: instead of 4
there is a string "4". if you were to explain to someone how go about
debugging the expression, and they keep insisting that the bug is in the 6 (or
even the 7 for fuck's sake ;-), how would you go about redirecting their
attention?
this is what we have here:
(understand (understand arien learning) lisp)
if you do not understand lisp and people are trying to tell you that to
understand lisp you need to understand your own learning process first, but
you haven't yet got to that point of self awareness, how should they go about
redirecting your attention?
thi
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| EXPLAIN IT TO ME FOR FUCKS SAKE! JUST STOP ABUSING ME!
Simply amazing. And still people help this person.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> | EXPLAIN IT TO ME FOR FUCKS SAKE! JUST STOP ABUSING ME!
>
> Simply amazing. And still people help this person.
Well, you know, there's nothing else doing, explaining stuff often
helps clarify your own thinking, and there might be other potential
ariens who can learn from this without having to go down the whole
'pissing Erik off' route.
Not that I'm actually making with the helping, there are others who
are more qualified than me (I'm still working through _On Lisp_), it's
just a theory.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
arien wrote:
>
> Oh please. Give me a break! I've been trying to tell you guys: "I don't
> understand". Perhaps if I scream it you will hear better -
>
> "I DON'T UNDERSTAND LISP"
I think everyone heard you the first time. The reason you are getting
the replies you are getting has also been explained to you. No matter
how many times you scream that parentheses are hard to grasp (or any
other personal problem you have with how LISP looks/works), nobody can
help you with that. Deal with it.
> I'd like to see you be 'humble' in the face of abuse! How can you stand
> there and say I should be humble, when I have done nothing wrong??????
> I've been abused for asking a question, I found out that I was wrong on
> a couple of things, I ask for an explanation cuz I don't
> understand........then I get abused! As an example, how I thought that
> Lisp is an interpreted language. Wow, you guys went nuts when I said
> that. Okay, I accept that you are all right, but I don't understand!
Take a look at your first thread: http://tinyurl.com/29tn
Where do you find abuse in this thread? Nowhere! You asked questions,
and got good answers.
Now I believe the thread you are referring to is this one:
http://tinyurl.com/29u7
Note that in the post that is shown first in that link, you claim that
the only languages you "have learnt are Java and C++". However, in a
previous post (http://tinyurl.com/29uc) you claim: "I know Java, and I
have started to look at C++ (don't really understand it though)". So
you have asked for people to explain the difference between LISP (which,
clearly, you are only starting to learn) and C++ (which you admit you
don't really understand) -- how intelligent is that?
Anyway, you go on to complain about all those (((())))'s which nobody
wants to hear about. Why not post in a Java group about the expression:
if (a || (b && ((c+d==1) && (e || (f && g) || (h || (i && j))))))
Golly gee, all those (((())))'s in Java! You gripe about how hard it is
because you don't have a suitable editor, but you make no effort to
obtain a suitable editor. Someone suggests Emacs and you then ask "what
is it, is it free?". I suppose it didn't occur to you to open up
Google, type in "emacs" and then click on the "I'm feeling lucky"
button, where you could have learned all about Emacs and where and how
to obtain it or get help on it. You then start complaining about how
you have the right number of parentheses, but it's just in the wrong
place and how hard that is. Well, why don't you write some Java code:
if (foo == bar
{
System.out.println("Hello world!)
);}"
Look at that, I got the correct number of parentheses, braces, quotes,
and semi-colons. To paraphrase, "I haven't had a single error yet in
Java that wasn't caused by quotes, parentheses, braces, or semi-colons
being in the wrong spot." Your lack of understanding isn't due to an
inherent weakness or fault in the language itself, it's due to your
inability to understand the syntax which will determine where the
parentheses get placed.
Back to the parentheses though. You claim how hard it is and then state
"Wait until I start my next assignment, then it'll happen all over
again". The implication here is that your inability to master the use
of parentheses will result in you experiencing the same problems "all
over again" on your next assignment. Really, this means that you choose
not to learn. You have chosen not to obtain a suitable editor which
will assist you in writing LISP code. You admit that, for you, writing
LISP code is hard, but you choose to do nothing about it.
If you chose to learn from your mistakes, you would have said something
to the effect of "I find matching all these parentheses to be
challenging. However, with the use of a suitable editor, I have found
that matching the parentheses to produce correct code is becoming
easier. Given enough time and practice, I should be proficient in
writing good LISP code." Nobody could fault you for that.
Erik pointed out (http://tinyurl.com/29uu) the fact that you've chosen
not to learn from your mistakes (albeit, in his not-quite-diplomatic
way) and you start taking it all personally. You could have ignored
what you perceived as an insult and responded to the core message which,
in case you didn't get it yet, boils down to: you aren't learning from
your mistakes!
> EXPLAIN IT TO ME FOR FUCKS SAKE!
No. You don't have the right to demand anything from anybody here.
If you want to demand that someone explain it to you, pay for a tutor --
your tutor will demand money, and you can demand an explanation in
trade. To demand anything here shows a lack of respect for the very
knowledgable people who volunteer their time and energy into helping you
when, clearly, you are offering nothing in return.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 10:33:12PM +0000, Brian Palmer wrote:
> Anyway, you go on to complain about all those (((())))'s which nobody
> wants to hear about. Why not post in a Java group about the expression:
>
> if (a || (b && ((c+d==1) && (e || (f && g) || (h || (i && j))))))
Hah! You think this is bad? This is tame in comparison to
if (((Integer)t.get(i)).compareTo(a) == 0 || (((new Integer (b.intValue() +
c.intValue())).compareTo(d) > 0) && (e instanceof Float) &&
(t.put (new Integer (new Float (e.floatValue() +
2.0)).intValue(), new Integer (g.intValue() + h.intValue())).intValue()
== k.intValue()))) ...
(All the damn trouble Java puts you through to work with Objects! And
it doesn't even upgrade to bignum for you!)
or even (in C)
while(( p= (*((void *(*)()) p))())); [1]
Most languages seriously miss out on decent syntactic abstraction, and
Java is definitely one of the worst offenders.
I've noticed that some people seem to have trouble with the idea of
nested expressions. A lot of languages, such as Java and C, provide
many constructs which are not easily nested; thus forcing the programmer
to write code flattened out. When you give such a person the power to
nest any expression within another, it can take a while for them to
understand the full implications. I recall speaking to one person who
couldn't even grasp the idea of substituting an expression for a label.
I tried to explain the DO syntax to him by laying out the grammar, but
at every stage he simply could not properly substitute an expression
into the appropriate place (and then when it came to lists of
expressions, it was hopeless).
[1] Courtesy of Stig Hemmer
--
; 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: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ud6puhxm0.fsf@telus.net>
Matthew Danish <·······@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> if (((Integer)t.get(i)).compareTo(a) == 0 || (((new Integer (b.intValue() +
> c.intValue())).compareTo(d) > 0) && (e instanceof Float) &&
> (t.put (new Integer (new Float (e.floatValue() +
> 2.0)).intValue(), new Integer (g.intValue() + h.intValue())).intValue()
> == k.intValue()))) ...
[...]
> Most languages seriously miss out on decent syntactic abstraction, and
> Java is definitely one of the worst offenders.
Java might be worse than Lisp, but there is no reason to write such shitty
code as the above example.
Split that crap up into specific and useful named methods, and that expression
could be readily understandable and maintainable.
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:00:13AM +0000, Ray Blaak wrote:
> Matthew Danish <·······@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> > if (((Integer)t.get(i)).compareTo(a) == 0 || (((new Integer (b.intValue() +
> > c.intValue())).compareTo(d) > 0) && (e instanceof Float) &&
> > (t.put (new Integer (new Float (e.floatValue() +
> > 2.0)).intValue(), new Integer (g.intValue() + h.intValue())).intValue()
> > == k.intValue()))) ...
> [...]
> > Most languages seriously miss out on decent syntactic abstraction, and
> > Java is definitely one of the worst offenders.
>
> Java might be worse than Lisp, but there is no reason to write such shitty
> code as the above example.
>
> Split that crap up into specific and useful named methods, and that expression
> could be readily understandable and maintainable.
It's meant neither to be readable nor maintainable, but to illustrate a
point (in a somewhat amusing fashion): namely that Java's syntax for
working with Objects is extremely clumsy. Having to write code such as
(new Integer (((Integer) t.get (i)) + foo.intValue ())) is somewhat
similar to dragging one's fingernails down a chalkboard (at least,
that's how I feel when I'm forced to write it). And you really can't
get around it that much, in Java.
--
; 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."
Matthew Danish <·······@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> while(( p= (*((void *(*)()) p))())); [1]
[...]
> [1] Courtesy of Stig Hemmer
This statement is not portable C, because it casts an object
pointer to a function pointer.
It should be written like this:
while (( p= (*(void (*(*)())()) p)()));
I removed one level of parentheses around the cast, because
expressions of the form *(type)value are already unambiguous.
I left the first asterisk in, although it is not required.
In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
·····@invalid.dom says...
> arien wrote:
> >
> > Oh please. Give me a break! I've been trying to tell you guys: "I don't
> > understand". Perhaps if I scream it you will hear better -
> >
> > "I DON'T UNDERSTAND LISP"
>
> I think everyone heard you the first time. The reason you are getting
> the replies you are getting has also been explained to you. No matter
> how many times you scream that parentheses are hard to grasp (or any
> other personal problem you have with how LISP looks/works), nobody can
> help you with that. Deal with it.
>
> > I'd like to see you be 'humble' in the face of abuse! How can you stand
> > there and say I should be humble, when I have done nothing wrong??????
> > I've been abused for asking a question, I found out that I was wrong on
> > a couple of things, I ask for an explanation cuz I don't
> > understand........then I get abused! As an example, how I thought that
> > Lisp is an interpreted language. Wow, you guys went nuts when I said
> > that. Okay, I accept that you are all right, but I don't understand!
>
> Take a look at your first thread: http://tinyurl.com/29tn
>
> Where do you find abuse in this thread? Nowhere! You asked questions,
> and got good answers.
>
> Now I believe the thread you are referring to is this one:
> http://tinyurl.com/29u7
>
> Note that in the post that is shown first in that link, you claim that
> the only languages you "have learnt are Java and C++". However, in a
> previous post (http://tinyurl.com/29uc) you claim: "I know Java, and I
> have started to look at C++ (don't really understand it though)". So
> you have asked for people to explain the difference between LISP (which,
> clearly, you are only starting to learn) and C++ (which you admit you
> don't really understand) -- how intelligent is that?
>
> Anyway, you go on to complain about all those (((())))'s which nobody
> wants to hear about. Why not post in a Java group about the expression:
>
> if (a || (b && ((c+d==1) && (e || (f && g) || (h || (i && j))))))
>
> Golly gee, all those (((())))'s in Java! You gripe about how hard it is
> because you don't have a suitable editor, but you make no effort to
> obtain a suitable editor. Someone suggests Emacs and you then ask "what
> is it, is it free?". I suppose it didn't occur to you to open up
> Google, type in "emacs" and then click on the "I'm feeling lucky"
> button, where you could have learned all about Emacs and where and how
> to obtain it or get help on it. You then start complaining about how
> you have the right number of parentheses, but it's just in the wrong
> place and how hard that is. Well, why don't you write some Java code:
>
> if (foo == bar
> {
> System.out.println("Hello world!)
> );}"
>
> Look at that, I got the correct number of parentheses, braces, quotes,
> and semi-colons. To paraphrase, "I haven't had a single error yet in
> Java that wasn't caused by quotes, parentheses, braces, or semi-colons
> being in the wrong spot." Your lack of understanding isn't due to an
> inherent weakness or fault in the language itself, it's due to your
> inability to understand the syntax which will determine where the
> parentheses get placed.
>
> Back to the parentheses though. You claim how hard it is and then state
> "Wait until I start my next assignment, then it'll happen all over
> again". The implication here is that your inability to master the use
> of parentheses will result in you experiencing the same problems "all
> over again" on your next assignment. Really, this means that you choose
> not to learn. You have chosen not to obtain a suitable editor which
> will assist you in writing LISP code. You admit that, for you, writing
> LISP code is hard, but you choose to do nothing about it.
>
> If you chose to learn from your mistakes, you would have said something
> to the effect of "I find matching all these parentheses to be
> challenging. However, with the use of a suitable editor, I have found
> that matching the parentheses to produce correct code is becoming
> easier. Given enough time and practice, I should be proficient in
> writing good LISP code." Nobody could fault you for that.
>
> Erik pointed out (http://tinyurl.com/29uu) the fact that you've chosen
> not to learn from your mistakes (albeit, in his not-quite-diplomatic
> way) and you start taking it all personally. You could have ignored
> what you perceived as an insult and responded to the core message which,
> in case you didn't get it yet, boils down to: you aren't learning from
> your mistakes!
>
> > EXPLAIN IT TO ME FOR FUCKS SAKE!
>
> No. You don't have the right to demand anything from anybody here.
>
> If you want to demand that someone explain it to you, pay for a tutor --
> your tutor will demand money, and you can demand an explanation in
> trade. To demand anything here shows a lack of respect for the very
> knowledgable people who volunteer their time and energy into helping you
> when, clearly, you are offering nothing in return.
>
Look, your post isn't particularly helpful. It's quite a waste of
bandwidth. There are others here who *have* chosen to write helpful
things, and there was one post in particular that helped me grasp the
overall picture (with how the languages are different).
Your attitude is very stuck up, and there is no way I'm going to
apologise for just being newbie.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| Your attitude is very stuck up, and there is no way I'm going to
| apologise for just being newbie.
Good girl! Way to go! I hope every Common Lisp instructor in the world
now goes through the list of "students" in their classes to pay particular
attention to any "Melissa" and how she is doing. Anything but a failing
grade is an insult to the institution at which she is enrolled.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
arien wrote:
>
> Look, your post isn't particularly helpful. It's quite a waste of
> bandwidth.
Curious how you felt the need to quote my post in its entirety and only
add a few useless sentences. Waste of bandwidth indeed.
> There are others here who *have* chosen to write helpful
> things, and there was one post in particular that helped me grasp the
> overall picture (with how the languages are different).
You seem to be quite bent on absolving yourself of any responsibility in
the nature of the posts in reply to yours. My post was helpful in that
it attempted (though obviously in futility) to draw to attention the
reason for this. It is clear to me that intelligent discussion of any
nature is above your mental abilities.
> Your attitude is very stuck up, and there is no way I'm going to
> apologise for just being newbie.
Nobody expects you to apologize for being a newbie. However, you can
apologize for asking banale questions and treating everybody here like
your very own personal-lisp-coach-on-demand.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no says...
> > Some people congregate for things they have in common,
> > others for things they lack in common. This is generally a
> > newsgroup for people who have an apperciation for Lisp in
> > common, not a newsgroup for people who lack such an
> > appreciation.
>
> Perhaps you should re-read all the posts, right from the
> start. I never came here winging about Lisp. I came here trying
> to seek understanding. All I got is weird idiotic cyber freeks
> like you flaming me, trying to tell me I dumb. I'm not, and all
> I could do is defend myself.
Wrong.
> Now I'm getting flamed for defending myself - wow!
Yes -- because if you act like a moron making a complete ass of
yourself and very smart people take the time to tell you so, the
/mature/ reaction would be to ask yourself what you did wrong and
how you could do better in the future -- /listen/ to them.
Instead you chose to behave like an annoying teenager -- whining
and defending yourself.
> > You come into a fine restaurant and refuse to read the menu but ask for
> > hamburgers because that is what you grew up with. You do not like to
> > have an unintelligible wine list offered to you, because you have no clue
> > what anything on it means and you could get a whole truckload of milk
> > shakes for the price of just one half-bottle of that french-looking stuff.
> > When you are asked if you would like any of the entr�es, you quip that
> > you already know which way you came in and you cannot understand why you
> > cannot order the apple pie for dessert at the same time as the McChicken.
> > And you wonder why you people are staring at you and quietly think you
> > make a spectacle of yourself, not the other way around?
>
> Ah, an analogy. Wow, very impressive. Actually, I hate
> McDonalds, and I enjoy fine wine. In fact, I used to live in
> the Barossa Valley. What your talking is just trash.
Heh, interesting: You recognize that it is an analogy but have
apparently not really understood yet what an analogy actually is :-)
> > Welcome back in a few years. We would like to serve your
> > mature needs.
>
> Be careful using 'we' on usenet. TINW, haven't you ever heard
> of that.
There are a lot of stupid things hidden behind acronyms. And
using the pronoun ``we'' here was quite correct, I think.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
>
> Yes -- because if you act like a moron making a complete ass of
> yourself and very smart people take the time to tell you so, the
> /mature/ reaction would be to ask yourself what you did wrong and
> how you could do better in the future -- /listen/ to them.
> Instead you chose to behave like an annoying teenager -- whining
> and defending yourself.
>
I detest people who categorise people on the internet. I have not been
whining. If I had been a whining teenager, I would have posted something
like this: "I'm trying to write code that does this........ Could you
please post the solution for me so that I can pass my assignment?"
But no, I have posted here seeking understanding. Why should I get
flamed for not understanding? I am trying to understand, but idiots like
you make it impossible.
Perhaps if you realised that I'm a mature student you might have thought
differently. I guess you would even be shocked to realise that I'm
female. It sucks because so many people automatically categorise people
as male on the internet.
What sucks even more, is that there have only been a select few who have
actually tried to help me. I'm trying to understand the concept of why
Lisp is different. I also expressed a little exasperation at the syntax
of lisp - this is not whining, it's just a little frustration I am going
through. What I am learning at the moment in lisp at uni is exclusively
AI. This is why I don't understand how Lisp can also be applied as a
normal programming language (such as Java, C++, etc), and why I don't
understand much else about lisp.
Rather than flaming me, would you care to explain it to me?
--
Mel - LOOK! It's a female name - surprise surprise!
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| I detest people who categorise people on the internet.
Like "you are weird"?
| Why should I get flamed for not understanding? I am trying to understand,
| but idiots like you make it impossible.
OK. that does it. You blame other people for your own shortcomings, and
you blame your tools for your own problems finding and fixing parentheses
problems.
| I guess you would even be shocked to realise that I'm female.
Some of us have excellent reading comprehension and retention and would
only be shocked if you had suddenly changed into a male.
| It sucks because so many people automatically categorise people as male
| on the internet.
This is only something you believe. You assume much too much about other
people. Some people do not categorize /people/ in the first place, only
their actions. Some people do not actually have to deal with a "complete
person" in order to respond to something they write. To some people, the
concept of debate and discussion is not about personal relations, but
about exchanging ideas and thoughts and working with other people to
solve or discuss problems.
| Rather than flaming me, would you care to explain it to me?
If you go back and actually /read/ my replies to you, you will probably
be shocked to find that I have actually answered your questions. You
have not paid any attention because your only interest was defending
yourself and thinking about your own feelings. Believe it or not, but I
want you to focus on your question and what you say you are doing here,
but you keep talking about people. This is actually wrong of you.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no says...
> * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> | I detest people who categorise people on the internet.
>
> Like "you are weird"?
>
> | Why should I get flamed for not understanding? I am trying to understand,
> | but idiots like you make it impossible.
>
> OK. that does it. You blame other people for your own shortcomings, and
> you blame your tools for your own problems finding and fixing parentheses
> problems.
Oh really? I think you need to get a life. I'm not blaming anyone for
anything. In fact *other people* around here are trying to help me. Your
the only one who seem to be offended by the fact that parentheses are
confusing.
>
> | I guess you would even be shocked to realise that I'm female.
>
> Some of us have excellent reading comprehension and retention and would
> only be shocked if you had suddenly changed into a male.
The previous poster obviously didn't though.
>
> | It sucks because so many people automatically categorise people as male
> | on the internet.
>
> This is only something you believe. You assume much too much about other
> people. Some people do not categorize /people/ in the first place, only
> their actions. Some people do not actually have to deal with a "complete
> person" in order to respond to something they write. To some people, the
> concept of debate and discussion is not about personal relations, but
> about exchanging ideas and thoughts and working with other people to
> solve or discuss problems.
So why was I categorised as a teenager then huh? Comon smartie, explain
that to me - no don't bother.
>
> | Rather than flaming me, would you care to explain it to me?
>
> If you go back and actually /read/ my replies to you, you will probably
> be shocked to find that I have actually answered your questions.
No, you have not posted a single, useful reply.
> You
> have not paid any attention because your only interest was defending
> yourself and thinking about your own feelings. Believe it or not, but I
> want you to focus on your question and what you say you are doing here,
> but you keep talking about people. This is actually wrong of you.
So you successfully posted another unhelpful abusive post. Welcome to my
killfile. In fact, you can proudly be the only person on my killfile.
congratulations!
I have never found it necessary to killfile others before. I don't
bother myself with getting upset with trolls. But you are just taking up
a lot of usenet space. I'm going to stick with those that are trying to
help. Good luck. You know, it's a pretty boring out there when you can
only argue with yourself.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <kk9u1jcv5r4.fsf@glug.org>
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> You know, it's a pretty boring out there when you can
> only argue with yourself.
this is not entirely true. lots of people set up little
arguments (in their head, out of thin air) in order to carry
out entertaining internal debate. if you are a programming
fish, your waters will be thus filled. certainly all these
other fishes are breathing SOMETHING to stay alive...
thi
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| Oh really? I think you need to get a life.
Are you quite sure you are female? Normally, such brute behavior is
attributable to testosterone.
| In fact *other people* around here are trying to help me. Your the only
| one who seem to be offended by the fact that parentheses are confusing.
Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. I have said
no such thing. Your unwillingness to think is what offends me. You do
not consider this a possible cause for offense because you have never
thought about anything in your whole entire life. Demanding that they
think is usually taken as a grave insult by the unthinking masses who
think they have a god-given right not to have to think.
| > | I guess you would even be shocked to realise that I'm female.
| >
| > Some of us have excellent reading comprehension and retention and would
| > only be shocked if you had suddenly changed into a male.
|
| The previous poster obviously didn't though.
He did not pay attention, then. You have in fact mentioned that you are
female before. Why do you want to compare yourself to those who do not
even pay enough attention to what you say to remember any of it?
| So why was I categorised as a teenager then huh? Comon smartie, explain
| that to me - no don't bother.
Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. Instead of
this childish response, you should have tried to recall who "categorized"
you as a teenager.
You are, however, clearly a defect person. The kind of response you have
sent my way is so unspeakably rude that you should have been spanked.
Your inability to pull yourself together suggests a more serious problem.
| No, you have not posted a single, useful reply.
Here you turn into a psychotic lunatic who shows the entire world that
your feelings are more important to you than observable reality. Your
irrational anger has caused you to lose track of what happens outside of
your own overheating skull. This happens to inferior and defect people.
I have a way of unearthing such characteristics in people, if they have
them. It is not me they hate when their heads explode, however, since
they are never able to accurately summarize anything that has happened or
anything I have said. I assume therefore that it is themselves that they
hate. I have a way of not allowing people to love themselves when they
are not worth it, despite an enormous self-absorption and self-love.
This hurts some people so much they go completely insane with their
hostilities towards me. I take this in stride. Defect people who have
to express their hatred are actually quite calming to me. It is before
they prove that they are defect people that I have a sense of suspense --
will they think? When they go nuts like you have done, that suspense is
broken -- you would not think if it would save your soul.
| > Believe it or not, but I want you to focus on your question and what
| > you say you are doing here, but you keep talking about people.
|
| So you successfully posted another unhelpful abusive post.
I take that to mean that you do not believe what I just said.
| Welcome to my killfile. In fact, you can proudly be the only person on my
| killfile. congratulations!
Thank you. This will spare me more of your insane vitriol, which I will
appreciate greatly. Not hearing from a rude slut like yourself is good.
| I don't bother myself with getting upset with trolls. But you are just
| taking up a lot of usenet space. I'm going to stick with those that are
| trying to help. Good luck. You know, it's a pretty boring out there when
| you can only argue with yourself.
Yes, without your devine, enlightened presence, earth does get lonely.
Are you about 16 years old by the way? One of the ways that girlie gangs
in high schools terrorize their classmates is to play the isolation game.
You may find yourself isolated after this incident, however. Nobody
likes a selfish, conceited bitch who is so misbehaving and irrational as
you have shown yourself to be.
Now, where are all the feel-good jerks with their positive reinforcers?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Now, where are all the feel-good jerks with their positive reinforcers?
Carrying on a civil dialog with Mel in other subthreads. Meanwhile, this
flaming subthread is hardly a triumph for the blunt approach.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manners must adorn knowledge, and smooth its way through the world.
-- Philip Dormer Stanhope
* Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
| Carrying on a civil dialog with Mel in other subthreads.
Are you quite sure of that? What are you talking about?
| Meanwhile, this flaming subthread is hardly a triumph for the blunt
| approach.
Oh, christ.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> Now, where are all the feel-good jerks with their positive reinforcers?
Well, as a member of your "feel-good jerk" file I'll take this opportunity
to surprise you and say I can't fault you at all on how this one
developed...too bad she doesn't hear the answers given and only responds
defensively. Many helpful and gently phrased responses seemed to be
ignored.
Even I told her long ago the check out the basics on lisp.org which she
obviously did not do. I guess all us weirdo cyber-freaks will have to keep
counting parens alone as we code in our abnormal programming language...
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
* "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
| Well, as a member of your "feel-good jerk" file I'll take this opportunity
| to surprise you and say I can't fault you at all on how this one developed...
That did indeed surprise me. Thanks.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <·············@austar-news.austar.net.au>,
·····@mercury.bc.ca says...
>
> "Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
> ·····················@naggum.no...
>
> > Now, where are all the feel-good jerks with their positive reinforcers?
>
> Well, as a member of your "feel-good jerk" file I'll take this opportunity
> to surprise you and say I can't fault you at all on how this one
> developed...too bad she doesn't hear the answers given and only responds
> defensively. Many helpful and gently phrased responses seemed to be
> ignored.
>
> Even I told her long ago the check out the basics on lisp.org which she
> obviously did not do. I guess all us weirdo cyber-freaks will have to keep
> counting parens alone as we code in our abnormal programming language...
>
Don't make assumptions that just because I haven't replied to 'your'
post, that I haven't taken it in. Yes, I believe I did check out
lisp.org (I checked out a few links but I don't remember which now). One
of the links I followed just provided a list of many dead links (or
perhaps it was my ISP? I do have a lot of problems with it, and my bad
connection. It's my pair gains phone line, can't do anything about it
unfortunately).
So, don't assume just because I didn't reply to 'your' post that I
didn't check out the links etc. This is a very long thread now, and I
can't possibly reply to everyone. I have replied to those whose
responses I didn't quite understand and I was interested in. I defended
myself against the verbal bashings I had and tried to clarify to these
people certain facts etc. And then I 'listened' to others who were
interesting, but a reply wasn't necessary.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
"arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> In article <·············@austar-news.austar.net.au>,
> ·····@mercury.bc.ca says...
> >
> > Even I told her long ago the check out the basics on lisp.org which she
> > obviously did not do. I guess all us weirdo cyber-freaks will have to
keep
> > counting parens alone as we code in our abnormal programming language...
> >
>
> Don't make assumptions that just because I haven't replied to 'your'
> post, that I haven't taken it in.
Er..speaking of assumptions... :)
I concluded that you had not checked the link because one of your posts a
few days later contained one or more other very common misconception(s)
(can't compile, can't make exe's, can't work from saved files - don't recall
the precise details). But you now have indicated that it was a dead link
problem which I experienced as well for the specific page I hoped you would
read (http://www.xanalys.com/software_tools/products/myths&legends.html)
> This is a very long thread now, and I
> can't possibly reply to everyone. I have replied to those whose
> responses I didn't quite understand and I was interested in.
> I defended myself against the verbal bashings
> I had and tried to clarify to these people certain
> facts etc. And then I 'listened' to others who were
> interesting, but a reply wasn't necessary.
Understood, and you wisely stopped responding to Erik with unnecessary
"defences." As for vebal bashings, you gave better than you got in the
beginning IMO. You won't change "Mr. Nagger" and if you really think he is
wrong, why do two wrongs make a right? You have done the first right step
(for you, in this thread) by not responding to him, you should follow it
with not posting about him.
I think you should consider that you *thought* a reply wasn't necessary for
many helpful posts, but it would have been more productive than fighting
with Erik and others. Sometimes an "I understand now" post is a good thing
especially in the face of so many emphatically stated "I CAN'T understand
posts" which when repeated often enough effectively becomes "I WON'T
understand." If you still don't understand, reread the responses and ask a
more precise and thoughtful question or file it under, "maybe this will make
sense to me later".
Don't take false comfort in the co-misery of others with the same problems,
take the advice of the people who *do not have* these problems. This
comment is about your difficulties with the interactive nature of lisp
programming and your frustrations with syntax. They are shallow and
inconsequential concerns (regardless of how they feel to you at this moment)
and you can chose to hang-up on them and take your false comfort with the
hung-up majority or you can get past it and understand the beauty and
elegance of a 40-yr old programming paradigm.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 23:38:25 +1100, "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
wrote:
>I guess all us weirdo cyber-freaks will have to keep
>counting parens alone as we code in our abnormal programming language...
*grin*
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/lisp.html
"I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."
~ A. Crowley
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no says...
> > * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> > | It sucks because so many people automatically categorise
> > | people as male on the internet.
> >
> > This is only something you believe. You assume much too
> > much about other people. Some people do not categorize
> > /people/ in the first place, only their actions. Some
> > people do not actually have to deal with a "complete
> > person" in order to respond to something they write. To
> > some people, the concept of debate and discussion is not
> > about personal relations, but about exchanging ideas and
> > thoughts and working with other people to solve or discuss
> > problems.
>
> So why was I categorised as a teenager then huh? Comon smartie,
> explain that to me - no don't bother.
You weren't -- I said you /behaved/ like an annoying teenager.
Note the difference and you might grow a clue.
> > | Rather than flaming me, would you care to explain it to me?
> >
> > If you go back and actually /read/ my replies to you, you
> > will probably be shocked to find that I have actually
> > answered your questions.
>
> No, you have not posted a single, useful reply.
Yes he has. Please try to /understand/, for chrissake!
> So you successfully posted another unhelpful abusive
> post. Welcome to my killfile. In fact, you can proudly be the
> only person on my killfile. congratulations!
That would be a particularly stupid thing to do. You can learn a
lot from him, he can learn nothing much from you but is still
spending a lot of his time trying to make you think and
understand. Now if you would only start doing that :-)
> You know, it's a pretty boring out there when you can only
> argue with yourself.
I fear it is not him who is going to experience that... :-))
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <3DB7E518.9010908@web.de>
Nils Goesche wrote:
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>>So you successfully posted another unhelpful abusive
>>post. Welcome to my killfile. In fact, you can proudly be the
>>only person on my killfile. congratulations!
>
> That would be a particularly stupid thing to do. You can learn a
> lot from him,
He's not the only person on this world you can learn from.
> he can learn nothing much from you but is still
> spending a lot of his time trying to make you think and
> understand.
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
* Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>
| He's not the only person on this world you can learn from.
/That/ is all you feel-good guys can come up with? Geez. Where is all
the action consistent with all the theoretic bullshit about how to deal
with bad people? I am frankly disgusted with the holier-than-thou mode
of you feel-good guys. The fact is, you do /nothing/ useful until you
can come back and attack the party you think deserves hitting after the
fighting is over.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
arien wrote:
> In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no
> says...
> Oh really? I think you need to get a life. I'm not blaming
> anyone for anything. In fact *other people* around here
> are trying to help me. Your the only one who seem to be
> offended by the fact that parentheses are confusing.
If parentheses are confusing to you, then Lisp is definitely
not the right language for you.
But you should excel at Postscript (or any other language
that uses postfix notation).
--
J.... B....
-----------== 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 =-----
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> > Yes -- because if you act like a moron making a complete ass
> > of yourself and very smart people take the time to tell you
> > so, the /mature/ reaction would be to ask yourself what you
> > did wrong and how you could do better in the future --
> > /listen/ to them. Instead you chose to behave like an
> > annoying teenager -- whining and defending yourself.
>
> I detest people who categorise people on the internet.
Hm -- why? And why specifically on the internet? Ah, never
mind...
> I have not been whining. If I had been a whining teenager, I
> would have posted something like this: "I'm trying to write
> code that does this........ Could you please post the solution
> for me so that I can pass my assignment?"
That would be a ``whining loser'' :-)
> But no, I have posted here seeking understanding. Why should I
> get flamed for not understanding?
That is not what you have been (very mildly) flamed for. You
continue making statements like ``Lisp syntax is hard to learn'',
then ``Lisp syntax is hard to write'', ``Java syntax is easier''.
However, no matter whether that is true or not, making such
statements does not help you one bit trying to improve your
understanding. Instead, you should defer such judgements and
start learning something new, ask specific questions. That's all
people are trying to tell you.
> I am trying to understand, but idiots like you make it
> impossible.
How can this possibly be? :-)
> Perhaps if you realised that I'm a mature student you might
> have thought differently. I guess you would even be shocked to
> realise that I'm female.
I am not that easily shocked -- and it doesn't make any
difference. In fact there are several women very knowledgable
about Lisp, one posts here occasionally, others have written good
books about it.
> It sucks because so many people automatically categorise people
> as male on the internet.
So what? Most people you meet there /are/ male, so this is
usually a safe bet.
> What sucks even more, is that there have only been a select few
> who have actually tried to help me.
In fact, /all/ of them were trying to help you.
> I'm trying to understand the concept of why Lisp is different.
Ok. This takes some time. Have patience, listen to people and
defer judgements. If you think something is weird, chances are
that there is a very good reason things are the way they are,
only you haven't understood it yet; Lisp has evolved over decades
to the way it is now, very smart people have thought a very long
time about every single thing.
> I also expressed a little exasperation at the syntax of lisp -
> this is not whining, it's just a little frustration I am going
> through.
Ok -- note however, that in a highly technical forum like this
people do not care very much about personal things like
frustration. Come to think about it, I'd say expressing personal
frustration is just that -- whining :-) Get over that and back
to work.
> What I am learning at the moment in lisp at uni is exclusively
> AI. This is why I don't understand how Lisp can also be applied
> as a normal programming language (such as Java, C++, etc), and
> why I don't understand much else about lisp.
Hm. I would think that programming AI should illustrate very
well how to use a programming language as you need all kinds of
techniques there.
> Rather than flaming me, would you care to explain it to me?
Explain what? Lisp? Well, one step at a time :-)
First, others have already noted that it is very important that
you get indentation right. Lispworks' editor helps you here:
When the cursor is on a line of code and you hit Tab, this line
should be correctly indented relative to the previous line. You
can indent whole expressions: If you have a badly indented
function like
(defun foo (x)
(if (plusp x)
(+ x (foo (1- x)))
0))
which happens quite often when you change code, you put the
cursor onto the first opening brace (before the DEFUN) and hit
C-M-q (Control-Meta-q, or Control-Alt-q). This should
automatically indent the whole thing to
(defun foo (x)
(if (plusp x)
(+ x (foo (1- x)))
0))
Now if you get a parenthesis wrong, this should in most cases
become immediately apparent because the indentation looks weird
(after hitting C-M-q). The COND expressions you posted, for
instance, were /not/ correctly indented. Try it out.
> Mel - LOOK! It's a female name - surprise surprise!
Hm, is Mel Brooks a woman, too?
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, ···@cartan.de says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> > > Yes -- because if you act like a moron making a complete ass
> > > of yourself and very smart people take the time to tell you
> > > so, the /mature/ reaction would be to ask yourself what you
> > > did wrong and how you could do better in the future --
> > > /listen/ to them. Instead you chose to behave like an
> > > annoying teenager -- whining and defending yourself.
> >
> > I detest people who categorise people on the internet.
>
> Hm -- why? And why specifically on the internet? Ah, never
> mind...
>
your not female, so I guess you'd never understand.
> > I have not been whining. If I had been a whining teenager, I
> > would have posted something like this: "I'm trying to write
> > code that does this........ Could you please post the solution
> > for me so that I can pass my assignment?"
>
> That would be a ``whining loser'' :-)
>
> > But no, I have posted here seeking understanding. Why should I
> > get flamed for not understanding?
>
> That is not what you have been (very mildly) flamed for. You
> continue making statements like ``Lisp syntax is hard to learn'',
> then ``Lisp syntax is hard to write'', ``Java syntax is easier''.
> However, no matter whether that is true or not, making such
> statements does not help you one bit trying to improve your
> understanding. Instead, you should defer such judgements and
> start learning something new, ask specific questions. That's all
> people are trying to tell you.
>
> > I am trying to understand, but idiots like you make it
> > impossible.
>
> How can this possibly be? :-)
How can you learn from someone who is ranting and raving at you?
>
> > Perhaps if you realised that I'm a mature student you might
> > have thought differently. I guess you would even be shocked to
> > realise that I'm female.
>
> I am not that easily shocked -- and it doesn't make any
> difference. In fact there are several women very knowledgable
> about Lisp, one posts here occasionally, others have written good
> books about it.
>
> > It sucks because so many people automatically categorise people
> > as male on the internet.
>
> So what? Most people you meet there /are/ male, so this is
> usually a safe bet.
I agree. But your not female so you wouldn't ever understand.
> > What sucks even more, is that there have only been a select few
> > who have actually tried to help me.
>
> In fact, /all/ of them were trying to help you.
Nope. Erik Nagger wasn't helping much.
> > I'm trying to understand the concept of why Lisp is different.
>
> Ok. This takes some time. Have patience, listen to people and
> defer judgements. If you think something is weird, chances are
> that there is a very good reason things are the way they are,
> only you haven't understood it yet; Lisp has evolved over decades
> to the way it is now, very smart people have thought a very long
> time about every single thing.
It has been misunderstood that I have made some judgements. I believed
certain things to be true, and I came here seeking more information. For
example, my statement that "lisp is an AI" language. I *believed* this
to be true. I apologise for being wrong, but there is no need to flame
me for the statement.
> > I also expressed a little exasperation at the syntax of lisp -
> > this is not whining, it's just a little frustration I am going
> > through.
>
> Ok -- note however, that in a highly technical forum like this
> people do not care very much about personal things like
> frustration. Come to think about it, I'd say expressing personal
> frustration is just that -- whining :-) Get over that and back
> to work.
No, it isn't whining. If that's the way you would like to see it, then
you need to get out more. Others here have agreed with me that the Lisp
parentheses are not easy, so argueing otherwise is pointless.
> > What I am learning at the moment in lisp at uni is exclusively
> > AI. This is why I don't understand how Lisp can also be applied
> > as a normal programming language (such as Java, C++, etc), and
> > why I don't understand much else about lisp.
>
> Hm. I would think that programming AI should illustrate very
> well how to use a programming language as you need all kinds of
> techniques there.
>
> > Rather than flaming me, would you care to explain it to me?
>
> Explain what? Lisp? Well, one step at a time :-)
>
> First, others have already noted that it is very important that
> you get indentation right. Lispworks' editor helps you here:
> When the cursor is on a line of code and you hit Tab, this line
> should be correctly indented relative to the previous line. You
> can indent whole expressions: If you have a badly indented
> function like
>
> (defun foo (x)
> (if (plusp x)
> (+ x (foo (1- x)))
> 0))
>
> which happens quite often when you change code, you put the
> cursor onto the first opening brace (before the DEFUN) and hit
> C-M-q (Control-Meta-q, or Control-Alt-q). This should
> automatically indent the whole thing to
>
> (defun foo (x)
> (if (plusp x)
> (+ x (foo (1- x)))
> 0))
>
> Now if you get a parenthesis wrong, this should in most cases
> become immediately apparent because the indentation looks weird
> (after hitting C-M-q). The COND expressions you posted, for
> instance, were /not/ correctly indented. Try it out.
I didn't try to indent them correctly. I was just briefly, off the top
of my head, trying to show an example of my problems. I am only just
learning the indentation and where it's meant to be. At university they
don't give you much help here. Even though I am using LispWorks on my
pc, at university all they provide is a unix computer, and nedit. You
work from within a terminal, so you can "load" your lisp file.
nedit to me seems primitive compared to LispWorks. I hate to have to do
all my programming on nedit.
>
> > Mel - LOOK! It's a female name - surprise surprise!
>
> Hm, is Mel Brooks a woman, too?
You gotta admit, there's not many Mel's around that are male.
> Regards,
>
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| your not female, so I guess you'd never understand.
*laugh*
| How can you learn from someone who is ranting and raving at you?
You can focus your mind. Concentrate on your stated purpose. You have
been tested for sustained concentration. You failed that test. There is
only one thing that people need to know about you when they hire you: Can
you focus on the job at hand for about 8 hours a day? If you cannot do
that, you are not a good candidate for any position. I suspect that you
know just how negatively your Usenet contributions would affect your
employability and that you therefore wisely choose to be anonymous.
| I agree. But your not female so you wouldn't ever understand.
*laugh*
| Nope. Erik Nagger wasn't helping much.
You continue to show the entire world the depth of your depravity and how
easily you have sunk into it. The kind of hatred that someone has to be
filled with in order to produce the kind of posts you have produced is
good cause for professional medical concern about your mental health.
| No, it isn't whining. If that's the way you would like to see it, then
| you need to get out more.
Even people who help you, you insult and antagonize.
| Others here have agreed with me that the Lisp parentheses are not easy,
| so argueing otherwise is pointless.
So when someone agrees with you, things are settled for good? That is
one of the most irrational things I have seen in a while.
Nodoby should help such a vile person as yourself.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> | Nope. Erik Nagger wasn't helping much.
>
> You continue to show the entire world the depth of your depravity
> and how easily you have sunk into it. The kind of hatred that
> someone has to be filled with in order to produce the kind of
> posts you have produced is good cause for professional medical
> concern about your mental health.
Oh come on Erik. The woman can't spell, obviously doesn't share your
sense of humour, is labouring under some debilitating preconceptions
and has an enormous chip on her shoulder , but depraved? 'mentally
unhealthy'? I think you may be overstating your case a bit.
Or are you doing the hyperbole for humourous effect thing?
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
In article <··············@despairon.bofh.org.uk>, ········@bofh.org.uk
says...
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> > * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> > | Nope. Erik Nagger wasn't helping much.
> >
> > You continue to show the entire world the depth of your depravity
> > and how easily you have sunk into it. The kind of hatred that
> > someone has to be filled with in order to produce the kind of
> > posts you have produced is good cause for professional medical
> > concern about your mental health.
>
> Oh come on Erik. The woman can't spell,
I actually spell quite well thankyou. I choose to ignore some typos. Why
do some in this group insist on insulting me.
> obviously doesn't share your
> sense of humour,
I'm sorry, insulting people is never funny except to the person who
delivers the insults.
> is labouring under some debilitating preconceptions
This is hardly being fair. I have admitted from the beginning that I
don't understand the nature of Lisp. I came here trying to understand
and now you say I have preconceptions?
> and has an enormous chip on her shoulder ,
er, no sorry. I admit that I can get flighty when insulted.........but
sorry, there's no chip there.
> but depraved? 'mentally
> unhealthy'? I think you may be overstating your case a bit.
I'm glad that I kill filed Erik. This is just nonsense.
>
> Or are you doing the hyperbole for humourous effect thing?
If so, it's not particularly funny.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| Why do some in this group insist on insulting me.
We see that all that concerns this person is how others treat it, not how
it could behave better to cause better responses from others. Helpless
in its failure to adjust to input from others, it goes into a state as
"victim" of others, their abuse and insulting it.
| I'm sorry, insulting people is never funny except to the person who
| delivers the insults.
Keep this in mind.
| I'm glad that I kill filed Erik. This is just nonsense.
Either this person is so shallow that the meaning of its own words does
not register back in its own brain, or it simply utters words without any
meaning. The latter is probably the more charitable interpretation.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> In article <··············@despairon.bofh.org.uk>, ········@bofh.org.uk
> says...
>> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
>> > * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
>> > | Nope. Erik Nagger wasn't helping much.
>> >
>> > You continue to show the entire world the depth of your depravity
>> > and how easily you have sunk into it. The kind of hatred that
>> > someone has to be filled with in order to produce the kind of
>> > posts you have produced is good cause for professional medical
>> > concern about your mental health.
>>
>> Oh come on Erik. The woman can't spell,
>
> I actually spell quite well thankyou. I choose to ignore some typos.
You do realise that that just makes it worse don't you? You are
saying, in essence that you don't respect the people in this group
enough to bother to correct your typos. Or you're saying that you
don't respect yourself enough to bother about the impression you
create.
> Why do some in this group insist on insulting me.
Hang on, I was defending you. Your spelling in this thread has been
atrocious, I placed the most favourable spin on that that I could,
whilst also acknowledging that it could be annoying.
>> obviously doesn't share your sense of humour,
>
> I'm sorry, insulting people is never funny except to the person who
> delivers the insults.
Possibly not, but sense of humour is a personal thing. What I am
beginning to find funny (though leaning more towards funny peculiar
than funny ha ha) is that you took Erik's first, robustly worded but
not actually all that insulting response so personally. Or, indeed,
that you took my defence of you as insulting.
>> is labouring under some debilitating preconceptions
>
> This is hardly being fair. I have admitted from the beginning that I
> don't understand the nature of Lisp. I came here trying to understand
> and now you say I have preconceptions?
Of course you do. If nothing else, you have preconceptions about what
a programming language looks like based on your experience of Java and
C++.
>> and has an enormous chip on her shoulder ,
>
> er, no sorry. I admit that I can get flighty when
> insulted.........but sorry, there's no chip there.
I'm calling it like I see it, and trust me, from where I'm sitting, I
see a chip the size of a small country.
>> but depraved? 'mentally unhealthy'? I think you may be overstating
>> your case a bit.
>
> I'm glad that I kill filed Erik. This is just nonsense.
But you took the time to respond to my defence, point by point. Ah
well.
>> Or are you doing the hyperbole for humourous effect thing?
>
> If so, it's not particularly funny.
As I said, you don't share Erik's sense of humour, so, of course,
you're not going to find it funny.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
In article <··························@news.adl.ihug.com.au>, arien wrote:
<much text snipped>
> At university they
> don't give you much help here. Even though I am using LispWorks
> on my pc, at university all they provide is a unix computer,
> and nedit. You work from within a terminal, so you can "load"
> your lisp file.
>
> nedit to me seems primitive compared to LispWorks. I hate to
> have to do all my programming on nedit.
vi, at least, does more-or-less proper Lisp indenting (use ":set
lisp autoindent showmatch"), and most Unixes (or "Unices"? I
forget) have it (and some have Vim, nowadays). But if you don't
know vi already, starting to learn it now might well distract you
just as much as Emacs, as Erik pointed out elsewhere.
-- Larry
> I didn't try to indent them correctly. I was just briefly, off the
> top of my head, trying to show an example of my problems. I am only
> just learning the indentation and where it's meant to be. At
> university they don't give you much help here. Even though I am
> using LispWorks on my pc, at university all they provide is a unix
> computer, and nedit. You work from within a terminal, so you can
> "load" your lisp file.
If you're using Unix, you have Emacs available. If not, you should
complain loudly (to the university, not to the newsgroup. If the
university doesn't help, you should then complain to the newsgroup,
explaining which university it is.).
Use Emacs instead of Nedit. Emacs works fine on a terminal. Much of
Emacs is also written in Lisp, and you have access to the Emacs Lisp
if you want it. You can even test out little code snippets pretty
easily using the *scratch* buffer which is an Emacs Lisp interaction
buffer, among other things.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
We have yet to find the Galileo who will question
our me-centred universe. --- Christina Odone
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> I didn't try to indent them correctly. I was just briefly, off the top
> of my head, trying to show an example of my problems. I am only just
> learning the indentation and where it's meant to be. At university they
> don't give you much help here. Even though I am using LispWorks on my
> pc, at university all they provide is a unix computer, and nedit. You
> work from within a terminal, so you can "load" your lisp file.
Ouch, they throw you into lisp in an AI course and this is all they
give you? I'd say that's not very supportive, if your version of
the story is correct.
Can't you use the X11 version of lispworks? If you think you might,
try starting lispworks with the -environment option, which I think
is still needed in the *nix (as opposed to linux) versions of
lispworks.
--
(espen)
In article <··············@merced.netfonds.no>, ·····@*do-not-spam-
me*.vestre.net says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> > I didn't try to indent them correctly. I was just briefly, off the top
> > of my head, trying to show an example of my problems. I am only just
> > learning the indentation and where it's meant to be. At university they
> > don't give you much help here. Even though I am using LispWorks on my
> > pc, at university all they provide is a unix computer, and nedit. You
> > work from within a terminal, so you can "load" your lisp file.
>
> Ouch, they throw you into lisp in an AI course and this is all they
> give you? I'd say that's not very supportive, if your version of
> the story is correct.
yep. I do very little of my work inside the uni though, so personally it
doesn't affect me much.
>
> Can't you use the X11 version of lispworks? If you think you might,
> try starting lispworks with the -environment option, which I think
> is still needed in the *nix (as opposed to linux) versions of
> lispworks.
Don't know, cuz I don't understand what you mean.
>
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> > Can't you use the X11 version of lispworks? If you think you might,
> > try starting lispworks with the -environment option, which I think
> > is still needed in the *nix (as opposed to linux) versions of
> > lispworks.
>
> Don't know, cuz I don't understand what you mean.
X11 -> X Windowing System.
Just try to start lispworks with
lispworks -environment
and see what happens.
--
(espen)
In article <··············@merced.netfonds.no>, ·····@*do-not-spam-
me*.vestre.net says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> > > Can't you use the X11 version of lispworks? If you think you might,
> > > try starting lispworks with the -environment option, which I think
> > > is still needed in the *nix (as opposed to linux) versions of
> > > lispworks.
> >
> > Don't know, cuz I don't understand what you mean.
>
> X11 -> X Windowing System.
>
> Just try to start lispworks with
>
> lispworks -environment
>
> and see what happens.
>
I will try this. Thanks.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3n0p4ceht.fsf@cley.com>
* spammers suck wrote:
> You gotta admit, there's not many Mel's around that are male.
I don't know. Mel Brooks, Mel Gibson, Mel
who-was-in-not-the-nine-o-clock-news-but-I-can't-remember-his-name.
It's a fairly ambigous nickname, I think.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
;; * spammers suck wrote:
;;
;; > You gotta admit, there's not many Mel's around that are male.
;;
;; I don't know. Mel Brooks, Mel Gibson, Mel
;; who-was-in-not-the-nine-o-clock-news-but-I-can't-remember-his-name.
;;
;; It's a fairly ambigous nickname, I think.
I imagine that Mel can be short for Melvin, for a male, and
Melanie for a female.
Peace,
Petr
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <u4rbbt9vi.fsf@poboxes.com>
On 24 Oct 2002 20:01:35 -0400, Petr Swedock <····@blade-runner.mit.edu> said:
PS> I imagine that Mel can be short for Melvin, for a male, and
PS> Melanie for a female.
Also, mel means honey.
---Vassil.
--
Non-googlable is googlable.
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> transmitted:
> On 24 Oct 2002 20:01:35 -0400, Petr Swedock
> <····@blade-runner.mit.edu> said:
>
> PS> I imagine that Mel can be short for Melvin, for a male, and
> PS> Melanie for a female.
>
> Also, mel means honey.
???? Isn't that "miel"? It's certainly not something that the
typical "unilingual English (USian or perhaps British) bigot" would
think of...
I'd expect "Mel" to be far more widely used as a male name than as a
female name because "Melvin" is a name that tends to attract
sophomoric ridicule, whereas "Melanie" doesn't.
Kids have been using the insult "He's a Total Melvin" for at least 30
years. (I've been a recipient of something of the sort a few times.)
That's a good excuse for seeking a name change, in much the way that a
guy called "Gaylord" might well consider suicide...
I've never heard "Melanie" used as an insult...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ····················@" "454aa"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/rdbms.html
Why do you need a driver's license to buy liquor when you can't drink
and drive?
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <uk7k7rsbe.fsf@poboxes.com>
On 25 Oct 2002 05:06:34 GMT, Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> said:
CB> In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> transmitted:
VN> Also, mel means honey.
CB> ???? Isn't that "miel"?
In Spanish; in Latin, mel (in Italian, miele).
---Vassil.
--
Non-googlable is googlable.
Christopher Browne wrote:
> That's a good excuse for seeking a name change, in much the way that a
> guy called "Gaylord" might well consider suicide...
I was always fascinated by ladies -- and I do mean ladies rather than
women -- of above certain age who were called Lesbia. Not come accross
many but one or two was enough. Hey ho...
In article <··············@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>,
Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> wrote:
> I've never heard "Melanie" used as an insult...
About the closest I've seen is:
Q: isn't your name Claire?
A: Yes.
Q: So then why do all the guys call you Melanie?
-- Bruce
On 25 Oct 2002 00:34:09 -0400, Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com>
wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2002 20:01:35 -0400, Petr Swedock <····@blade-runner.mit.edu> said:
>
> PS> I imagine that Mel can be short for Melvin, for a male, and
> PS> Melanie for a female.
>
>Also, mel means honey.
"O Mel" - Billy Bunter (in Brazil?)
>
>---Vassil.
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/lisp.html
"I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."
~ A. Crowley
In article <··············@blade-runner.mit.edu>, ····@blade-
runner.mit.edu says...
> Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
>
> ;; * spammers suck wrote:
> ;;
> ;; > You gotta admit, there's not many Mel's around that are male.
> ;;
> ;; I don't know. Mel Brooks, Mel Gibson, Mel
> ;; who-was-in-not-the-nine-o-clock-news-but-I-can't-remember-his-name.
> ;;
> ;; It's a fairly ambigous nickname, I think.
>
> I imagine that Mel can be short for Melvin, for a male, and
> Melanie for a female.
>
> Peace,
>
> Petr
>
Perhaps here in Australia it's different. I've never met a guy named
Mel. Ever. Of course I've heard of Mel Gibson, but that's it.
For the record, my name is Melissa and it means 'honey bee'.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
>>You gotta admit, there's not many Mel's around that are male.
> It's a fairly ambigous nickname, I think.
I don't think so. Checking on the IMDb, I found 158 male Mel actors as
opposed to 13 female. Sure seems like a reasonably safe assumption that
a random Mel is male.
And don't forget <URL:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/The-Story-of-Mel.html>...
--
Nobody expects the Swedish Inquisition!
> I don't think so. Checking on the IMDb, I found 158 male Mel actors as
> opposed to 13 female. Sure seems like a reasonably safe assumption that
> a random Mel is male.
Ooops, forgot to compensate for uneven gender distribution. There are
415,361 actors on IMDb, and only 251,821 actresses. Assuming that this
population is representative, about one Mel in 8 should be female.
--
Nobody expects the Swedish Inquisition!
In article <···············@cley.com>, Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com>
wrote:
> * spammers suck wrote:
>
> > You gotta admit, there's not many Mel's around that are male.
>
> I don't know. Mel Brooks, Mel Gibson, Mel
> who-was-in-not-the-nine-o-clock-news-but-I-can't-remember-his-name.
An unusual one. Think "Alas Smith and Jones"...
-- Bruce
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
> In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, ···@cartan.de says...
> > arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> > > I detest people who categorise people on the internet.
> > Hm -- why? And why specifically on the internet? Ah, never
> > mind...
> your not female, so I guess you'd never understand.
I never realized irony meters could explode in technical newsgroups
until I met comp.lang.lisp. I've long since stopped exposing them in
soc and talk...
Michael, learn something new every day.
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
(I'd much rather email this, but you don't provide an email address.)
It's best just to ignore Erik Naggum. You'll be sucked into a mire of
hostility if you argue with him.
If you feel you need to prove your good intentions, the best way is to
continue constructive discussion, not to argue the (mis)interpretation
of your earlier posts with people who don't respect you.
--
Pekka P. Pirinen
If you don't succeed at first, try again. Then quit. No use of being a
damn fool about it. - W. C. Fields
* Pekka P. Pirinen
| It's best just to ignore Erik Naggum. You'll be sucked into a mire of
| hostility if you argue with him.
People who make this argument say something about themselves that smarter
people than them know well how to interpret.
The arrogance of people who confuse their opinions with facts is one of
the things I attack. You demonstrate quite clearly that there is useful
distinction between your conclusions and observable reality. Therefore,
you are never wrong in your own view, and anyone who counters your claims
is wrong at best, irrational at worst. For people who have acquired the
insight that their conclusions are not identical to reality, but based on
their limited understanding of a limited part of it at the time, the
ability to learn from their mistakes follow naturally, as well as their
ability to deal with people who have observed more or different parts of
reality than they have. You clearly lack the prerequisite insight. This
has been obvious for years from the snotty remarks you make when you
think you know the only possible answer and your silence when it becomes
clear that it was far from the only possible answer.
People who have learned how to think discover others who share this joy
and tend to be annoyed with people who have never acquired that skill and
especially those who consider themselves superior /because/ they believe
they do not "have to" think, which they consider a dirty practice of
people who do not automatically know the Truth, like they do. Pekka P.
Pirinen has come across as that kind of arrogant ignorant asshole far too
long to have gone unnoticed as such by those who are /not/ so incredibly
happy to have found the first answer that they never look any further.
If you know what you talk about, I listen. If you do not, and you do not
listen, either, I may be scathing of your stupidity, because you should
know better. Some people never understand what they have done wrong,
however, because they believe that listening to other people is a waste
of their valuable time, especially when they prefer their prejudices to
learning something that may cause them to feel as ignorant as they are.
Pekka P. Pirinen is one of those lucky men who cannot be taught anything.
Sadly, he only finds it worth his time to share of his infinite wisdom
when he can hurt someone with it. This is the main reason he gets into a
mire of hostility, like the defectiveness of "Mel" got her into trouble.
The most tragic part of all is that people like Pekka and "Mel" actually
believe they are perfect and models for all the rest of mankind and then
it could not possibly matter to them how evil they are towards others.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
arien wrote:
> I don't understand why you guys are all so
> defensive of Lisp.
We're not as a whole.
Naggum is the resident sociopath here. He is to be used for
entertainment purposes only. Please, no wagering...
* Len Charest <········@my.inbox>
| Naggum is the resident sociopath here. He is to be used for entertainment
| purposes only. Please, no wagering...
What on earth possesses a person when he can make such comments about
other people? "Sociopath" sure comes to mind as a possible explanation.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Len Charest <········@my.inbox>
> | Naggum is the resident sociopath here. He is to be used for entertainment
> | purposes only. Please, no wagering...
>
> What on earth possesses a person when he can make such comments about
> other people?
The hi-larious presence of a sociopath.
> "Sociopath" sure comes to mind as a possible explanation.
I know you are, but what am I?
In article <············@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov>, ········@my.inbox says...
> arien wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why you guys are all so
> > defensive of Lisp.
>
> We're not as a whole.
>
> Naggum is the resident sociopath here. He is to be used for
> entertainment purposes only. Please, no wagering...
>
>
Ah, I see. There's always one of them in every group :-)
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
> wow, you are weird. What an insulting reply.
You should listen to mr. Naggum. Once you dig past the insults
you will not only realize that he is worth listening to but also
that insults are only in your head.
In my frst encounter with Erik I made the same mistakes as you do
now. When I got that episode in perspective I learned quite a lot
about quite a few things. Erik was certainly not the only reason for
this, but he was an important catalyst.
--
Thomas.
In article <··········@nntphost.cis.strath.ac.uk>,
·······@cis.strath.ac.uk says...
> arien wrote:
>
> > wow, you are weird. What an insulting reply.
>
> You should listen to mr. Naggum. Once you dig past the insults
> you will not only realize that he is worth listening to but also
> that insults are only in your head.
>
> In my frst encounter with Erik I made the same mistakes as you do
> now. When I got that episode in perspective I learned quite a lot
> about quite a few things. Erik was certainly not the only reason for
> this, but he was an important catalyst.
>
> --
> Thomas.
>
>
Well, perhaps Mr Nagger has to learn how to communicate effectively with
people. I am obviously not the only one, so Mr Nagger should learn to be
*nice* to people.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <u3cqqy5p9.fsf@poboxes.com>
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 20:37:38 +1030, arien <·············@getlost.invalid> said:
[...]
*> Well, perhaps Mr Nagger has to learn how to communicate effectively with
*> people. I am obviously not the only one, so Mr Nagger should learn to be
*> *nice* to people.
If you refer to Erik Naggum, why do you misspell his name?
---Vassil.
--
For an M-person job assigned to an N-person team, only rarely M=N.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid> said:
| Well, perhaps Mr Nagger has to learn how to communicate effectively with
| people. I am obviously not the only one, so Mr Nagger should learn to be
| *nice* to people.
* Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com>
| If you refer to Erik Naggum, why do you misspell his name?
Please note how nice this arien slut is to me. I should learn to be nice
to people, says the most uncouth and selfish sleazebag we have had here
in months. I always find it fascinating how egoistic some of these
people who want others to be nice are. They do not want people to be
nice -- if they did, "people" would have included themselves -- they only
want other people to be nice to /them/, and that is the full extent of
their concern for human behavior.
People who consider a public forum a different kind of place than private
spaces, also consider this kind of public masturbation to be incredibly
offensive. But to people whose sole concern in their entire lives is how
nice other people are to them, how they behave towards others could not
possibly matter. We have seen this time and again on this newsgroup,
where the feel-good guys mount vicious hate campaigns, post hostile and
deeply insulting "opinions" about others -- because those others have not
been "nice". The concept that being nice should start with oneself does
not /register/ with these egoistic shitheads. If someone is not nice to
/them/, they feel justified in attacking them with no moral bounds. This
is actually very telling -- these are people who are only behaving well
as long as they do not have an excuse to do what they really want to do
to people. Therefore, assume that someone who wants others to be nice is
evil and destructive and egoistic and hedonistic until proven rational.
Also take a look at the "address" used by this "arien" character. Try to
think of the mental state of someone who considers it appropriate use of
the /address/ field of the messages that should be used to get back to the
person behind the message if need be to hurl insults at people who have
done nothing wrong. The presumption of evil intent that underlies the
decisions of this person are communicated very well in such instances.
The interaction with others is based on the premise that other people
will be bad. Now, a "be nice" from such a person is a "be nice to me or
I'll redecorate your face with a crowbard". The violence /perceived/ by
this person when subjected to something different from "nice", is also
reflecting the personality of this person. Like so many fragile feel-good
jerks, this person assumes that others attack before looking closely.
What amazes me is that the feel-good jerks condone such behavior by
trying to help this shithead and being oh-so-patient when they stage the
most horrendous attacks against me when I am not "nice" to some shithead.
It confirms in my view the link between having an evil personality and
curtailing one's urges in order to be "good" to other people. Religions
have been based upon this view of the human being and its ability to act
morally. It is still fundamentally evil. And people who want "nice"
will probably never evolve into /moral/ human beings because it is
precisely that being "nice" that keeps them from confrontations that
could have taught them something about other people that are not mirror
images and carbon copies of themselves. Therefore, it is very telling
when someone of that persuasion does not feel that others are being nice
to them -- they have never learned anything about human behavior and
revert to the most brutal, pre-civilized, revenge- and hateful behavior
you can think of. When your ethics /only/ involves your relations with
people who are "nice" to you, and you /have/ no ethics if people do not
behave according to your standards, but are free to do anything you want,
you are a parasite on society and your own feeble excuse for ethics
depends on that of others. It is not when people agree on everything
that you need contracts, laws, etiquette, etc, it is when they do not.
Those who lose track of every moral precept when they feel an excuse to
be "offended" are therefore less than human beings.
However, the feel-good jerks here openly encourage such people, and are
very hostile to those who actually want civilization. This does not come
as a surprise to me, of course, having seen the feel-good jerks become
the most insanely hostile idiots even Stephen King would have problems
making up when they are "offended" themselves. I guess that the kind of
sub-human that wants others to be nice to eachother work well together
and feel much in common. I note clearly how Pascal Constanza does /not/
reprimand this arien slut's behavior towards me. This is probably all I
need to know about Pascal Costanza and his feel-good policy.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <·············@poboxes.com>, ········@poboxes.com says...
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 20:37:38 +1030, arien <·············@getlost.invalid> said:
> [...]
> *> Well, perhaps Mr Nagger has to learn how to communicate effectively with
> *> people. I am obviously not the only one, so Mr Nagger should learn to be
> *> *nice* to people.
>
> If you refer to Erik Naggum, why do you misspell his name?
>
It is an intentional, and I guess a little cynical misspelling. The guy
insulted me, I and guess I just don't like him very much.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <u4rb5g0nt.fsf@poboxes.com>
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:17:51 +1030, arien <·············@getlost.invalid> said:
*> In article <·············@poboxes.com>, ········@poboxes.com says...
>> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 20:37:38 +1030, arien <·············@getlost.invalid> said:
>> [...]
>> *> Well, perhaps Mr Nagger has to learn how to communicate effectively with
>> *> people. I am obviously not the only one, so Mr Nagger should learn to be
>> *> *nice* to people.
>>
>> If you refer to Erik Naggum, why do you misspell his name?
>>
*> It is an intentional, and I guess a little cynical misspelling. The guy
*> insulted me, I and guess I just don't like him very much.
And does that make communication more effective---or nicer?
---Vassil.
--
For an M-person job assigned to an N-person team, only rarely M=N.
Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> wrote in
··················@poboxes.com:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:17:51 +1030, arien
> <·············@getlost.invalid> said:
>
> *> In article <·············@poboxes.com>, ········@poboxes.com
> says...
> >> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 20:37:38 +1030, arien
> >> <·············@getlost.invalid> said: [...]
> >> *> Well, perhaps Mr Nagger has to learn how to communicate
> >> effectively with *> people. I am obviously not the only one, so
> >> Mr Nagger should learn to be *> *nice* to people.
> >>
> >> If you refer to Erik Naggum, why do you misspell his name?
> >>
>
> *> It is an intentional, and I guess a little cynical misspelling.
> The guy *> insulted me, I and guess I just don't like him very
> much.
>
> And does that make communication more effective---or nicer?
It is nicer from her point of view. Her rules do not apply to her,
just everyone else.
The truley amazing thing is that the vast majority of the Erik haters
are such two faced people. You must be nice to me and *fuck you* seems
to be there guiding princapal. Childish in the extreme.
marc
>
> ---Vassil.
>
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> , an acolyte of Cthulu the True
God wrote:
>> Cockroaches can do it. Pigs can do it. Even sheep do not repeat their
>> mistakes. Granted, they live much shorter lives, do not vote for George
>> W. Bush except in Florida, and their death is usually well planned and
>
>wow, you are weird. What an insulting reply.
Do not despair.
That was just our local wierdo.
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:50:47 +0930, arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
wrote:
> have so far taken to programming like a duck to water. Unfortunately,
> the water in Lisp is a little boggy, and I KNOW I'm not the only one
> having this problem. I don't understand why you guys are all so
A guy who lived a couple of millenniums ago said: "Nolite prohicere
margaritas vestras ante porcos".
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <uy98lkvlq.fsf@poboxes.com>
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:22:28 +0100, Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> said:
PA> A guy who lived a couple of millenniums ago said: "Nolite prohicere
PA> margaritas vestras ante porcos".
Those were early times, so he made this an imperative. Later (and
in a different country, a little bit farther east), this became a
mere (and more resigned) statement of fact, `The fine apples are
eaten by the pigs.'
---Vassil.
--
For an M-person job assigned to an N-person team, only rarely M=N.
Paolo Amoroso wrote:
> A guy who lived a couple of millenniums ago said: "Nolite prohicere
> margaritas vestras ante porcos".
My latin is rusty, almost to the point of not having any. Also, the
version I am more familiar with -- and this maybe my `anglosassoni' up
bringing ;) -- starts "neque mittatis..." However, with the sentiment I
complete agree.
Hmmm.
:)w
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 15:03:46 +0000 (UTC), Will Deakin
<···········@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Paolo Amoroso wrote:
> > A guy who lived a couple of millenniums ago said: "Nolite prohicere
> > margaritas vestras ante porcos".
> My latin is rusty, almost to the point of not having any. Also, the
> version I am more familiar with -- and this maybe my `anglosassoni' up
> bringing ;) -- starts "neque mittatis..." However, with the sentiment I
This is entirely possible, I have quoted from memory.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
Paolo Amoroso wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 15:03:46 +0000 (UTC), Will Deakin
> <···········@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Paolo Amoroso wrote:
> > > A guy who lived a couple of millenniums ago said: "Nolite prohicere
> > > margaritas vestras ante porcos".
> > My latin is rusty, almost to the point of not having any. Also, the
> > version I am more familiar with -- and this maybe my `anglosassoni' up
> > bringing ;) -- starts "neque mittatis..." However, with the sentiment I
>
> This is entirely possible, I have quoted from memory.
From a little Google search:
7:6 nolite dare sanctum canibus neque
mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos
ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et
conversi disrumpant vos
6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your
pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn
again and rend you.
URL: http://faculty.acu.edu/~goebeld/vulgata/newtest/matthew/vmat7.htm
--
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> , an acolyte of Cthulu the True God
wrote:
>A guy who lived a couple of millenniums ago said: "Nolite prohicere
>margaritas vestras ante porcos".
The problem is that the vast mass of the human race are swinelike.
The Playboy site gets far more hits than the Biblotheca Augustana site
http://www.fh-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chronologie/18Jh/Goethe/goe_ff00.html
Crap pushes out caviar.
* Advance Australia Dear <····················@yahoo.com>
| The problem is that the vast mass of the human race are swinelike.
There is only one person you can do anything about, however.
| The Playboy site gets far more hits than the Biblotheca Augustana site
That was a very swinelike argument. As if the subject matter determines
the quality of the people. A more stupid way to look at humanity can
hardly be accomplished.
| Crap pushes out caviar.
Only if you want it to, and only if you are pushed by the masses because
you consider yourself are part of it. The minority of one who choose to
be an individual is morally unaffected by the masses.
Some people can be "the masses" all by themselves, however.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Will Deakin
Subject: OT porcus vulgaris [Re: Difference between LISP and C++]
Date:
Message-ID: <apgto8$v3$1@venus.btinternet.com>
Paolo Amoroso wrote:
> A guy who lived a couple of millenniums ago said: "Nolite prohicere
> margaritas vestras ante porcos".
An appropriate modern adjunct to this would be "Never try to teach a pig
to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." :)
(I was listening to the radio whilst getting my daughter to sleep and
this came up...)
;)w
Will Deakin:
> Paolo Amoroso wrote:
> > A guy who lived a couple of millenniums ago said: "Nolite prohicere
> > margaritas vestras ante porcos".
>
> An appropriate modern adjunct to this would be "Never try to teach a pig
> to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." :)
actually part of that bit of latin is in common use [and would make a fine
crest for c.l.[l|s] :-] margaritas ante porcos is "pearls before swine" ...
oz
---
a library is an arsenal of liberty. -- unknown
··@cs.yorku.ca (ozan s. yigit) wrote in message news:<···························@posting.google.com>...
> actually part of that bit of latin is in common use [and would make a fine
> crest for c.l.[l|s] :-] margaritas ante porcos is "pearls before swine" ...
Shouldn't that be "Perl is for swine?" ;^)
ozan s. yigit wrote:
> actually part of that bit of latin is in common use [and would make a fine
> crest for c.l.[l|s] :-] margaritas ante porcos is "pearls before swine" ...
A more complete citation, in English translation:
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither
cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample
them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Authorized (King James) Version of the Christian Bible,
Matthew 7:6
In addition to "Me and Bobbie McGee", Kris Kristofferson
also wrote "Jesus was a Capricorn", which is even more
relevant here than the advice cited above.
Will
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <3cqqsksk.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> A guy who lived a couple of millenniums ago said: "Nolite prohicere
> margaritas vestras ante porcos".
I heard something like this the other day at a Tex-Mex bar. Somebody
complaining about the lo-fat drinks....
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:45:13 +0930, arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
wrote:
> In article <·······················@news2.telusplanet.net>,
> ····@nospam.nowhere says...
> >
> > "arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
> > ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> > > to readability. I have sat there with my lecturer going through the
> > > code, trying to find where the error is. But like I said, Java never has
> > > this problem.
> >
> > Post the code you are having trouble with.
[...]
> The problem is solved now. I have been having these problems more than
> once, and it takes very close inspection to find them.
It would be _very_ interesting if you could post that code anyway (provided
it's not too long, of course).
By the way, what tools--development environment and editor--are you using?
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
arien wrote:
> The syntax of lisp makes it virtually impossible
> to use without a suitable editor.
Well, /are/ you using a suitable editor? It seems not.
> But like I said, Java never has
> this problem.
Well Lispers have no problem with and in fact strongly prefer parentheses.
So maybe the problem is with you (or your editor)? You totally ignored
what others have pointed out: you are simply stuck on the first syntax
you happened to learn. you should just relax and do your classwork. Get
back to us after a couple of months (with a good editor) and let us know
what you think.
Right now you are just showing us how close-minded you are.
--
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
In article <················@nyc.rr.com>, ·······@nyc.rr.com says...
>
>
> arien wrote:
> > The syntax of lisp makes it virtually impossible
> > to use without a suitable editor.
>
> Well, /are/ you using a suitable editor? It seems not.
>
> > But like I said, Java never has
> > this problem.
>
> Well Lispers have no problem with and in fact strongly prefer parentheses.
>
> So maybe the problem is with you (or your editor)? You totally ignored
> what others have pointed out: you are simply stuck on the first syntax
> you happened to learn. you should just relax and do your classwork. Get
> back to us after a couple of months (with a good editor) and let us know
> what you think.
Is LispWorks a good editor?
>
> Right now you are just showing us how close-minded you are.
no, not close-minded, just exasperated! I never said I don't like the
language, I'm just finding it harder to learn.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
> Is LispWorks a good editor?
Just fired it up to check. (I usually use ACL.) Yes, the LW for Windows
editor does all the good stuff in re making editing Lisp /easier/ than
other languages. It also uses color for highlighting keywords vs
comments vs etc. Looks a little busy to my taste.
Uh-oh. Is LW what you have been using and struggling with? Houston, we
have a problem.
>>Right now you are just showing us how close-minded you are.
>
> no, not close-minded, just exasperated! I never said I don't like the
> language, I'm just finding it harder to learn.
Surely you were warned that Lisp is a freaky, weirdo, bizarre language.
Would you even /want/ it to look like Java/C? Meditate on that. Your
mantra is "letting go".
--
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
>
> Surely you were warned that Lisp is a freaky, weirdo, bizarre language.
> Would you even /want/ it to look like Java/C? Meditate on that. Your
> mantra is "letting go".
>
No I guess I wasn't warned. I'm here to try and grasp understanding of
why it looks different. I don't understand the concept of why in Java we
create .class files, in C++ you create .exe files, but yet in Lisp you
just enter the functions in a "Listener". And if you close the window,
then you have to enter the functions all over again.
You guys gotta understand, I'm not putting down Lisp, I'm trying to get
information. All I'm getting is a barage of defensive replies.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
"arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
>
> >
> > Surely you were warned that Lisp is a freaky, weirdo, bizarre language.
> > Would you even /want/ it to look like Java/C? Meditate on that. Your
> > mantra is "letting go".
> >
>
> No I guess I wasn't warned. I'm here to try and grasp understanding of
> why it looks different. I don't understand the concept of why in Java we
> create .class files, in C++ you create .exe files, but yet in Lisp you
> just enter the functions in a "Listener". And if you close the window,
> then you have to enter the functions all over again.
Read the section on the LOAD function.
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_load.htm
What book are you using to learn? It seems very outdated.
--
Wade
Email: (format nil ···@~A.~A" "whumeniu" "telus" "net")
In article <·······················@news1.telusplanet.net>,
····@nospam.nowhere says...
>
> "arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
> ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> >
> > >
> > > Surely you were warned that Lisp is a freaky, weirdo, bizarre language.
> > > Would you even /want/ it to look like Java/C? Meditate on that. Your
> > > mantra is "letting go".
> > >
> >
> > No I guess I wasn't warned. I'm here to try and grasp understanding of
> > why it looks different. I don't understand the concept of why in Java we
> > create .class files, in C++ you create .exe files, but yet in Lisp you
> > just enter the functions in a "Listener". And if you close the window,
> > then you have to enter the functions all over again.
>
> Read the section on the LOAD function.
>
> http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_load.htm
>
> What book are you using to learn? It seems very outdated.
>
The book I am learning from isn't outdated, but it just isn't a Lisp
book. It's called "Artificial Intelligence - Structures and strategies
for complex problem solving".
I'm not doing a course on Lisp, I'm doing a course on AI. We happen to
be using lisp as our language.
I guess that's why there is so much confusion.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| All I'm getting is a barage of defensive replies.
So figure it out! Stop posting things that make people respond that way!
You can control this by not being obnoxious and negativistic about some-
thing that people really are here because they like. You approach people
the same way you approach Common Lisp, it seems. You think they ought to
be different from they are and you think people ask you to be different
so you defend yourself. But this is not what people here think or do.
People here are just so goddamn tired of whining losers who come in here
to talk about how hard it is to learn Common Lisp.
This is not about you. This is about your lack of focus on your task at
hand. You said you want to understand Common Lisp. Then do something
that is consistent with that claim. Do not defend yourself. Do not tell
people you think they are weird. Focus on understanding Common Lisp.
Can you do this?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no says...
> * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> | All I'm getting is a barage of defensive replies.
>
> So figure it out! Stop posting things that make people respond that way!
> You can control this by not being obnoxious and negativistic about some-
> thing that people really are here because they like. You approach people
> the same way you approach Common Lisp, it seems. You think they ought to
> be different from they are and you think people ask you to be different
> so you defend yourself. But this is not what people here think or do.
> People here are just so goddamn tired of whining losers who come in here
> to talk about how hard it is to learn Common Lisp.
>
> This is not about you. This is about your lack of focus on your task at
> hand. You said you want to understand Common Lisp. Then do something
> that is consistent with that claim. Do not defend yourself. Do not tell
> people you think they are weird. Focus on understanding Common Lisp.
>
> Can you do this?
>
>
Look, just fuck off will you. Your getting boring. If you can't be
helpful, just shutup.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| Look, just fuck off will you. Your getting boring. If you can't be
| helpful, just shutup.
I pity you. I suggest you seek counseling at this time and find someone
who can deal with arrogant shitheads without wanting to hit them.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> Look, just fuck off will you. Your getting boring. If you can't be
> helpful, just shutup.
This is really getting on my nerves: If you're going to post content
free flames, at least try to keep your contractions and your personal
pronouns straight. Erik probably doesn't own any 'getting boring'.
Or do you, Erik?
-Tim
-----------== 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 =-----
···@tenkan.org (Tim Daly, Jr.) writes:
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> > Look, just fuck off will you. Your getting boring. If you can't be
> > helpful, just shutup.
>
>
> This is really getting on my nerves: If you're going to post content
> free flames, at least try to keep your contractions and your personal
> pronouns straight. Erik probably doesn't own any 'getting boring'.
>
> Or do you, Erik?
>
> -Tim
Possessive pronouns, even.
-Tim
-----------== 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 =-----
arien wrote:
>>Surely you were warned that Lisp is a freaky, weirdo, bizarre language.
>>Would you even /want/ it to look like Java/C? Meditate on that. Your
>>mantra is "letting go".
>>
>
>
> No I guess I wasn't warned.
OK.
> I'm here to try and grasp understanding of
> why it looks different.
It's a little complicated. Trust us, it is better.
> I don't understand the concept of why in Java we
> create .class files, in C++ you create .exe files, but yet in Lisp you
> just enter the functions in a "Listener". And if you close the window,
> then you have to enter the functions all over again.
hoo-boy, can we have a word with your instructor? No wonder you are
having trouble. In LW, use File>New> to start editing source you can
save as i-hate.lisp.
>
> You guys gotta understand, I'm not putting down Lisp, I'm trying to get
> information. All I'm getting is a barage of defensive replies.
No, you first got a lot of considerate guidance suggesting you spend a
few weeks with something new before slamming it. Nothing you have
written has been responsive to said guidance. Instead, you just keep
saying you cannot abide parentheses. I think a careful plot of the
hostility of this thread will show it rising over time to meet the
constant level of Lisp bashing in your articles.
OK. 30-day cease fire? During those 30 days you promise to withhold
judgment, we promise to help you learn Lisp and even the LW IDE.
Deal?
--
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
In article <················@nyc.rr.com>, ·······@nyc.rr.com says...
>
>
> arien wrote:
> >>Surely you were warned that Lisp is a freaky, weirdo, bizarre language.
> >>Would you even /want/ it to look like Java/C? Meditate on that. Your
> >>mantra is "letting go".
> >>
> >
> >
> > No I guess I wasn't warned.
>
> OK.
>
> > I'm here to try and grasp understanding of
> > why it looks different.
>
> It's a little complicated. Trust us, it is better.
>
> > I don't understand the concept of why in Java we
> > create .class files, in C++ you create .exe files, but yet in Lisp you
> > just enter the functions in a "Listener". And if you close the window,
> > then you have to enter the functions all over again.
>
> hoo-boy, can we have a word with your instructor? No wonder you are
> having trouble. In LW, use File>New> to start editing source you can
> save as i-hate.lisp.
>
> >
> > You guys gotta understand, I'm not putting down Lisp, I'm trying to get
> > information. All I'm getting is a barage of defensive replies.
>
> No, you first got a lot of considerate guidance suggesting you spend a
> few weeks with something new before slamming it. Nothing you have
> written has been responsive to said guidance. Instead, you just keep
> saying you cannot abide parentheses. I think a careful plot of the
> hostility of this thread will show it rising over time to meet the
> constant level of Lisp bashing in your articles.
I have NOT been lisp bashing. Here is a quote of my first mention of
parentheses (which is in fact a reply to someone else):
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
Damn things ((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see this can be considered lisp bashing, but yet I was still
flamed for this. I was told I was 'dumb', I'm not thinking, it's my own
problem if I can't learn etc etc.
My natural response to being told that I'm 'dumb', was to defend myself.
Also, to some helpful people I clarified *why* I was having problems
with parentheses. This is NOT lispbashing.
>
> OK. 30-day cease fire? During those 30 days you promise to withhold
> judgment, we promise to help you learn Lisp and even the LW IDE.
>
> Deal?
*sigh* - I'll agree to anything if people will just stop flaming me.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| *sigh* - I'll agree to anything if people will just stop flaming me.
After what you have done towards me, you should apologize to me in public.
If you do that, people will be so shocked they will be unable to flame you
for many days to come. So, how about a sincere apology for your behavior?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> I have NOT been lisp bashing. Here is a quote of my first mention of
> parentheses (which is in fact a reply to someone else):
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
> error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
>
> Damn things ((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't see this can be considered lisp bashing, but yet I was still
> flamed for this. I was told I was 'dumb', I'm not thinking, it's my own
> problem if I can't learn etc etc.
>
> My natural response to being told that I'm 'dumb', was to defend myself.
> Also, to some helpful people I clarified *why* I was having problems
> with parentheses. This is NOT lispbashing.
Doesn't sound like lisp bashing to me either. Just the expected
frustations of someone hitting some new irritant. And the mere fact
that every language has them doesn't make lisp's less irritating.
Seems to me you've got a reasonable awareness of the learning curve,
so I think you'll do fine. You said this class was more using lisp
than teaching it? If so, you're doing the right thing seeking out some
extra info sources. With some perserverence, you'll progess from "why
is this 100 line program so HARD???" to "I can't believe how much I
can do with 100 lines" to "woo hoo!" to "Please don't make me write
this in C++!" in no time.
--
Brady Montz
······@balestra.org
In article <··············@sandman.balestra.org>, ······@balestra.org
says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> > I have NOT been lisp bashing. Here is a quote of my first mention of
> > parentheses (which is in fact a reply to someone else):
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
> > error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
> >
> > Damn things ((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I don't see this can be considered lisp bashing, but yet I was still
> > flamed for this. I was told I was 'dumb', I'm not thinking, it's my own
> > problem if I can't learn etc etc.
> >
> > My natural response to being told that I'm 'dumb', was to defend myself.
> > Also, to some helpful people I clarified *why* I was having problems
> > with parentheses. This is NOT lispbashing.
>
> Doesn't sound like lisp bashing to me either. Just the expected
> frustations of someone hitting some new irritant. And the mere fact
> that every language has them doesn't make lisp's less irritating.
I'm not really sure whether this statement is ment to be positive or
negative, but it sounds more positive to me. I really appreciate this in
the face of all the abuse I have. Some positive support here has made me
feel a little better. I'm getting close to feeling like unsubscribing
from this group - which would be sad :(
>
> Seems to me you've got a reasonable awareness of the learning curve,
> so I think you'll do fine. You said this class was more using lisp
> than teaching it?
um, I don't remember saying it, but yes uni is using Lisp rather than
teaching it. Uni has a tendancy to do that. They *taught* us Java, then
they just threw the C++ book at us and said "learn it". Now they are
*teaching* us AI, and have said "Go learn Lisp".
> If so, you're doing the right thing seeking out some
> extra info sources. With some perserverence, you'll progess from "why
> is this 100 line program so HARD???"
No, I don't quite say that anymore :)
I went through that in Java, so I understand going through the pain of
the 100 line programs. Or should I say, the 10 line programs!
> to "I can't believe how much I
> can do with 100 lines"
I look forward to this bit :)
> to "woo hoo!" to "Please don't make me write
> this in C++!" in no time.
I say that now :)
I *hate* C++. Perhaps you mean "Please don't make me write this in
Java". I look forward to this day too :) cuz that would mean that by
this stage, Lisp would be easy!
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>:
> No I guess I wasn't warned. I'm here to try and grasp understanding of why
> it looks different.
Perhaps a better approach is to try and understand rather than to try and
understand why it "looks" different?
> I don't understand the concept of why in Java we
> create .class files, in C++ you create .exe files, but yet in Lisp you
> just enter the functions in a "Listener".
Odd, I hardly ever enter functions in a "Listener". When I write Common Lisp
code I type it in my editor, just like I would Java code or C++ code.
Moreover, should I wish, I can create my CL's equivalent of a ".class" file
or even a ".exe" file (although such a file doesn't have ".exe" in the name,
but that's a property of my choice of OS).
> And if you close the window,
> then you have to enter the functions all over again.
No you don't. Or, rather, *you* might do that, but that's *your* choice.
That isn't a Lisp thing.
> You guys gotta understand, I'm not putting down Lisp, I'm trying to get
> information. All I'm getting is a barage of defensive replies.
As far as I've seen most of the replies you're getting are attempting to
point out that you're horribly confused about a number of things because
you've decided that Lisp is somehow "different". They're trying to tell you
to actually learn Lisp if you're interested in learning Lisp. As long as you
keep trying to learn why it is different you'll obsess on the perceived
differences and you'll probably never learn it for what it is.
There are some excellent resources for learning Lisp on the net, I believe
you've been pointed in the direction of one or two of them. Which one of
them told you you had to retype your programs in each time you wanted to run
them?
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
In article <·························@hagbard.davep.org>,
··········@davep.org says...
> * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>:
>
> > No I guess I wasn't warned. I'm here to try and grasp understanding of why
> > it looks different.
>
> Perhaps a better approach is to try and understand rather than to try and
> understand why it "looks" different?
Well, I think I'm understanding it. But what I don't understand (and
this is what I'm seeking to understand) is the overall picture. I
understand why Java is different from C++ either. This isn't directly a
Lisp thing. I don't even understand how you would distribute .class
files. I have a grasp on each individual language, and now I would like
to *see* them overall in the big picture.
>
> > I don't understand the concept of why in Java we
> > create .class files, in C++ you create .exe files, but yet in Lisp you
> > just enter the functions in a "Listener".
>
> Odd, I hardly ever enter functions in a "Listener". When I write Common Lisp
> code I type it in my editor, just like I would Java code or C++ code.
> Moreover, should I wish, I can create my CL's equivalent of a ".class" file
> or even a ".exe" file (although such a file doesn't have ".exe" in the name,
> but that's a property of my choice of OS).
Oh yeah, I understand the "load" function. You save your text into a
.lsp file. It still seems like the same thing to me. You "load" the .lsp
file, but then you have to "load" it again next time you start it.
Or is there something else I am missing here?
>
> > And if you close the window,
> > then you have to enter the functions all over again.
>
> No you don't. Or, rather, *you* might do that, but that's *your* choice.
> That isn't a Lisp thing.
Sorry, I also mean "You have to *load* the functions all over again". Or
is there something else I am missing here?
>
> > You guys gotta understand, I'm not putting down Lisp, I'm trying to get
> > information. All I'm getting is a barage of defensive replies.
>
> As far as I've seen most of the replies you're getting are attempting to
> point out that you're horribly confused
Oh no, I already KNEW that :)
> about a number of things because
> you've decided that Lisp is somehow "different".
All the languages are different. Sorry, I'm not just targetting Lisp
here :)
> They're trying to tell you
> to actually learn Lisp if you're interested in learning Lisp. As long as you
> keep trying to learn why it is different you'll obsess on the perceived
> differences and you'll probably never learn it for what it is.
>
> There are some excellent resources for learning Lisp on the net, I believe
> you've been pointed in the direction of one or two of them. Which one of
> them told you you had to retype your programs in each time you wanted to run
> them?
>
>
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>:
> In article <·························@hagbard.davep.org>,
> ··········@davep.org says...
>
> > Odd, I hardly ever enter functions in a "Listener". When I write Common
> > Lisp code I type it in my editor, just like I would Java code or C++
> > code. Moreover, should I wish, I can create my CL's equivalent of a
> > ".class" file or even a ".exe" file (although such a file doesn't have
> > ".exe" in the name, but that's a property of my choice of OS).
>
> Oh yeah, I understand the "load" function. You save your text into a .lsp
> file. It still seems like the same thing to me. You "load" the .lsp file,
> but then you have to "load" it again next time you start it. Or is there
> something else I am missing here?
You're missing the point that, with Common Lisp, you've generally got an
extra option for doing development that something like C++ doesn't give you.
You don't have to go from source to "compiled application" by way of working
on your code. Think of it as having an intermediate stage in which you can
play with and re-work your code as you go.
You seem to be seeing this extra option as the only option. It isn't.
> > No you don't. Or, rather, *you* might do that, but that's *your* choice.
> > That isn't a Lisp thing.
>
> Sorry, I also mean "You have to *load* the functions all over again". Or
> is there something else I am missing here?
Don't you have to "load" the functions all over again when you work with
C++? How is recompiling your application and running it, when working with
C++, not equivalent to loading all your functions again?
> > about a number of things because you've decided that Lisp is somehow
> > "different".
>
> All the languages are different. Sorry, I'm not just targetting Lisp here
> :)
You are targeting Lisp here. I'm responding to you in regard to your
misconceptions about Lisp.
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> In article <·························@hagbard.davep.org>,
> >
> > Odd, I hardly ever enter functions in a "Listener". When I write Common Lisp
> > code I type it in my editor, just like I would Java code or C++ code.
> > Moreover, should I wish, I can create my CL's equivalent of a ".class" file
> > or even a ".exe" file (although such a file doesn't have ".exe" in the name,
> > but that's a property of my choice of OS).
>
> Oh yeah, I understand the "load" function. You save your text into a
> .lsp file. It still seems like the same thing to me. You "load" the .lsp
> file, but then you have to "load" it again next time you start it.
> Or is there something else I am missing here?
>
You don''t have to re-load your source file unless you want to. While
you're in Lisp, all your code (and data) persists. When you change
the source, it is often easier to just reload it- but you can work
from the Lisp prompt to manipulate or change whats loaded- redefine
functions, call functions to test them, etc.. This is one of the huge
benefits of Lisp; you can intelligently interact with your code as
well as change it at runtime- all without exiting, recompiling &
reloading. Its very easy to incrementally test your work in Lisp-
whereas in a language like C you need to have something approximating
a minimal implementation of your whole program before you can even
compile much less test.
There is no requirement that you compile your code either- though some
implementation's debuggers work better with compiled code.
Gregm
arien wrote:
> Oh yeah, I understand the "load" function. You save your text into a
> .lsp file. It still seems like the same thing to me. You "load" the .lsp
> file, but then you have to "load" it again next time you start it.
> Or is there something else I am missing here?
The .lsp file contains your source code. Look up compile-file in your
documentation. compile-file can be used to create a .fasl file from
your .lsp file, by compiling it. So the .fasl file contains your
object code. You still have to load this into the listener with load,
but then your code runs much faster.
With Lisp you normally have the option of running your code interpreted,
then compiling it after most if not all of the bugs are out. With C++
(and Java) you have to compile it before you can run it.
And as for loading it, "java Foo" loads class Foo.class into the JVM,
and
foo (a compiled C program) is loaded into the shell by typing it at
the command line. With Lisp, the listener replaces the command line,
and you type (load "foo.fasl") or (load "foo.lsp") depending on whether
you want to run the object code, or run the source on the interpreter.
Hope that clears things up a bit.
> Mel
Le Hibou
--
Dalinian: Lisp. Java. Which one sounds sexier?
RevAaron: Definitely Lisp. Lisp conjures up images of hippy coders,
drugs,
sex, and rock & roll. Late nights at Berkeley, coding in Lisp fueled by
LSD.
Java evokes a vision of a stereotypical nerd, with no life or social
skills.
In article <·················@enterprise.net>,
················@enterprise.net says...
> arien wrote:
>
> > Oh yeah, I understand the "load" function. You save your text into a
> > .lsp file. It still seems like the same thing to me. You "load" the .lsp
> > file, but then you have to "load" it again next time you start it.
> > Or is there something else I am missing here?
>
> The .lsp file contains your source code. Look up compile-file in your
> documentation. compile-file can be used to create a .fasl file from
> your .lsp file, by compiling it. So the .fasl file contains your
> object code. You still have to load this into the listener with load,
> but then your code runs much faster.
>
> With Lisp you normally have the option of running your code interpreted,
> then compiling it after most if not all of the bugs are out. With C++
> (and Java) you have to compile it before you can run it.
>
> And as for loading it, "java Foo" loads class Foo.class into the JVM,
> and
> foo (a compiled C program) is loaded into the shell by typing it at
> the command line. With Lisp, the listener replaces the command line,
> and you type (load "foo.fasl") or (load "foo.lsp") depending on whether
> you want to run the object code, or run the source on the interpreter.
>
> Hope that clears things up a bit.
>
> > Mel
>
> Le Hibou
>
Ah ok. So you can create a .fasl file. That makes sense.
One more little piece of confusion though. I understood that Java was an
interpreted language?
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
>
> One more little piece of confusion though. I understood that Java was an
> interpreted language?
Yes. And no.
There, I won't bore you with any further in-depth information which
would be way above your head.
> One more little piece of confusion though. I understood that Java was an
> interpreted language?
Java generally compiles to bytecodes and runs in a virtual machine.
If the virtual machine supports JIT, some of the bytecodes may get converted
into machine code in order to run faster. This is done as the virtual
machine runs.
--
Justin Johnson
Hello!
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
>[...]
>Ah ok. So you can create a .fasl file. That makes sense.
In fact, you should mind that the name ".fasl" is only *one* possible
naming convention. Lookup the function compile-file-pathname
(e.g. by typing "(describe 'compile-file-pathname)" into the listener
of your favorite Lisp implementation, or even better by looking it up in
the HyperSpec) for how to get the name of the compiler's output on
your implementation.
Lookup the function compile-file of how to create the fasl (or similar)
file.
>One more little piece of confusion though. I understood that Java was an
>interpreted language?
You can't classify languages as interpreted vs. compiled. Implementations
are interpreted/compiled/both.
Kind regards,
Hannah.
From: Iain Little
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <3DBE7820.50708@yahoo.com>
arien wrote:
> One more little piece of confusion though. I understood that Java was an
> interpreted language?
>
Java compiles to bytecode. The bytecode is interpreted by the JVM. Its
somewhere in between interpreting the language syntax directly and
compiling to the instructions that the machine understands.
(Of course, with the usual caveat that this is just the way that most
implementations of Java do it)
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <8z0oufbs.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> No I guess I wasn't warned. I'm here to try and grasp understanding of
> why it looks different. I don't understand the concept of why in Java we
> create .class files, in C++ you create .exe files, but yet in Lisp you
> just enter the functions in a "Listener".
Before a program can run, the various components of it have to be
linked together. The operating system usually provides an extremely
primitive linking mechanism for OS calls, and perhaps it provides a
primitive dynamic linking mechanism for calling library functions.
The linker in the OS requires that the linkable components be
described in a particular way, for instance a.out, coff, ELF, and PE
(pecoff) are common formats. In Windows, DLL and EXE files are in PE
format.
C and C++ produce files that rely solely upon the OS linking
mechanism. (Or they can produce `object' files that can be combined
by an off-line linker.)
Java defines a `virtual machine' that abstracts away the operating
system. The JVM has a much more powerful linker built into it, and
Java .class files are the input to it.
In Lisp, linking is delayed until the last possible moment: just
before a function is called. (Indirection through the symbol function
cell is semantically equivalent to linking.) In addition, the data
structures used to link (the symbols) are available to the program
(this is sort of emulated by the `reflection' mechanisms in Java).
There is an interactive interface where you can enter code fragments,
compile and link them on the fly, and execute them. Finally, Lisp has
a more flexible model for handling partially linked code. (In C, a
missing function reference, if you can generate one, usually ends up
with the processor attempting to execute data. In Java, an exception
is thrown, but unless the user catches and handles it, the program is
exited. In Lisp, control is returned to the user.)
> And if you close the window, then you have to enter the functions
> all over again.
You can't type interactively to the C or Java linker, so you *must*
have your functions in a file. If you put your Lisp functions in a
file, they'll be saved, but no one is forcing you to do that. (Using
Emacs as a front end to the Lisp process is good idea.)
* Joe Marshall
| (In C, a missing function reference, if you can generate one, usually
| ends up with the processor attempting to execute data. [...])
It is quite easy to produce binaries with dangling function references --
just compile it with a different version of the dynamically linked/shared
object libraries. The program loader and linkage editor will then most
likely croak on you when the program is attempted loaded by a process,
but you could conceivably have redirected the function call to a debugger
that would break at this point just like Common Lisp environments do.
I think a good understanding of the loading, linking and function calling
mechanisms in C programs in the modern Unix environment is prerequisite
reading for someone who wants to learn how /similar/ the loading, linking
and function calling mechanisms in Common Lisp. If you do not understand
how the C world actually works, the misconceptions come back to hurt you
real bad when you try to understand Common Lisp. If you get it right in
the C world, the Common Lisp way is just a matter of delaying some of the
operations, and a difference in timing is not a fundamental difference
that should cause any sort of difficulty in understanding. Therefore, if
someone has problems understanding the Common Lisp way and compare to how
different it is from the C way, must be assumed to be ignorant of the C
way, as well. The same probably goes for Java and C++, but I have not
had any direct contact with people who have been led as much astray by
these languages and their runtime environments, so I would only speculate
and extrapolate, and this is the subject of research, not opinionating.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <7kg7u9e9.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * Joe Marshall
> | (In C, a missing function reference, if you can generate one, usually
> | ends up with the processor attempting to execute data. [...])
>
> It is quite easy to produce binaries with dangling function references --
> just compile it with a different version of the dynamically linked/shared
> object libraries. The program loader and linkage editor will then most
> likely croak on you when the program is attempted loaded by a process,
> but you could conceivably have redirected the function call to a debugger
> that would break at this point just like Common Lisp environments do.
Yeah, but try doing that on *purpose*. One stellar advantage of
Common Lisp is that you can run the parts of the program that exist
without having to define umpteen million stub functions for the parts
that don't exist yet. In languages like C++ or Java you often want to
use an abstract interface, then you have to implement *every* damn one
of the members before you can try *any* of them.
public non-smoking vegetarian Foo getTheFoo (AbstractBar bar) {
throw new UnimplementedFunctionException ("Eventually....");
return null;
}
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <3DB819B8.2070106@web.de>
Joe Marshall wrote:
> One stellar advantage of
> Common Lisp is that you can run the parts of the program that exist
> without having to define umpteen million stub functions for the parts
> that don't exist yet. In languages like C++ or Java you often want to
> use an abstract interface, then you have to implement *every* damn one
> of the members before you can try *any* of them.
If you want to avoid that (and need to program in Java for some reason)
you should try the Eclipse IDE for Java (http://www.eclipse.org). It
allows you to run Java code even if the corresponding class cannot be
compiled completely. (I recall that someone is writing a Common Lisp
plugin for Eclipse... ;)
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, ···@ccs.neu.edu says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> > No I guess I wasn't warned. I'm here to try and grasp understanding of
> > why it looks different. I don't understand the concept of why in Java we
> > create .class files, in C++ you create .exe files, but yet in Lisp you
> > just enter the functions in a "Listener".
>
> Before a program can run, the various components of it have to be
> linked together. The operating system usually provides an extremely
> primitive linking mechanism for OS calls, and perhaps it provides a
> primitive dynamic linking mechanism for calling library functions.
> The linker in the OS requires that the linkable components be
> described in a particular way, for instance a.out, coff, ELF, and PE
> (pecoff) are common formats. In Windows, DLL and EXE files are in PE
> format.
>
> C and C++ produce files that rely solely upon the OS linking
> mechanism. (Or they can produce `object' files that can be combined
> by an off-line linker.)
>
> Java defines a `virtual machine' that abstracts away the operating
> system. The JVM has a much more powerful linker built into it, and
> Java .class files are the input to it.
>
> In Lisp, linking is delayed until the last possible moment: just
> before a function is called. (Indirection through the symbol function
> cell is semantically equivalent to linking.) In addition, the data
> structures used to link (the symbols) are available to the program
> (this is sort of emulated by the `reflection' mechanisms in Java).
> There is an interactive interface where you can enter code fragments,
> compile and link them on the fly, and execute them. Finally, Lisp has
> a more flexible model for handling partially linked code. (In C, a
> missing function reference, if you can generate one, usually ends up
> with the processor attempting to execute data. In Java, an exception
> is thrown, but unless the user catches and handles it, the program is
> exited. In Lisp, control is returned to the user.)
>
> > And if you close the window, then you have to enter the functions
> > all over again.
>
> You can't type interactively to the C or Java linker, so you *must*
> have your functions in a file. If you put your Lisp functions in a
> file, they'll be saved, but no one is forcing you to do that. (Using
> Emacs as a front end to the Lisp process is good idea.)
>
Thankyou thankyou!
This is sort of what I have been looking for all along. I don't
completely understand it, but it gives me a *feel* for what is going on.
Now I know what I need to further understand, and this fills the big
grey area for me.
For all the abusive people, this is an example of a *nice* reply!
:)
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message news:<··························@news.adl.ihug.com.au>...
> In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, ···@ccs.neu.edu says...
> > Before a program can run, the various components of it have to be
[snip]
> > C and C++ produce files that rely solely upon the OS linking
> > mechanism.
[snip]
> > Java defines a `virtual machine' that abstracts away the operating
> > system.
[snip]
> > In Lisp, linking is delayed until the last possible moment: just
> > before a function is called.
[snip][snip][snip]
> Thankyou thankyou!
> This is sort of what I have been looking for all along. I don't
> completely understand it, but it gives me a *feel* for what is going on.
> Now I know what I need to further understand, and this fills the big
> grey area for me.
This is, I think, your problem. I fail to understand how you can post
something like the above statement. "I don't understand it, but you've
been nice to me" (or atleast haven't used any words that I may
misinterpret as an insult), therefore it is a good answer. The answer
was a good one, but it is useless if you don't understand it. Why do
you want to get a "*feel*" of what is going on? Why don't you apply
something like: "Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and
study harder." ? If you are so good at Java and have studied it
formally, then you should already know about the need for JVM, why the
.class files and their CAFEBABEs are used.
> For all the abusive people, this is an example of a *nice* reply!
> :)
I've spent the last 1.5 hrs or so, reading only this post, and from
what I've observed, you drew first blood. Erik is of the belief that
if someone makes a mistake, he (or she, as in you case) shouldn't be
coddled but rapped on the fingers. He has said elsewhere that being
soft on big mistakes only exarcebates the situation because the novice
does not realize the import of what she has done. You took insult to
his message where he refers to cockroaches etc. (He has also pointed
that you need to improve your reading comprehension skills). When I
read that post of his, I found no insult in it, implied or otherwise
(that's probably because I am not a woman). Cockroaches, cows, and
sheep learn from their mistakes, and therefore, we being the most
superior species on the planet purely because of our intellectual
capacity (there is some evidence to the contrary on this thread
though) should learn from our mistakes.
Vijay L
"Vijay L" <······@lycos.com> wrote in message
·································@posting.google.com...
> I've spent the last 1.5 hrs or so, reading only this post, and from
> what I've observed, you drew first blood. Erik is of the belief that
> if someone makes a mistake, he (or she, as in you case) shouldn't be
I do not think he said that. It is if someone makes a mistake, is helpfully
corrected and either does not learn (persisting in the mistake) or becomes
beligerent because they are corrected, THEN they should be rapped.
Mistakes are the default results, mistakes happen all the time.
> coddled but rapped on the fingers. He has said elsewhere that being
> soft on big mistakes only exarcebates the situation because the novice
Again it is not soft on the big mistakes, but soft on the behaviour that makes
big mistakes.
--
Wade
Email: (format nil ···@~A.~A" "whumeniu" "telus" "net")
"Wade Humeniuk" <····@nospam.nowhere> wrote in message news:<·······················@news1.telusplanet.net>...
> "Vijay L" <······@lycos.com> wrote in message
> ·································@posting.google.com...
> I do not think he said that. It is if someone makes a mistake, is helpfully
> corrected and either does not learn (persisting in the mistake) or becomes
> beligerent because they are corrected, THEN they should be rapped.
>
> Mistakes are the default results, mistakes happen all the time.
>
> > coddled but rapped on the fingers. He has said elsewhere that being
> > soft on big mistakes only exarcebates the situation because the novice
>
> Again it is not soft on the big mistakes, but soft on the behaviour that makes
> big mistakes.
I stand corrected. I apologize. Thanks Wade.
Vijay L
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
······@lycos.com says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message news:<··························@news.adl.ihug.com.au>...
> > In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, ···@ccs.neu.edu says...
> > > Before a program can run, the various components of it have to be
> [snip]
> > > C and C++ produce files that rely solely upon the OS linking
> > > mechanism.
> [snip]
> > > Java defines a `virtual machine' that abstracts away the operating
> > > system.
> [snip]
> > > In Lisp, linking is delayed until the last possible moment: just
> > > before a function is called.
> [snip][snip][snip]
>
> > Thankyou thankyou!
> > This is sort of what I have been looking for all along. I don't
> > completely understand it, but it gives me a *feel* for what is going on.
> > Now I know what I need to further understand, and this fills the big
> > grey area for me.
>
> This is, I think, your problem. I fail to understand how you can post
> something like the above statement. "I don't understand it, but you've
> been nice to me" (or atleast haven't used any words that I may
> misinterpret as an insult), therefore it is a good answer.
Okay, I'll explain to you in detail: yes I do understand it to a degree.
But I don't understand it to the depth that I would like, however it
provides an explanation that I needed to help differentiate between the
languages.
> The answer
> was a good one, but it is useless if you don't understand it. Why do
> you want to get a "*feel*" of what is going on? Why don't you apply
> something like: "Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and
> study harder." ? If you are so good at Java and have studied it
> formally,
Who said I was *good* at java?
> then you should already know about the need for JVM, why the
> .class files and their CAFEBABEs are used.
of course I know about JVM, and .class files etc. However I don't
totally understand the explanation about lisp (which is hardly expected,
since I have only just started learning the language), and how "linking
is delayed until the last possible moment". However it is enough for me
to realise *what* is happening, even though I don't understand *how* it
is happening.
>
> > For all the abusive people, this is an example of a *nice* reply!
> > :)
>
> I've spent the last 1.5 hrs or so, reading only this post, and from
> what I've observed, you drew first blood.
Excuse me, I *still* don't know what I've supposedly done that is
sooooooo bad. All I know is that I asked a newbie question and got
attacked.
> Erik is of the belief that
> if someone makes a mistake, he (or she, as in you case) shouldn't be
> coddled but rapped on the fingers.
Oh this is just crap. They outlawed corporal punishment years ago.
> He has said elsewhere that being
> soft on big mistakes only exarcebates the situation because the novice
> does not realize the import of what she has done.
What the....?
Just where has he got this shit from?
> You took insult to
> his message where he refers to cockroaches etc. (He has also pointed
> that you need to improve your reading comprehension skills).
A spelling mistake is not a crime!
> When I
> read that post of his, I found no insult in it, implied or otherwise
> (that's probably because I am not a woman). Cockroaches, cows, and
> sheep learn from their mistakes,
er......I don't know about cockroaches and cows, but sheep are very very
dumb. They don't learn anything, they just follow each other. Sounds
like some of the people who *follow* erik.
> and therefore, we being the most
> superior species on the planet purely because of our intellectual
> capacity (there is some evidence to the contrary on this thread
> though) should learn from our mistakes.
I believe though you should *allow* people to learn from their mistakes,
you don't force them too.
However, I'm still at my wit's end of these *mistakes* I'm supposed to
have made.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
> ······@lycos.com says...
> > He has also pointed that you need to improve your reading
> > comprehension skills.
> A spelling mistake is not a crime!
Now this is priceless.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, ···@cartan.de says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> > In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
> > ······@lycos.com says...
>
> > > He has also pointed that you need to improve your reading
> > > comprehension skills.
>
> > A spelling mistake is not a crime!
>
> Now this is priceless.
>
oh whoops. Okay yeah, I'm sorry, I did stuff up there. I guess with so
many posts in this thread I'm getting mixed up. I read them first, but
then when I reply I just skim through the posts.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| I guess with so many posts in this thread I'm getting mixed up. I read
| them first, but then when I reply I just skim through the posts.
As if we needed to learn that you are unable to concentrate on what you
do at any given time, you give us this invaluable information. Amazing.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
arien wrote:
>
> > The answer
> > was a good one, but it is useless if you don't understand it. Why do
> > you want to get a "*feel*" of what is going on? Why don't you apply
> > something like: "Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and
> > study harder." ? If you are so good at Java and have studied it
> > formally,
>
> Who said I was *good* at java?
And here I thought it was safe to conclude that someone who boasted
about achieving High Distinctions in Java would be good at it. I guess
Down Under, they hand out High Distinctions to anyone who takes the
course.
> > > For all the abusive people, this is an example of a *nice* reply!
> > > :)
> >
> > I've spent the last 1.5 hrs or so, reading only this post, and from
> > what I've observed, you drew first blood.
>
> Excuse me, I *still* don't know what I've supposedly done that is
> sooooooo bad. All I know is that I asked a newbie question and got
> attacked.
Someone suggested you read this article:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
What you did wrong will be quickly made apparent. If you're pressed for
time, you should read the Introduction as well as the section "On Not
Reacting Like a Loser". If you have time, read the whole thing. You'll
learn a lot and you'll understand why you assume you have been attacked.
The document was written for people like you.
> > Erik is of the belief that
> > if someone makes a mistake, he (or she, as in you case) shouldn't be
> > coddled but rapped on the fingers.
>
> Oh this is just crap. They outlawed corporal punishment years ago.
You should think twice before equating an analogy with real life. In
the Real World� there is a difference.
> > He has said elsewhere that being
> > soft on big mistakes only exarcebates the situation because the novice
> > does not realize the import of what she has done.
>
> What the....?
> Just where has he got this shit from?
What kind of shit do you believe?
> > You took insult to
> > his message where he refers to cockroaches etc. (He has also pointed
> > that you need to improve your reading comprehension skills).
>
> A spelling mistake is not a crime!
You need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
> > When I
> > read that post of his, I found no insult in it, implied or otherwise
> > (that's probably because I am not a woman). Cockroaches, cows, and
> > sheep learn from their mistakes,
>
> er......I don't know about cockroaches and cows, but sheep are very very
> dumb.
I guess you'd know.
> > and therefore, we being the most
> > superior species on the planet purely because of our intellectual
> > capacity (there is some evidence to the contrary on this thread
> > though) should learn from our mistakes.
>
> I believe though you should *allow* people to learn from their mistakes,
> you don't force them too.
> However, I'm still at my wit's end of these *mistakes* I'm supposed to
> have made.
I suppose all you can do at this point is to throw your hands up in the
air and shout "But I just don't get it!" Don't bother taking the time
to try and understand what has happened here. It's likely too in-depth
and over your head... and it wouldn't be a "yes" or "no" answer.
In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
·····@invalid.dom says...
> arien wrote:
> >
> > > The answer
> > > was a good one, but it is useless if you don't understand it. Why do
> > > you want to get a "*feel*" of what is going on? Why don't you apply
> > > something like: "Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and
> > > study harder." ? If you are so good at Java and have studied it
> > > formally,
> >
> > Who said I was *good* at java?
>
> And here I thought it was safe to conclude that someone who boasted
> about achieving High Distinctions in Java would be good at it. I guess
> Down Under, they hand out High Distinctions to anyone who takes the
> course.
Ok. I will pause to explain in great detail, seeing as you couldn't
figure it out yourself. Yes, I was very good at learning Java. I scored
High Distinctions in both subjects involving Java. However, I still
believe that there is a lot more to learn about Java, and I believe that
just because I did well in university, this doesn't automatically make
me *good* at Java overall. I'm sure all you proud lispers would agree
that it took a long time to become *good* at lisp.
So your assumption is wrong. I'm not so niave that I think I am good,
just because I got a High Distinction in a couple of courses. Further to
this, I did not *boast*. I stated it to those who were calling me
*stupid*. And no, they don't just hand out HD's to anyone. Only
something like 6% ever get a HD, and the rest of the results are graded
according to that.
So maybe you should take care before making assumptions in the future.
>
> > > > For all the abusive people, this is an example of a *nice* reply!
> > > > :)
> > >
> > > I've spent the last 1.5 hrs or so, reading only this post, and from
> > > what I've observed, you drew first blood.
> >
> > Excuse me, I *still* don't know what I've supposedly done that is
> > sooooooo bad. All I know is that I asked a newbie question and got
> > attacked.
>
> Someone suggested you read this article:
>
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> What you did wrong will be quickly made apparent. If you're pressed for
> time, you should read the Introduction as well as the section "On Not
> Reacting Like a Loser". If you have time, read the whole thing. You'll
> learn a lot and you'll understand why you assume you have been attacked.
> The document was written for people like you.
Oh, and this was written by a hacker. And you believe that this
justifies everyone's behaviour?
I have seen many people cross-post, post OT etc. The correct behaviour
to this is to politely inform them that this isn't particularly desired.
If the person continues, then you just simply ignore them.
However the article also mentions that posting elementary questions is
desired either. Now that could only come from a hacker. This is total
crap, as on usenet, there is *always* going to be someone who knows less
than you. Therefore, by this definition, *every* post is going to be an
elementary question. If someone finds the question a little too trivial,
then the correct behaviour is to ignore it.
>
> > > Erik is of the belief that
> > > if someone makes a mistake, he (or she, as in you case) shouldn't be
> > > coddled but rapped on the fingers.
> >
> > Oh this is just crap. They outlawed corporal punishment years ago.
>
> You should think twice before equating an analogy with real life. In
> the Real World� there is a difference.
You missed the point. There is a reason they outlawed coporal
punishment, and that is cuz it doesn't work. The point of this is
negative reinforcement *never* works. I am a horse rider, and this can
be proved in horses.
>
> > > He has said elsewhere that being
> > > soft on big mistakes only exarcebates the situation because the novice
> > > does not realize the import of what she has done.
Ok, I'll explain. A horse goes past a tractor. The horse is a little
frightened a shies. If we follow Naggers principles, we would beat that
horse for shying "because the [horse] does not realize the import of
what it has done." In reality what happens is that the horse has
confirmed to itself that that tractor was really bad because he got hurt
(by the beating). Next time he goes past that tractor, the horse will be
more scared, and if you beat the horse again, then it will reinforce
even more that the tractor is bad. In some cases, you will get a horse
that will just resign itself to being bashed. These poor tormented
horses live life unhappily. This is an example of Naggers principle.
On the other hand, there is positive reinforcement (the correct way of
training horses). When the horse shies at the tractor, you just leave it
alone. The horse thinks, oh that wasn't so bad after all. Then next time
the horse walks past a tractor he doesn't shy as bad, and the tractor
still doesn't hurt him. The horse *learns* that the tractor is okay.
This is an example of positive reinforcement, and the correct way for
teaching kids, teenagers, adults.
> >
> > What the....?
> > Just where has he got this shit from?
>
> What kind of shit do you believe?
>
> > > You took insult to
> > > his message where he refers to cockroaches etc. (He has also pointed
> > > that you need to improve your reading comprehension skills).
> >
> > A spelling mistake is not a crime!
>
> You need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
Ok, I agree, I fucked up here :)
>
> > > When I
> > > read that post of his, I found no insult in it, implied or otherwise
> > > (that's probably because I am not a woman). Cockroaches, cows, and
> > > sheep learn from their mistakes,
> >
> > er......I don't know about cockroaches and cows, but sheep are very very
> > dumb.
>
> I guess you'd know.
I only know because my parents are farmers. Sheep are incredibly stupid.
However, I am extrememly experienced with horses (I used to work for
Colin Hayes - Lindsay Park, before I went to university). I refer you to
my explanation above regarding the comment that "cockroaches, cows and
sheep learn from their mistakes". Think about what I wrote above, and
*how* they learn from their mistakes.
>
> > > and therefore, we being the most
> > > superior species on the planet purely because of our intellectual
> > > capacity (there is some evidence to the contrary on this thread
> > > though) should learn from our mistakes.
> >
> > I believe though you should *allow* people to learn from their mistakes,
> > you don't force them too.
> > However, I'm still at my wit's end of these *mistakes* I'm supposed to
> > have made.
>
> I suppose all you can do at this point is to throw your hands up in the
> air and shout "But I just don't get it!" Don't bother taking the time
> to try and understand what has happened here. It's likely too in-depth
> and over your head... and it wouldn't be a "yes" or "no" answer.
Oh, I'm getting it. I'm learning exactly what this group is about. I
will only become more powerful in my arguments as I learn more about the
people in this group. What you guys have done is wrong, Erik's behaviour
in particular is shocking, and above I have provided the evidence to
why. The more you continue to argue that this *corporal punishment*
style is correct, the more you display your old-fashioned, cruel
behaviour.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
> > > > The answer
> > > > was a good one, but it is useless if you don't understand it. Why do
> > > > you want to get a "*feel*" of what is going on? Why don't you apply
> > > > something like: "Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and
> > > > study harder." ? If you are so good at Java and have studied it
> > > > formally,
> > >
> > > Who said I was *good* at java?
> >
> > And here I thought it was safe to conclude that someone who boasted
> > about achieving High Distinctions in Java would be good at it. I guess
> > Down Under, they hand out High Distinctions to anyone who takes the
> > course.
>
> Ok. I will pause to explain in great detail, seeing as you couldn't
> figure it out yourself. Yes, I was very good at learning Java. I scored
> High Distinctions in both subjects involving Java. However, I still
> believe that there is a lot more to learn about Java, and I believe that
> just because I did well in university, this doesn't automatically make
> me *good* at Java overall.
Thanks for the great detail. I stand corrected. High Distinctions
doesn't imply that you're good at a subject.
> > Someone suggested you read this article:
> >
> > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> >
> > What you did wrong will be quickly made apparent. If you're pressed for
> > time, you should read the Introduction as well as the section "On Not
> > Reacting Like a Loser". If you have time, read the whole thing. You'll
> > learn a lot and you'll understand why you assume you have been attacked.
> > The document was written for people like you.
>
> Oh, and this was written by a hacker.
Before you denigrate the term, perhaps you ought to understand what it
means in the context of the author of that article:
http://tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html#what_is
To summarize:
"There is a community, a shared culture, of expert programmers and
networking wizards that traces its history back through decades to the
first time-sharing minicomputers and the earliest ARPAnet experiments.
The members of this culture originated the term `hacker'. Hackers built
the Internet. Hackers made the Unix operating system what it is today.
Hackers run Usenet. Hackers make the World Wide Web work. If you are
part of this culture, if you have contributed to it and other people in
it know who you are and call you a hacker, you're a hacker."
That the term hacker includes expert programmers should be more than
relevant in this newsgroup and ought to give you pause for thought.
> And you believe that this justifies everyone's behaviour?
Nobody needs to justify anything to you. However, if you are curious as
to why you aren't receiving the kinds of responses you seek, you should
consider yourself as a likely source of the problem.
> However the article also mentions that posting elementary questions is
> desired either. Now that could only come from a hacker. This is total
> crap, as on usenet, there is *always* going to be someone who knows less
> than you. Therefore, by this definition, *every* post is going to be an
> elementary question.
Now that could only come from an Australian. But how about we just skip
the ad hominems and focus on the arguments at hand? In answer to your
unasked question, I quote from that document:
"What we are, unapologetically, is hostile to people who seem to be
unwilling to think or to do their own homework before asking questions."
As long as you're willing to think, nobody's going to mind you asking
questions. You have received some very helpful replies here, have you
not? Perhaps you should revisit those questions you asked and see how
they differ from your recent postings. For example:
- you ask a question
- somebody replies that you should visit a web page to find the answer
- you reply criticizing the help you received, stating that it should
have been summarized in a yes or no answer
This would demonstrate an unwillingness to learn and rudeness to the
person who attempted to help you. It also implies that you are lazy
because you're unwilling to read a web page and learn a thing or two.
> If someone finds the question a little too trivial,
> then the correct behaviour is to ignore it.
If you find an answer a little too insulting, then the correct behavior
is to ignore it and not whine about how insulting you found it.
> > > > Erik is of the belief that
> > > > if someone makes a mistake, he (or she, as in you case) shouldn't be
> > > > coddled but rapped on the fingers.
> > >
> > > Oh this is just crap. They outlawed corporal punishment years ago.
> >
> > You should think twice before equating an analogy with real life. In
> > the Real World� there is a difference.
>
> You missed the point. There is a reason they outlawed coporal
> punishment, and that is cuz it doesn't work. The point of this is
> negative reinforcement *never* works. I am a horse rider, and this can
> be proved in horses.
First of all, using a particular set of words in a newsgroup is NOT
corporal punishment. Aren't you taking this analogy a little too far?
Secondly, corporal punishment has done wonders for Signapore's crime
rates.
> > > > He has said elsewhere that being
> > > > soft on big mistakes only exarcebates the situation because the novice
> > > > does not realize the import of what she has done.
>
> Ok, I'll explain. A horse goes past a tractor. The horse is a little
> frightened a shies. If we follow Naggers principles, we would beat that
> horse for shying "because the [horse] does not realize the import of
> what it has done."
You're take this analogy to an insane extreme! Nobody has beat you up
or inflicted any violence upon you. Or are you so deluded that you
equate a negative comment with physical violence?
> The more you continue to argue that this *corporal punishment*
> style is correct, the more you display your old-fashioned, cruel
> behaviour.
Bend over and expose your buttocks. Someone hand me the strap please?
Brian Palmer <·····@invalid.dom> writes:
> As long as you're willing to think, nobody's going to mind you
> asking questions. You have received some very helpful replies here,
> have you not? Perhaps you should revisit those questions you asked
> and see how they differ from your recent postings. For example:
>
> - you ask a question
> - somebody replies that you should visit a web page to find the answer
> - you reply criticizing the help you received, stating that it should
> have been summarized in a yes or no answer
>
> This would demonstrate an unwillingness to learn and rudeness to the
> person who attempted to help you. It also implies that you are lazy
> because you're unwilling to read a web page and learn a thing or
> two.
Obviously not lazy enough to think 'ah fuck it' and stop digging though.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
·····@invalid.dom says...
> arien wrote:
> > > > > The answer
> > > > > was a good one, but it is useless if you don't understand it. Why do
> > > > > you want to get a "*feel*" of what is going on? Why don't you apply
> > > > > something like: "Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and
> > > > > study harder." ? If you are so good at Java and have studied it
> > > > > formally,
> > > >
> > > > Who said I was *good* at java?
> > >
> > > And here I thought it was safe to conclude that someone who boasted
> > > about achieving High Distinctions in Java would be good at it. I guess
> > > Down Under, they hand out High Distinctions to anyone who takes the
> > > course.
> >
> > Ok. I will pause to explain in great detail, seeing as you couldn't
> > figure it out yourself. Yes, I was very good at learning Java. I scored
> > High Distinctions in both subjects involving Java. However, I still
> > believe that there is a lot more to learn about Java, and I believe that
> > just because I did well in university, this doesn't automatically make
> > me *good* at Java overall.
>
> Thanks for the great detail. I stand corrected. High Distinctions
> doesn't imply that you're good at a subject.
No, I'm just not stuck up like some other people around here. I believe
to be truly good at Java, then I would expect years of programming
experience in the language. I'm sorry that you don't understand that. At
least you could have refrained from denigrating me.
>
> > > Someone suggested you read this article:
> > >
> > > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> > >
> > > What you did wrong will be quickly made apparent. If you're pressed for
> > > time, you should read the Introduction as well as the section "On Not
> > > Reacting Like a Loser". If you have time, read the whole thing. You'll
> > > learn a lot and you'll understand why you assume you have been attacked.
> > > The document was written for people like you.
> >
> > Oh, and this was written by a hacker.
>
> Before you denigrate the term, perhaps you ought to understand what it
> means in the context of the author of that article:
>
> http://tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html#what_is
>
> To summarize:
>
<summary snipped>
I have provided the definition of Hacker as taken from the Oxford
dictionary, in another post.
> That the term hacker includes expert programmers should be more than
> relevant in this newsgroup and ought to give you pause for thought.
I am not an expert programmer and have never claimed to be.
>
> > And you believe that this justifies everyone's behaviour?
>
> Nobody needs to justify anything to you. However, if you are curious as
> to why you aren't receiving the kinds of responses you seek, you should
> consider yourself as a likely source of the problem.
I have received the kinds of responses I seek. But there are also others
here who choose to be nasty. That's not my problem.
>
> > However the article also mentions that posting elementary questions is
> > desired either. Now that could only come from a hacker. This is total
> > crap, as on usenet, there is *always* going to be someone who knows less
> > than you. Therefore, by this definition, *every* post is going to be an
> > elementary question.
>
> Now that could only come from an Australian. But how about we just skip
> the ad hominems and focus on the arguments at hand? In answer to your
> unasked question, I quote from that document:
>
> "What we are, unapologetically, is hostile to people who seem to be
> unwilling to think or to do their own homework before asking questions."
>
> As long as you're willing to think, nobody's going to mind you asking
> questions. You have received some very helpful replies here, have you
> not? Perhaps you should revisit those questions you asked and see how
> they differ from your recent postings. For example:
>
> - you ask a question
> - somebody replies that you should visit a web page to find the answer
> - you reply criticizing the help you received, stating that it should
> have been summarized in a yes or no answer
I have not criticised the helpful replies. I have only criticised the
rude responses. This is not an unwillingness to learn.
>
> This would demonstrate an unwillingness to learn and rudeness to the
> person who attempted to help you. It also implies that you are lazy
> because you're unwilling to read a web page and learn a thing or two.
No, it means I don't have enough time in the day to read all the sites
from end to end. However I have bookmarked them, and I will continue
referring to them.
>
> > If someone finds the question a little too trivial,
> > then the correct behaviour is to ignore it.
>
> If you find an answer a little too insulting, then the correct behavior
> is to ignore it and not whine about how insulting you found it.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
>
> > > > > Erik is of the belief that
> > > > > if someone makes a mistake, he (or she, as in you case) shouldn't be
> > > > > coddled but rapped on the fingers.
> > > >
> > > > Oh this is just crap. They outlawed corporal punishment years ago.
> > >
> > > You should think twice before equating an analogy with real life. In
> > > the Real World� there is a difference.
> >
> > You missed the point. There is a reason they outlawed coporal
> > punishment, and that is cuz it doesn't work. The point of this is
> > negative reinforcement *never* works. I am a horse rider, and this can
> > be proved in horses.
>
> First of all, using a particular set of words in a newsgroup is NOT
> corporal punishment. Aren't you taking this analogy a little too far?
> Secondly, corporal punishment has done wonders for Signapore's crime
> rates.
No, I'm not taking the analogy too far. The idea is to make you realise
*how* negative reinforcement doesn't work.
>
> > > > > He has said elsewhere that being
> > > > > soft on big mistakes only exarcebates the situation because the novice
> > > > > does not realize the import of what she has done.
> >
> > Ok, I'll explain. A horse goes past a tractor. The horse is a little
> > frightened a shies. If we follow Naggers principles, we would beat that
> > horse for shying "because the [horse] does not realize the import of
> > what it has done."
>
> You're take this analogy to an insane extreme! Nobody has beat you up
> or inflicted any violence upon you. Or are you so deluded that you
> equate a negative comment with physical violence?
But calling someone dumb, stupid, unthinking etc, is still negative
reinforment. Unfortunately, horses don't speak, so calling my horse dumb
has little affect. The analogy is not extreme, it is supposed to make
you realise that negativity doesn't work.
> > The more you continue to argue that this *corporal punishment*
> > style is correct, the more you display your old-fashioned, cruel
> > behaviour.
>
> Bend over and expose your buttocks. Someone hand me the strap please?
ooh, yes please :)
jk :)
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
>
> > That the term hacker includes expert programmers should be more than
> > relevant in this newsgroup and ought to give you pause for thought.
>
> I am not an expert programmer and have never claimed to be.
I'm not sure why you make this statement. Please re-read what I wrote.
> > > If someone finds the question a little too trivial,
> > > then the correct behaviour is to ignore it.
> >
> > If you find an answer a little too insulting, then the correct behavior
> > is to ignore it and not whine about how insulting you found it.
>
> Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
I'd tell you, but you'd never believe me.
> > > The more you continue to argue that this *corporal punishment*
> > > style is correct, the more you display your old-fashioned, cruel
> > > behaviour.
> >
> > Bend over and expose your buttocks. Someone hand me the strap please?
>
> ooh, yes please :)
Ha! I knew it!
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| This is an example of Naggers principle.
It is rather an example of your limited grasp of the world around you.
For instance, I expect people to think. Bringing up animals in order to
explain how to deal with you is an interesting approach to let me know
that I should not expect you to think.
| What you guys have done is wrong, Erik's behaviour in particular is
| shocking, and above I have provided the evidence to why.
Yes, my tactic does not work on animals. What I did not know was that
you were an animal. Therefore, I must apologize and instead give you
resounding applause for the amazing feats that animals can do these days.
Please bring my best compliments to your trainers. I did not realize they
could teach animals Java, yet, but I am always open to surprises. What
kind of animal are you? I would hazard a guess on a chimpanzee, as other
chimpanzees have managed to learn symbolic language.
The first clue that you were probably an animal should have been your
lack of a last name. I have never heard of any lab rats or chimpanzees
with last names.
| The more you continue to argue that this *corporal punishment* style is
| correct, the more you display your old-fashioned, cruel behaviour.
Again, I apologize. Had I known you were a chimpanzee or some other
trainable animal, I would certainly not have treated you as a human being.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> The first clue that you were probably an animal should have been your
> lack of a last name. I have never heard of any lab rats or chimpanzees
> with last names.
Well, there is Nim Chimsky.
http://www.who2.com/greatapes.html
http://wilmot.unh.edu/~jel/nova.html
On 31 Oct 2002 17:08:24 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> Please bring my best compliments to your trainers. I did not realize they
> could teach animals Java, yet, but I am always open to surprises. What
Chimpanzees even flew in space, why shouldn't be possible to teach them
Java? :) By the way, when Alan Shepard (Mercury Freedom 7, Apollo 14) was
asked why he was the first American in space, he answered that they had
probably run out of monkeys.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>> You took insult to
>> his message where he refers to cockroaches etc. (He has also pointed
>> that you need to improve your reading comprehension skills).
>
> A spelling mistake is not a crime!
Join the non sequitur club! We may not make sense, but we do like
pizza.
You really do need to work on your reading comprehension skills don't
you?
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
arien wrote:
> No I guess I wasn't warned. I'm here to try and grasp understanding of
> why it looks different. I don't understand the concept of why in Java we
> create .class files, in C++ you create .exe files, but yet in Lisp you
> just enter the functions in a "Listener". And if you close the window,
> then you have to enter the functions all over again.
Java programs run in the "Java Virtual Machine" (which is really a
bytecode interpreter). Presumably, the .class files contain the
bytecode instructions which are what the interpreter can understand.
C++ compiles to native code, which is why you get a .exe file. (I assume
that you are using Windows. On Unix/Linux/etc the file extension is
irrelevant, and executable files usually don't have any extension.)
Actually, there is no reason that Java has to compile to bytecode, and
C++ needs to compile to native code. This is just how the languages
have been implemented. Indeed, I seem to remember hearing something
about a native code Java compiler...
Now, Lisp has its own environment. What you refer to as a "Listener" is
better thought of as a "Read-Eval-Print" loop. That name describes
exactly what it is doing. It reads an expression, evaluates it (which
may change the state of the environment), and then prints the result.
You might consider starting this environment to be the equivalent of
starting up a computer. You wouldn't expect open programs to come up
again if you turn off your computer, and then turn it back on again, right?
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:57:03 +0930, arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
wrote:
> why it looks different. I don't understand the concept of why in Java we
> create .class files, in C++ you create .exe files, but yet in Lisp you
> just enter the functions in a "Listener". And if you close the window,
> then you have to enter the functions all over again.
Most Common Lisp development environment for Windows, including the one you
said in another post you are using (LispWorks?), can both create .EXE files
and preserve the state changes to the environment due to forms entered at
the listener. The language specification doesn't prevent implementations
from providing such features. What was your point?
Here are a few concepts you may look for in your development environment's
documentation: running an editor, saving an image or world, delivering
applications.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:22:29 +0100, Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
wrote:
> Here are a few concepts you may look for in your development environment's
> documentation: running an editor, saving an image or world, delivering
> applications.
Or dumping an image/world.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <3DB7E810.9060603@web.de>
arien wrote:
> no, not close-minded, just exasperated! I never said I don't like the
> language, I'm just finding it harder to learn.
Lisp can be hard to learn, especially when you are used to other totally
different languages. I had the same experience some months ago. (Before
this, I had been using Java for seven years.) You might want to take a
look at http://www.pascalcostanza.de/lisp/guide.html to see what I have
learned.
All the best,
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey31y6gc72d.fsf@cley.com>
* Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Lisp can be hard to learn, especially when you are used to other
> totally different languages. I had the same experience some months
> ago. (Before this, I had been using Java for seven years.) You might
> want to take a look at http://www.pascalcostanza.de/lisp/guide.html to
> see what I have learned.
When I learnt Lisp, one of the things that was said was that Lisp is
(or can be) hard to learn *if you have learnt another programming
language first*.
--tim
In article <················@web.de>, ········@web.de says...
> arien wrote:
>
> > no, not close-minded, just exasperated! I never said I don't like the
> > language, I'm just finding it harder to learn.
>
> Lisp can be hard to learn, especially when you are used to other totally
> different languages. I had the same experience some months ago. (Before
> this, I had been using Java for seven years.) You might want to take a
> look at http://www.pascalcostanza.de/lisp/guide.html to see what I have
> learned.
>
>
> All the best,
> Pascal
>
>
Cool, thanks. I will have a look.
(Just letting you know so that I don't get abuse for *ignoring* you)
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <3DBD1675.4020001@web.de>
arien wrote:
>>You might want to take a
>>look at http://www.pascalcostanza.de/lisp/guide.html to see what I have
>>learned.
>
> Cool, thanks. I will have a look.
> (Just letting you know so that I don't get abuse for *ignoring* you)
Don't worry.
I have learned from the past few months that c.l.l consists of (at
least) three groups of people.
(a) The so-called "feel-good" people who want to be nice to each other
when communicating.
(b) The "professional" people who want to concentrate on conveying pure
facts and arguments.
The "professional" people think that making strong statements about
other people's arguments is ok because it's only the counter-argument
that counts (or rather the exchange of arguments). To them, saying
things like "your argument is fucked up" is ok, and they ask people to
recognize that they don't simultaneously mean that "you are fucked up".
The "feel-good" people think that statements like "your argument is
fucked up" can still be misunderstood as an insult and that, as a
result, such statements potentially block effective communication. They
think that being nice to each other helps to get arguments across more
effectively by avoiding that people feel insulted.
The professional people think that people who are nice to each other
risk that the truth may not be spoken, because the truth can sometimes
be brutal. The feel-good people don't think so.
(c) Some people don't care one way or the other. ;-)
I belong to group (a).
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
So being "professional" excludes "feel-good" or pleasant communication? :-)
Well, here's my take on it.
A good communicator is able to transmit knowledge to receptive parties
*successfully*.
The moment that the communication becomes offensive, egotistical, arrogant
or condisending, well, it's a waste of time. Nobody is going to be
receptive to that. I've found that people are not receptive to being
intellectually crushed either. And if that falls into the "professional"
category, then I think that category needs a new name.
On the other hand I've seen some so-called receptive parties on the group
that are a waste of time (trolls).
Hey ho.
--
Justin Johnson
"Pascal Costanza" <········@web.de> wrote in message
·····················@web.de...
> arien wrote:
>
> >>You might want to take a
> >>look at http://www.pascalcostanza.de/lisp/guide.html to see what I have
> >>learned.
> >
> > Cool, thanks. I will have a look.
> > (Just letting you know so that I don't get abuse for *ignoring* you)
>
> Don't worry.
>
> I have learned from the past few months that c.l.l consists of (at
> least) three groups of people.
>
> (a) The so-called "feel-good" people who want to be nice to each other
> when communicating.
>
> (b) The "professional" people who want to concentrate on conveying pure
> facts and arguments.
>
> The "professional" people think that making strong statements about
> other people's arguments is ok because it's only the counter-argument
> that counts (or rather the exchange of arguments). To them, saying
> things like "your argument is fucked up" is ok, and they ask people to
> recognize that they don't simultaneously mean that "you are fucked up".
>
> The "feel-good" people think that statements like "your argument is
> fucked up" can still be misunderstood as an insult and that, as a
> result, such statements potentially block effective communication. They
> think that being nice to each other helps to get arguments across more
> effectively by avoiding that people feel insulted.
>
> The professional people think that people who are nice to each other
> risk that the truth may not be spoken, because the truth can sometimes
> be brutal. The feel-good people don't think so.
>
> (c) Some people don't care one way or the other. ;-)
>
>
> I belong to group (a).
>
>
> Pascal
>
> --
> Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
> ···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
> http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
>
* Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>
| I have learned from the past few months that c.l.l consists of (at least)
| three groups of people.
And typically, you have managed to misrepresent your opposition.
| The "professional" people think that making strong statements about other
| people's arguments is ok because it's only the counter-argument that
| counts (or rather the exchange of arguments). To them, saying things
| like "your argument is fucked up" is ok, and they ask people to recognize
| that they don't simultaneously mean that "you are fucked up".
Nobody says "your argument is fucked up", you dimwit. The argument is
countered calmly and cleanly without undue emotions either way. Then, if
some feel-good jerk has never learned to deal with technical arguments,
goes bananas and attacks people for not helping him feel good about his
mistake. That you have to invent this position so you can argue against
something that is easy to argue against is just the kind of evidence that
I use to conclude that you are unable to remember events accurately.
| The professional people think that people who are nice to each other risk
| that the truth may not be spoken, because the truth can sometimes be
| brutal. The feel-good people don't think so.
You never speak the truth when it would not be nice, yet you feel free to
speak lies when you feel that that would hurt people you do not like.
The fact is that you feel-good jerks disregard truth because your feelings
weigh more than facts and truth.
The distinction between the two groups are better described as follows:
A People whose personal feelings are fragile and of primary importance and
who attack others (or defend such attacks) when their personal feelings
are hurt. These people care mostly about their personal feelings, even
when they are out in public. Many of these are profoundly egoistic and
self-absorbed, to the point where nobody else's feelings could possibly
matter. It is therefore OK to people in this group to attack those who
they think have hurt their feelings.
B People who regard the truth as fragile and in need of constant vigilance
to protect and maintain because we will always be presented with barrages
of falsehoods and outright lies, and who therefore try to educate people
and correct mistakes. These people care mostly about not spreading more
mistakes and to the extent it is definitely known, avoiding re-opening
long debates on why things are so. Now, the kicker: These people /feel/
a great concern for truth and knowledge, a passion for what the community
knows and agrees to. When you post falsehoods to such a person, you have
hurt /his/ feelings. This fact is incomprehensible to people in group A
because their feelings have never been about anything but their very own
selves.
Now, the result of the immature A meeting the mature B is that when B
corrects a mistake made by an A, the A whines that B has hurts his
feelings. A is unable to grasp that his posting a falsehood has hurt B's
feelings, and therefore does not understand that B could say anything to
correct him. Who are correct, anyway, thinks the A, and why does B not
get a life? It was only a mistake/lie/misrepresentation, and not like
anybody got hurt. The A's are so unable to grasp that people can be
concerned with more than their personal selves that very few A's /ever/
understand why B's react in ways that they associated with hurt pride or
something when they think they have not hurt anyone. The A's are so damn
sure that they have not hurt anyone that they will defend themselves from
any claim to the contrary, even lashing out at those who say so. The B's
read this as "yes, /of course/ my lies and misrepresentations and posting
inflammatory falsehoods was intentional".
The person in group A will therefore launch a personal attack on the
person who corrected his mistake. What the people in group A do not
understand is that there never were any personal attacks in the factual
correction. (Again, nobody says "your argument is fucked up". This is
the kind of thing that people who feel too much have to invent to make
their feelings feel reasonable and just when in fact they are not.)
Some people do not care very much about anything and cannot for the life
of them figure out why anyone would get so worked up about truth or
knowledge. Some people do not understand how so emotionally immature
people as those in group A ever got out of kindergarten, but there is
some reason to believe that the A's were overly encouraged to protect
their own feelings, and were never encouraged to feel a passion for any
field of knowledge.
In any case, the feel-good people in group A do not actually consider
feelings to be the most important thing to protect. If they did, they
would be able to understand the feelings of others. The only thing that
matters to the feel-good people is their /personal/ feelings. Truth does
not even enter the picture, as the fact that nobody says "your argument
is fucked up" does not /register/ with the feel-good jerks.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Nobody says "your argument is fucked up", you dimwit. The argument is
> countered calmly and cleanly without undue emotions either way.
The following is for entertainment purposes only. Do not taunt Happy Fun
Ball.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L20F22342
"Searched Groups for fuck OR shit OR ass OR insane OR stupid OR idiot OR
retard OR crap group:comp.lang.lisp author:naggum. Results 1 - 50 of
about 970. Search took 2.56 seconds."
Quite serendipitously, the Google results page included a sponsored link
for "Unlimited Porn Movies". 8-0
As Fox News says "We report. You decide.".
Len Charest <········@my.inbox> wrote in
·················@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov:
> Erik Naggum wrote:
>
>> Nobody says "your argument is fucked up", you dimwit. The argument
>> is countered calmly and cleanly without undue emotions either way.
>
> The following is for entertainment purposes only. Do not taunt Happy
> Fun Ball.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L20F22342
>
> "Searched Groups for fuck OR shit OR ass OR insane OR stupid OR idiot
> OR retard OR crap group:comp.lang.lisp author:naggum. Results 1 - 50
> of about 970. Search took 2.56 seconds."
>
> Quite serendipitously, the Google results page included a sponsored
> link for "Unlimited Porn Movies". 8-0
>
> As Fox News says "We report. You decide.".
>
>
I have seen Erik respond to personel attacks, but I have never seen him
start with them. You on the other had come out of nowhere and start
stiring up shit for no good reason. What is the matter it is not quiet
enough for you here?
What a fuckking putz.
marc
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> You on the other had come out of nowhere and start
> stiring up shit for no good reason.
You are correct in that the stuff which I am stirring is pure excrement.
But rest assured that I have come from somewhere.
As for "reason", who are you to judge my motives? Be you man or sock puppet?
> What a fuckking putz.
Tsk tsk. Such a potty mouth.
On the other hand, I'm delighted with the interpretation you've given to
my last post. I now understand clearly that the reality distortion field
enveloping c.l.l will tranform factual reportage into personel (sic)
attacks.
> You also apear to be a coward judging by your fake email address.
I can now be reached at ············@yahoo.com. I eargerly await your
valuable correspondence.
Len Charest <········@my.inbox> wrote in
·················@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>
> > You on the other had come out of nowhere and start
> > stiring up shit for no good reason.
>
> You are correct in that the stuff which I am stirring is pure
> excrement.
> But rest assured that I have come from somewhere.
>
Yes, I am sure you did come from somewhere. Please crawl back under
whatever rock it was.
> As for "reason", who are you to judge my motives? Be you man or sock
> puppet?
>
Your actions point to your putzness.
You attack someone who has not attacked you.
You use a horridly inaccurate metric.
You attempt to divest yourself of the responability for your actions by
saying just reporting the facts.
etc...
You most certianly are a fuckking putz.
>> What a fuckking putz.
>
> Tsk tsk. Such a potty mouth.
>
> On the other hand, I'm delighted with the interpretation you've given
> to my last post. I now understand clearly that the reality distortion
> field enveloping c.l.l will tranform factual reportage into personel
> (sic) attacks.
You come out of left field and atack Erik, because you wanted to for some
bizzare reason. I reply that you are a used scum bag of the lowest
calaber, filled with greenish-yellow discharge. You claim that you have
no fault in this, contradicting your statements in the post I am replying
to that you did knowingly stir up a pile of shit, willingly for your own
fucked up reasons.
>
> > You also apear to be a coward judging by your fake email address.
>
> I can now be reached at ············@yahoo.com. I eargerly await your
> valuable correspondence.
>
>
You still refuse to post a real email, what a fuckking coward.
fuck off
marc
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> I reply that you are a used scum bag of the lowest
> calaber, filled with greenish-yellow discharge.
Please, my dainty constitution cannot withstand such language.
> You still refuse to post a real email, what a fuckking coward.
It's "real". Try it.
> fuck off
Swear words make Baby Jesus cry.
But the foot soldiers in the Naggum Army[1] make me laff. You guys are
HI-larious!
[1] A volunteer organisation like the KISS Army but with none of the fun
and twice the obsequiousness.
Len Charest <········@my.inbox> wrote in
·················@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> I reply that you are a used scum bag of the lowest
>> calaber, filled with greenish-yellow discharge.
>
> Please, my dainty constitution cannot withstand such language.
>
>> You still refuse to post a real email, what a fuckking coward.
>
> It's "real". Try it.
No it is not, by real I mean it identifies you. I sign my name
to what I do and you do not.
>
>> fuck off
>
> Swear words make Baby Jesus cry.
Go away.
>
> But the foot soldiers in the Naggum Army[1] make me laff. You guys are
> HI-larious!
>
> [1] A volunteer organisation like the KISS Army but with none of the
> fun and twice the obsequiousness.
>
>
Well the only volunteer organisation I was a soldier in was the US Army.
now go away and let the adults talk.
marc
* Len Charest <········@my.inbox>
| But the foot soldiers in the Naggum Army[1] make me laff. You guys are
| HI-larious!
The deep personal need to regard other people as groups has been noted.
You still have the choice to become a thinking individual. However, when
you make that choice, the chances are pretty low that you will come back
to us, considering the massive embarrassment you have set up for yourself.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> the chances are pretty low that you will come back
> to us, considering the massive embarrassment you have set up for yourself.
Oh, rats. Did I post naked again?
Erik Naggum wrote:
> The deep personal need to regard other people as groups has been noted.
Indeed.
In article <················@naggum.no> Erik Naggum wrote:
> What amazes me with these sub-humans [...]
> People like Len Charest and other with similar lacks [...]
> Some people are clearly evil and destructive [...]
> Len Charest is the kind of person who [...]
> [...] like so many other future-less sub-humans.
> [...] the non-thinking mob [...]
> [etc. ad nauseum ]
* Len Charest <········@my.inbox>
| Indeed.
Yup. We have another googling word-counter who is unable to do anything
more with those words. The probability that this comatose patient will
/ever/ wake up and start to think is approaching zero fast.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Yup. We have another googling word-counter who is unable to do anything
> more with those words.
You mean other that show conclusively that you are pathologically
unaware of yourself?
I've watched others try to reason with you, and its a losing
proposition. I prefer to poke you and watch you dance.
Dance, monkey, dance!
* Len Charest <········@my.inbox>
| You mean other that show conclusively that you are pathologically unaware
| of yourself?
*laugh*
You think that is what you have done? Holy smoke!
| I've watched others try to reason with you, and its a losing proposition.
*laugh*
It must be /so/ hard for you non-thinkers to be wrong and so utterly
unable to deal with it.
Think, monkey, think!
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Marc Spitzer wrote:
>
> > I can now be reached at ············@yahoo.com. I eargerly await your
> > valuable correspondence.
>
> You still refuse to post a real email, what a fuckking coward.
After reading Erik Naggum's post, I believe you can reach Len Charest at
········@jpl.nasa.gov
Remember, he is waiting for your valuable correspondence! ;-)
Brian Palmer wrote:
> After reading Erik Naggum's post, I believe you can reach Len Charest at
> ········@jpl.nasa.gov
>
> Remember, he is waiting for your valuable correspondence! ;-)
Congratulations on "discovering" my email address. Can I look forward to
a barrage of hateful email from hypocrites like you, <·····@invalid.dom>?
Len Charest wrote:
> Brian Palmer wrote:
>
> > After reading Erik Naggum's post, I believe you can reach Len Charest at
> > ········@jpl.nasa.gov
> >
> > Remember, he is waiting for your valuable correspondence! ;-)
>
> Congratulations on "discovering" my email address. Can I look forward to
> a barrage of hateful email from hypocrites like you, <·····@invalid.dom>?
I've never made any claims about my email address, so I fail to see why
you call me a hypocrite.
Brian Palmer wrote:
> I've never made any claims about my email address,
Er, neither did I. Nagster and his minions are the ones obsessed with
it. The following snippet is illustrative:
>> In article <····································@167.206.3.2>
>> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> You also apear to be a coward judging by your fake email address.
Amazing what one can infer from the mere absence of (what appears to be)
a valid email address.
> so I fail to see why you call me a hypocrite.
I'll 'splain it in really small words so you don't get lost.
Me no post valid email address. You no post valid email address. Me no
want email address exposed on Usenet. You expose me email address on
Usenet. You still no post valid email address. You textbook hypocrite.
I'm actually more concerned with my exposure to spammers than I am about
abusive messages from c.l.l'ers. I used to post to Usenet with a "real"
email address. All it got me was several *hundred* spams per day.
So I guess I can now look forward to the same in my work inbox. For
this, you have my everlasting contempt.
Len Charest <········@my.inbox> wrote in
·················@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov:
> Brian Palmer wrote:
>
>> I've never made any claims about my email address,
>
> Er, neither did I. Nagster and his minions are the ones obsessed with
> it. The following snippet is illustrative:
>
Do I get a minion tee shirt? How hard is it to get promoted to evil
overlord? is there medical/pension/401k/stock options? Will I be forced
to use evil OS's? I need an evil laugh, is there a training course for
this?
> >> In article <····································@167.206.3.2>
> >> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> You also apear to be a coward judging by your fake email address.
>
> Amazing what one can infer from the mere absence of (what appears to
> be) a valid email address.
What it realy boils down to is this putz is trying to drag you into this
mess. He has no counter argument to offer so he is trying and failing to
wip up community support for his crap. Fortunatly for the rest of us, it
is very hard to do that in CLL.
>
>> so I fail to see why you call me a hypocrite.
Because he want to drag you in.
>
> I'll 'splain it in really small words so you don't get lost.
>
> Me no post valid email address. You no post valid email address. Me no
> want email address exposed on Usenet. You expose me email address on
> Usenet. You still no post valid email address. You textbook hypocrite.
>
> I'm actually more concerned with my exposure to spammers than I am
> about abusive messages from c.l.l'ers. I used to post to Usenet with a
> "real" email address. All it got me was several *hundred* spams per
> day.
So you live in fear of junk mail. I get nowhere near that ammount of
spam, about 10-20 messages a day. I have been using this email for over
5 years with out the problems you seem to have. You must be doing
something wrong. Or you might have "mark"(conmans target) tattooed on
your above your virtual eye brows. You are doing a good aproxamation of
a fool here.
>
> So I guess I can now look forward to the same in my work inbox. For
> this, you have my everlasting contempt.
>
>
did not you congradulate people for figuring it out earlier?
what a fuckking putz
marc
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> What it realy boils down to is this putz is trying to drag you into this
> mess.
You are quite fascinated with the word "putz". What would Erik say about
that?
> He has no counter argument to offer so he is trying and failing to
> wip up community support for his crap.
I have no counter argument because there is no argument. I'm not looking
for community support because there is no community.
> So you live in fear of junk mail.
In fear? Hyperbole much?
> I get nowhere near that ammount of
> spam, about 10-20 messages a day.
Good for you. My personal tolerance for spam is zero messages a day. I
guess we're just different...
> You must be doing something wrong.
Enlighten me.
> You are doing a good aproxamation of a fool here.
Yet, strangely, you are the one being led around by the nose. Your
nostrils must be humungous by now.
> what a fuckking putz
Really, your fascination with the penis is disturbing.
Len Charest <········@my.inbox> wrote in
·················@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>
>> What it realy boils down to is this putz is trying to drag you into
>> this mess.
>
> You are quite fascinated with the word "putz". What would Erik say
> about that?
>
Ask him.
>> He has no counter argument to offer so he is trying and failing to
>> wip up community support for his crap.
>
> I have no counter argument because there is no argument. I'm not
> looking for community support because there is no community.
yea right
>
>> So you live in fear of junk mail.
>
> In fear? Hyperbole much?
>
>> I get nowhere near that ammount of
>> spam, about 10-20 messages a day.
>
> Good for you. My personal tolerance for spam is zero messages a day. I
> guess we're just different...
We are. I do not find it proper to not sign my work. If I must deal
with some useless junk mail to do that then I must deal with the shit.
>
> > You must be doing something wrong.
>
> Enlighten me.
ok You are doing something wrong. Now meet me on the corner of
34th st and 6th ave in manhatten and I will wack you with a stick to
enlighten you, you need to sign a waver first.
>
> > You are doing a good aproxamation of a fool here.
>
> Yet, strangely, you are the one being led around by the nose. Your
> nostrils must be humungous by now.
excuse me, a fool with delusions of grandure
>
>> what a fuckking putz
>
> Really, your fascination with the penis is disturbing.
>
There are social over tones here that you are missing, it also implys you
are stupid. I am saying you are a stupid shmuck, ok?
marc
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> I do not find it proper to not sign my work.
I don't see any signature.
> ok You are doing something wrong. Now meet me on the corner of
> 34th st and 6th ave in manhatten and I will wack you with a stick to
> enlighten you, you need to sign a waver first.
Ah, physical threats on Usenet -- the last refuge of the impotent
scoundrel. Now I know why you're so preoccupied with your "putz".
Marc, you'll never be as cool as Erik.
Len Charest <········@my.inbox> wrote in news:apn0al$c54$1
@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>
>> I do not find it proper to not sign my work.
>
> I don't see any signature.
>
>> ok You are doing something wrong. Now meet me on the corner of
>> 34th st and 6th ave in manhatten and I will wack you with a stick to
>> enlighten you, you need to sign a waver first.
>
> Ah, physical threats on Usenet -- the last refuge of the impotent
> scoundrel. Now I know why you're so preoccupied with your "putz".
>
> Marc, you'll never be as cool as Erik.
>
>
>
you wanted enlightenment, was I too zen for you??
And I have never been cool in my life.
marc
Brian Palmer <·····@invalid.dom> wrote in news:MPG.1827622db8e3e70d9896b3
@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>
>> > I can now be reached at ············@yahoo.com. I eargerly await your
>> > valuable correspondence.
>>
>> You still refuse to post a real email, what a fuckking coward.
>
> After reading Erik Naggum's post, I believe you can reach Len Charest at
> ········@jpl.nasa.gov
>
> Remember, he is waiting for your valuable correspondence! ;-)
>
I hope he is holding his breath.
marc
* Len Charest
| You are correct in that the stuff which I am stirring is pure excrement.
| But rest assured that I have come from somewhere.
Posting from nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov and with the Organization header intact:
Jet Propulsion Laboratory - Pasadena CA
Let us for a moment ponder the likelihood of /two/ rabidly insane people
in the same organization. Either they flush their job ads down the
toilet to attract the kind of people who live in the sewer or they were
extremely unlucky only once.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Posting from nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov and with the Organization header intact:
Nagster, ur 1 l33t haxx00r. How'd you figure out that out?! After all
the effort I've made to "hide" my identity.....
> Let us for a moment ponder the likelihood of /two/ rabidly insane people
> in the same organization.
Thank you! Being called insane by you is like Christmas, my birthday,
and the 4th of July all rolled in to one.
All hail Erik "the Nagster" Naggum!
* Len Charest <········@my.inbox>
| All hail Erik "the Nagster" Naggum!
Let me know when you realize how embarrassing you look.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * Len Charest
> | You are correct in that the stuff which I am stirring is pure
> | excrement. But rest assured that I have come from somewhere.
>
> Posting from nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov and with the Organization header intact:
>
> Jet Propulsion Laboratory - Pasadena CA
>
> Let us for a moment ponder the likelihood of /two/ rabidly
> insane people in the same organization. Either they flush
> their job ads down the toilet to attract the kind of people
> who live in the sewer or they were extremely unlucky only
> once.
Add E. R. Tisdale and you get an interesting picture of the
typical government organization ;-)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote in
·········································@167.206.3.2:
> Len Charest <········@my.inbox> wrote in
> ·················@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov:
>
>> Erik Naggum wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody says "your argument is fucked up", you dimwit. The argument
>>> is countered calmly and cleanly without undue emotions either way.
>>
>> The following is for entertainment purposes only. Do not taunt Happy
>> Fun Ball.
>>
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L20F22342
>>
>> "Searched Groups for fuck OR shit OR ass OR insane OR stupid OR idiot
>> OR retard OR crap group:comp.lang.lisp author:naggum. Results 1 - 50
>> of about 970. Search took 2.56 seconds."
>>
>> Quite serendipitously, the Google results page included a sponsored
>> link for "Unlimited Porn Movies". 8-0
>>
>> As Fox News says "We report. You decide.".
>>
>>
>
> I have seen Erik respond to personel attacks, but I have never seen him
> start with them. You on the other had come out of nowhere and start
> stiring up shit for no good reason. What is the matter it is not quiet
> enough for you here?
>
> What a fuckking putz.
>
> marc
>
You also apear to be a coward judging by your fake email address.
marc
Although I am sure that Erik Naggum is more than capable of a rebuttal,
I am now sufficiently exasperated by this to say I think this is utterly
sneering poisonous arse of the highest water.
Len Charest wrote:
> "Searched Groups for fuck OR shit OR ass OR insane OR stupid OR idiot OR
> retard OR crap group:comp.lang.lisp author:naggum. Results 1 - 50 of
> about 970. Search took 2.56 seconds."
Thus speaks a witty proponent of new-think. Since when have ass[1]
stupid or idiot been anything other than mild descriptions? -- other
than in the insane idiotic mind of the politically correct ass.
What I found most interesting with the link is the fact that in many
cases the abuse was directed *at* -- rather than by -- Erik. I can see
the headline now `Erik Naggum -- few profanities shock.'
> Quite serendipitously, the Google results page included a sponsored link
> for "Unlimited Porn Movies". 8-0
(sigh). To quote Half Man Half Biscuit `I'd rather dance with plankton
than to talk with you. I hope your plane home is a DC10...'
> As Fox News says "We report. You decide.".
...and finally to add a small tin hat to the proceedings.
Go and photosynthesis with the vain hope that you may grow a clue.
(sigh).
:(
[1] No, you don't sit on this unless you happen to be travelling to
Bethlehem circa AD zero.
Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> writes:
>ass[1]
...
> [1] No, you don't sit on this unless you happen to be travelling to
> Bethlehem circa AD zero.
Right. If you're travelling down a residential street in Oakland at
10am on a Sunday in late October, 2002 CE, what you do is, you put a
rope around its neck, and walk along side of it.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> Right. If you're travelling down a residential street in Oakland at
> 10am on a Sunday in late October, 2002 CE, what you do is, you put a
> rope around its neck, and walk along side of it.
Yes. Unless you are under the age of eight. (The local variants are off
the beaches here as the weather is too cold and we don't many kids who
fancy a bracing dash of force nine sleet is what is wanted...)
:)w
I will now attempt to construct a sentence in English. That should have
read:
[...WRT asses or donkeys as they are known...]
Yes. Unless you are under the age of eight. (The local variants are off
the beaches as the weather is too cold and we don't have many kids who
fancy a bracing dash of force nine sleet for another six months or so...)
Will Deakin wrote:
> Although I am sure that Erik Naggum is more than capable of a rebuttal,
> I am now sufficiently exasperated by this to say I think this is utterly
> sneering poisonous arse of the highest water.
High English much?
> Since when have ass[1]
> stupid or idiot been anything other than mild descriptions?
Since 3:43am EDT February 16, 1966.
> other than in the insane idiotic mind of the politically correct ass.
Irony much?
>> As Fox News says "We report. You decide.".
>
> ...and finally to add a small tin hat to the proceedings.
Having never seen Fox News, I can't decipher your association of it with
paranoia. But it seems typical of the longjmps of logic made by the
zombified defenders of Naggum.
Len Charest wrote:
> High English much?
As in times or church?
>> Since when have ass[1] stupid or idiot been anything other than mild
>> descriptions?
> Since 3:43am EDT February 16, 1966.
That'll be when `lightenin' strikes' by Lou Christie was number one on
the WMCA chart then.
> > other than in the insane idiotic mind of the politically correct ass.
> Irony much?
Alternate thursdays only. However, *if* this was an failed attempt at
humour it would be a real help if you worked on your act a bit more.
Don't give up the day job just yet.
> Having never seen Fox News, I can't decipher your association of it with
> paranoia.
Maybe the truth *is* out there and you just don't know it.
> But it seems typical of the longjmps of logic made by the zombified
> defenders of Naggum.
Thanks for clarifying my position for me.
* Len Charest <········@my.inbox>
| Having never seen Fox News, I can't decipher your association of it with
| paranoia. But it seems typical of the longjmps of logic made by the
| zombified defenders of Naggum.
At a very early stage of development, most babies discover that there is
a distinction between that which is and that which is not themselves. At
some later stage, they discover that what they have been able to figure
out about themselves also applies to other people. This is the crucial
leap of empathy that some people seem to have skipped. At an even later
stage, people discover, often much to their dismay, that other people are
not /exactly/ like themselves, that they cannot assume that others are
the same as they are, that extrapolating from their own reactions and
feelings are valid only so far. A large number of people are so ordinary
that they see deviations from their extrapolations from themselves so
infrequently that they can immediately turn to denigratory statements
like "you're wierd" or "you're nuts" or similar mental images that such
people create of others in their own likeness -- where failure to be
exactly like themselves, which is to say, exactly like /everybody/, is
the sole reason for their rejection of other people. As soon as a real
person crops up in their peripheral vision as something different from
what they have previously considered to be the only possible normal
people, their primary reaction is abject fear and hostility towards that
which threatens their group identity. To be different is to be indecent.
People who have failed to realize that not everybody is like themselves
make two grave mistakes. The first is to tell people that they have failed
to develop into human beings. The second is to show people how they view
themselves by the way they describe other people. In this light, consider
the phrase "the zombified defenders of Naggum" -- which incredibly
accurately describes my /attackers/, but not my defenders. I actually
find it highly amusing how some people are willing to make such enormous
fools of themselves in public simply because their ersatz brain is so
unevolved as to consider their self-destructive behavior /justified/ by
their self-destructive feelings, misdirected towards another human being,
which they routinely show that they do not consider a human being at all:
That which is not as depraved and base as themselves shall not be allowed
to exist and shall definitely not be respected. What we see in animals
like Len Charest is the precursor to modern man, the brutality of the
pack animal that has met something superior to itself and needs to gang
up on it and destroy it. Rest assured that this character believes
himself to be of a group who has similar thoughts to himself -- the very
concept of independent thought is incommensurate with this behavior. The
pack animal that most of all fears standing alone attacks those who stand
alone because they mock his deepest fear. It would be hard to imagine
anything less evolved that can still read and write.
What has me wondering, however, is what happened to JPL that they could
hire such a person, apparently twice.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> At a very early stage of development, most babies discover [...]
Psst. Wanna see something cool?
I ring the bell in California and the monkey half way 'round the world
starts to dance! And he dances, and dances, and dances, and dances, and
dances, and dances, and dances, and dances, and dances, and dances.
Damn, monkey, aren't you tired yet?
> What has me wondering, however, is what happened to JPL that they could
> hire such a person, apparently twice.
Gosh, Nagster, howdja figure tha one out? Perhaps using ... Google?
* Len Charest
| I ring the bell in California and the monkey half way 'round the world
| starts to dance!
The most amazing part of this is that you probably have precisely this
mental image of your role.
| Damn, monkey, aren't you tired yet?
Let me know when you discover that other people are not like yourself.
I once thought JPL was a cool place.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Let me know when you discover that other people are not like yourself.
M'kay. You do the same, Nagster.
> I once thought JPL was a cool place.
And I once thought that Norway was a civilized place.
* Len Charest <········@my.inbox>
| M'kay. You do the same, Nagster.
Do you have a cheering bunch of similar idiots to yourself to back you up?
The other lunatic from JPL said he received encouraging mail to keep up
his self-annihilation. I am very happy that you guys decide to destroy
yourself and your credibility so completely. Your goal is to provoke me,
you said, and I must admit to some fascination with a person who is so
unable to understand the consequences of his own statements as that.
| And I once thought that Norway was a civilized place.
My God, you really /are/ retarded! How could you possibly have come to
such a staggeringly moronic conclusion? Holy shit, dude. What did you
use to go so wrong? Have you read about this country at all? We have an
oil industry that has basically destroyed all other industries, we have a
fishing industry that has been reduced to selling unprocessed fish to EU
countries so we can buy back the processed fish from them, we have a
prime minister who openly /sulks/ on national TV because he is made fun
of by one of our most astute political comedians, we have a royalty that
has decided that a loose woman who has a child with a criminal and who
has been an avid drug user and a pathetic dandy of an "author" make for
good royal marriage material, we are going to build a new opera house,
but the politicians who want the building are not going to fund operas
there, we have socialized medicine and long lines for essential surgery,
we have a public school system that is clearly unable to educate people
and school buildings that are falling apart, the public transportation in
Oslo is losing more money by operating than if they shut down completely,
we have the highest interest rate in Europe to keep all the money from
stampeding out of the country, which is also killing out industry, we
harbor terrorists and violent criminals from muslim countries, we let the
Jugoslav mafia take over the street prostitution and narcotics in Oslo,
and have more deaths from drug abuse per capita than any capitol in the
world. And you thought Norway was a civilized place? Dude, where is
your brain? You must clearly be an astonishingly inept person, further
evidence that JPL has gone the way of Bell Labs after the big scandals.
But what other things do you associate with countries? Do you have any
similar associations based on race, too? How about major religions? Can
you work with people from other countries or do they place you in teams
where all the members wear flannel shirts and say "y'all" and "nucular"?
Tell me more about yourself and your grave misconceptions of reality! It
is so fun to watch clueless people self-destruct while they think they
run the show.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
Just move to Bavaria where everything is in order. We have
excellent leaders, there is no criminality and everybody is
at least well to-do. The Staatsoper in Munich is the best
opera house in the world and our schools are the best in
the world too.
You could teach math and physics as we are short of teachers
at the moment. (I am imagining you dealing with the parents
on parent's evening, explaining some very basic things to
them about their children and I am laughing. That would be
simply wonderful!)
--
JB
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Do you have a cheering bunch of similar idiots to yourself to back you up?
No, I'm not as fortunate as you.
> Your goal is to provoke me,
> you said, and I must admit to some fascination with a person who is so
> unable to understand the consequences of his own statements as that.
You don't understand monkey dancing?
> Tell me more about yourself and your grave misconceptions of reality!
While speeding to work today in my Camaro Z-28 with Boston blasting on
the 8-track, it occurred to me that what the world needs now is the
collected works of Erik Naggum bound into a trade paperback with a shiny
cover. The world *needs* your brutal honesty, your insight into the
psychology of mind, your unsentimental assessment of the human
condition. You are a Nietzsche for the New World Order!
Anywho, you could call it "Diarrhetics, the Modern Science of Usenet
Masturbation" and sell it for $29.95 a pop to the great unwashed. I'm
sure it'll make you rich. Then you can move away from that hellhole you
call Norway.
> It is so fun to watch clueless people self-destruct while they think they
> run the show.
Indeed.
In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no>
wrote:
> I once thought JPL was a cool place.
Then at least *something* has been achieved in this thread: the coolness
has long since passed on to others, such as XCOR (http://www.xcor.com).
-- Bruce
From: Jason Kantz
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <wkd6ps2gej.fsf@kantz.com>
this marketing spiel is funny!
http://www.xcor.com/ez-content.html ::
Recently, our chase plane pilot Mike Melville has also flown the
EZ-Rocket. His first words after shutting the engines down were "That
was a real kick in the pants!"
...
Does it make a lot of noise?
Yes. Our sound level meter goes off the scale of 138 dBA at 10
meters. However, during test flights people on the ground have noted
that it is quieter than many jet aircraft they have heard.
In article <··············@kantz.com>,
Jason Kantz <··········@kantz.com> wrote:
> this marketing spiel is funny!
>
> http://www.xcor.com/ez-content.html ::
>
> Recently, our chase plane pilot Mike Melville has also flown the
> EZ-Rocket. His first words after shutting the engines down were "That
> was a real kick in the pants!"
> ...
> Does it make a lot of noise?
>
> Yes. Our sound level meter goes off the scale of 138 dBA at 10
> meters. However, during test flights people on the ground have noted
> that it is quieter than many jet aircraft they have heard.
I saw it flying at EAA Airventure in Oshkosh, WI, in July. It's
certainly pretty loud -- those rocket streams are coming out at around
2.5 km/sec after all -- but it didn't make you want to instantly put
your fingers in your ears like the F15 that flew just before it. Or,
worse, the Harrier doing its hovering act.
-- Bruce
* Erik Naggum
| Nobody says "your argument is fucked up", you dimwit. The argument is
| countered calmly and cleanly without undue emotions either way.
* Len Charest <········@my.inbox>
| The following is for entertainment purposes only. Do not taunt Happy Fun
| Ball.
You both support my point very strongly and notify us that you are never
going to be a valued contributor to this forum. Congratulations.
What amazes me with these sub-humans is how much they need to make
matters worse. The abject failure to undestand cause and effect should
be a study in human stupidity at its worst: People who do not like the
climate in a public forum go out of their way to call attention to their
massive lack of coping mechanisms and want others to improve /their/ life
and they do so by harrassing people and digging up the past. These are
clearly people who /have no future/, or they would have done something to
make their future better. This is important to know about people.
Some people live in the past tense, while others live in the future tense.
This is important to understand when watching how they react to events in
their own lives. The past tense people have no concept of improvement,
because /they are what they did/. The future tense people have difficulty
understanding such people because /they are what they want to do/.
Some people have a motto that goes somewhat like "live every moment so
you can live with it for the rest of your life", causing a life of pain,
regret, and torture for their failures, because mistakes are inevitable.
Errare humanum est. What matters to an intelligent person who has
realized that they have a choice at every single moment of their lives is
that /they can be in control of their lives/ instead of living under the
tortured fear that others will "remember" something that those others
thought was bad. At every single moment, a person who has not /thought/
about anything may wake up from his comatose state and actually /think/
for the first time in their life. There is no way to tell when this will
happen to an individual. All this talk about "free will" boils down to
one particular choice: to think or not to think.
What I do is I expect people who have never /thought/ about anything at
all to /start thinking/, and this actually works very, very often, but
the curious thing about people who think is that they tend to do so in
private. Thinking is not a public event. People like Len Charest and
other with similar lacks can do what they do in public only because what
they do is precisely possible /only/ in public. It would not work to
behave in private the way such people behave in public. Imagine that
someone sent the crap I respond to by private mail to someone. What
would they do? It is not even worth reading, much less responding to it.
Some people are clearly evil and destructive and the only thing they can
share with other people is /their own lack of future/. Len Charest is
the kind of person who is not even sufficiently /aware/ of what he is
doing to realize that people will remember him for what he has done today
and previously on this newsgroup. No wonder he hides behind an anonymous
address, like so many other future-less sub-humans. Most likely, his
real name is not even "Len Charest", and if it were, he has /deniability/
because of his fake address. This is the way of the people of past tense.
But even people like "Len Charest" have the choice to /think/, and they
can make that choice at absolutely any unpredictable time. Therefore,
the right way to deal even with such lowlives is to /expect them to think/
and to /forget their non-thinking past/ when they make that choice.
Nothing can be more profound than this, that people have the opportunity
to change their mind. Respect for other people begins and ends with this
tenet, that only when other people can decide to think without notifying
you or anyone else, can you approach them with an expectation that they
/could/ have woken up and realized something important since last time
you talked to them and you /cannot know when someone will think/, or what
they will think about. Treating people, like the non-thinking mob treats
people here, as if they were unreachable and you "know" them is the most
indecent and gravest insult you can ever offer anyone, but these people
do not understand this, because /they do not think/ and therefore do not
understand what kind of insult it is to act on the assumption that others
do not think, either.
The most important problem with being focused on the past is that it
limits your perception of your freedom of choice, and people who start to
think but discover that they were /really fantastically stupid/ in the
past tend to shut down just as soon as they have started to think because
it is so goddamn hurtful to realize what kind of an asshole you have been.
Therefore, the likelihood that "Len Charest" will ever think diminishes
with every single one of his non-thinking outbursts and he will be held
accountable, according to his own standards, for what he has done, and
not for what he wants to do. Therefore, I have pity for people who have
closed the door on their own future with such force as "Len Charest" has.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> No wonder he hides behind an anonymous
> address, like so many other future-less sub-humans.
All provocations aside, I'm really curious as to why my email address is
of such value to you. I actually have several. Which one shall I open to
(further) spammer abuse?
> Most likely, his real name is not even "Len Charest"
Oh, it is my real name (whatever that means). If I were going to use a
pseudo, I'd go with Airwick Nag'em.
Really, Nagster, I'm quite disappointed. Eight hundred eighty-eight
words of text and you couldn't summon the bile to call me "insane" at
least once? Dude, you're losing your touch.
* Len Charest <········@my.inbox>
| Really, Nagster, I'm quite disappointed. Eight hundred eighty-eight words
| of text and you couldn't summon the bile to call me "insane" at least once?
| Dude, you're losing your touch.
On the contrary, I got you to expose yourself even more. I would rate
that success. My goal is your self-annilihation. I do not need to use
strong language to cause this to happen. You do all the damage for me.
Keep it up!
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> My goal is your self-annilihation.
My goal is to provoke you and make you dance.
> I do not need to use
> strong language to cause this to happen.
I do not need music to make this happen.
* Len Charest
| My goal is to provoke you and make you dance.
Good. So you already live in your own fantasy world. Your total self-
destruction should come soon. Please me with more provocations!
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Your total self-destruction should come soon.
But how will I know? And isn't it contradictory to declare my *self*
destruction to be your *goal*? Kinda like getting an outside author to
write one's autobiography.
> Please me with more provocations!
Hey, Erik: I always tell the truth. I'm lying.
Dance, monkey, dance!!
* Erik Naggum
| Your total self-destruction should come soon.
* Len Charest
| But how will I know?
Oh, by the looks of it, you are not going to notice any difference.
Not any time soon, anyway. That is the real beauty of it all.
Think, monkey, think!
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Oh, by the looks of it, you are not going to notice any difference.
> Not any time soon, anyway. That is the real beauty of it all.
Please tell me, then. That's what the rest of us in c.l.l expect of you.
* Len Charest <········@my.inbox>
| Please tell me, then. That's what the rest of us in c.l.l expect of you.
People can be jugded by what they expect of others.
I expect you to think. Should I expect something else of you since you
are not going to do what is expected of you?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> People can be jugded by what they expect of others.
People can be judged all sorts of ways. People can be judged by their
choice of language on Usenet. People can be judged by the way they dance
when the troll calls the tune.
> I expect you to think.
I expect you to dance.
Dance, monkey, dance!
> Should I expect something else of you since you
> are not going to do what is expected of you?
Expect colorless green ideas to sleep furiously.
* Erik Naggum
| I expect you to think.
* Len Charest
| I expect you to dance.
Therein lies our basic difference in the proper view of man's life.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Therein lies our basic difference in the proper view of man's life.
I'm more interested in the proper view of the monkey's dance.
Dance, monkey, dance!
Thomas Stegen wrote:
> Len Charest wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I wonder if you actually know what you are doing?
Sure do. I'm trolling for zombies. You've been snared in the net twice.
Len Charest wrote:
>
> Sure do. I'm trolling for zombies. You've been snared in the net twice.
>
Ok, that is what you attempt to do. But do you actually know
how you appear to other people?
--
Thomas.
Thomas Stegen wrote:
> But do you actually know
> how you appear to other people?
Like a colorful organ grinder of old, accompanied by a hyperactive
monkey in full fez and vest regalia.
Len Charest wrote:
> Thomas Stegen wrote:
>
>> But do you actually know
>> how you appear to other people?
>
>
> Like a colorful organ grinder of old, accompanied by a hyperactive
> monkey in full fez and vest regalia.
>
You just answered my question. Just keep in mind that you
might someday have to deal with someone who observes you right
now...
Just some friendly advice.
--
Thomas.
Thomas Stegen wrote:
> You just answered my question.
Yeah, imagine that.
> Just keep in mind that you
> might someday have to deal with someone who observes you right
> now...
Ok, Principal Stegen, I understand that this is all going down on my
Permanent Record.
However, I would like to assume that anyone observing me, who is not
Erik Naggum or one of his sycophants, *gets the joke*.
> Just some friendly advice.
But you forgot the smilies. :-(
PS. Hey, check out my "real" email address. I now have an "identity" on
Usenet. Huzzah!
* Len Charest <············@altrionet.com>
| However, I would like to assume that anyone observing me, who is not Erik
| Naggum or one of his sycophants, *gets the joke*.
We all get the joke. Nobody can do what you do and mean it. The only
question is at whose expense it is. You seem to think that that question
has only one answer. That is my fun. I do not object to people poking
fun at other people. However, it that has to be carried far enough that
everybody sees who the real idiot is. This is usually not possible early
in the game when some joker gets in a good punch, but in the end, it is
very clear to nearly everybody, usually with only a single exception.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> However, it that has to be carried far enough that
> everybody sees who the real idiot is. This is usually not possible early
> in the game when some joker gets in a good punch, but in the end, it is
> very clear to nearly everybody, usually with only a single exception.
So your tactic is simply to drag things out until the other guy quits
from exhaustion. That's using your head, Nagster.
* Len Charest <········@my.inbox>
| So your tactic is simply to drag things out until the other guy quits from
| exhaustion.
No, that would be your extremely limited understanding of my tactic.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Len Charest <········@my.inbox> writes:
> Thomas Stegen wrote:
>
> > But do you actually know
> > how you appear to other people?
>
> Like a colorful organ grinder of old, accompanied by a hyperactive
> monkey in full fez and vest regalia.
Is this an accurate job description for what you do at JPL?
--
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/
Thomas Stegen <·······@cis.strath.ac.uk> writes:
> Len Charest wrote:
>
> > Sure do. I'm trolling for zombies. You've been snared in the
> > net twice.
>
> Ok, that is what you attempt to do. But do you actually know
> how you appear to other people?
He probably does, but doesn't seem to care. Must be some stuff
he's smoking over there.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
Nils Goesche wrote:
> Thomas Stegen <·······@cis.strath.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > Len Charest wrote:
> >
> > > Sure do. I'm trolling for zombies. You've been snared in the
> > > net twice.
> >
> > Ok, that is what you attempt to do. But do you actually know
> > how you appear to other people?
>
> He probably does, but doesn't seem to care. Must be some stuff
> he's smoking over there.
One might wish to question the wisdom of using taxpayer's money to fund
his usenet postings during work hours.
http://eis.jpl.nasa.gov/ethics/handbook/resources.html
Then again, maybe JPL is considering ways to make monkeys dance on the
surface of Mars.
* Thomas Stegen
| I wonder if you actually know what you are doing?
Please do not spoil the fun. Len Charest is the kind of person who has
no long-term planning ability and finds his enjoyment in the immediate
present. I know what his behavior will do to him later, as many before
him have discovered much too late, followed by hectic activity to cancel
posts and have google and others remove them. That is when I have my
fun. I have heard from several employers who have decided not to employ
people based on their immature behavior in conflicts of their own making
with me. Let Len Charest have his fun today when his lack of propensity
for delayed gratification is at its prime. I can wait for my share of
the fun. When someone seriously asks Len Charest why he did what he did
and implies judgment of his character, I often get to hear about it. One
particular employer let me know that he had seen a direct connection
between immature behavior on the Net, and "fights" with me in particular,
and having to fire people for various forms of disrespect for authority,
from stealing office supplies via incompetence and lying about their
skills to insubordination. I must admit to taking immense pleasure in
hearing about such incidents. In some respects, I am very impatient, but
in others I have nothing but patience. I have even said explicitly what
my goal with continuing the charade is: That Len Charest self-destruct.
Have you ever wondered why you /never/ hear from some of the worst people
on the Net again, why there are no archives of any activity with their
name attached to it, no trace of them in phone directories a few years
after their worst episodes? How can people simply /vanish/ without a
trace? The grim realization is that people behave that way when there is
no /point/ to long-term planning, because there will be /nothing/ to plan
for. Now, how can you possibly deny someone who is not going to be
around in a short while his last laugh? Remember, you get only one
chance to give a last impression. Check back in 2005 to see what Len
Charest has done since his thread in this newsgroup. I predict that the
last thing you will find is precisely this thread in this newsgroup. He
will not be the first and not the last to fulfill this prediction.
Note that these people can hardly blame me for their own undoing. In
virtually every message, I tell them to think and to pull themselves
together. That they think this is some stupid game is precisely my
point: You have to be a terminal basket case to enter into this kind of
game to begin with. I do not even push them over the edge -- they had to
have jumped long /before/ they started their stunts on the Net.
So have no sympathy or concern for Len Charest. In a short while, he
will only be remembered for his last impression here, anyway.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> When someone seriously asks Len Charest why he did what he did
> and implies judgment of his character, I often get to hear about it.
Do you have a cheering bunch of similar idiots to yourself to back you up?
> having to fire people for various forms of disrespect for authority,
> [...] I must admit to taking immense pleasure in
> hearing about such incidents.
Really, I expected you to be above such abject schadenfreude. I expected
you to think, monkey, think. (Not really.) I can only imagine how many
hundrends of words of vitriol you'd cons up to express your moral
outrage over such an "evil" point of view.
I'm beginning to believe that there is nothing in you whatsoever except
a generator of hostility, negativity, and destruction. What more direct
evidence of your very serious personality disorders can we expect, now?
Get help, OK?
> Have you ever wondered why you /never/ hear from some of the worst people
> on the Net again
No. I've often wondered why the Net attracts so many sociopaths and
misanthropes. From Norway. Who use Lisp. And dance like monkeys.
> Check back in 2005 to see what Len
> Charest has done since his thread in this newsgroup.
Yes, the measure of a person is the body of his Usenet postings. That's
why all employers scour c.l.l for evidence of conflict with Erik Naggum.
It's the best metric mankind has developed for predicting the worth of a
life.
> You have to be a terminal basket case to enter into this kind of
> game to begin with.
I know you are, but what am I?
Now, if you really are a visiting alien, which I'm beginning to suspect
for real, then the egomania engendered by your giant alien brain will
compel you to post a reply.
> So have no sympathy
Your sociopathic tendencies are already well known.
> or concern for Len Charest.
Poppycock. You want me to self-destruct. That is ipso facto concern.
I am beginning to think you are actually so incredibly unconscious that
you fail to understand what you are doing. But I'm a retarded, insane
sub-human, so what do I know.
* Len Charest <········@my.inbox>
| Do you have a cheering bunch of similar idiots to yourself to back you up?
No. Do you lack the creativity to come up with anything new?
| Really, I expected you to be above such abject schadenfreude.
Amazing. Why? Would you really believe someone you taunt and provoke to
be "above" wanting you to suffer a long and painful death, too? You are
the classic school bully who believes that what you do is a "joke" until
you get seriously hurt, and then that those who cause you to feel pain
have to be sociopaths, but the fact that you attack people and provoke
them and "expect them to dance" does not register with you. But let me
get back to this point below.
| I can only imagine how many hundrends of words of vitriol you'd cons up
| to express your moral outrage over such an "evil" point of view.
It seems I got to you.
| I'm beginning to believe that there is nothing in you whatsoever except a
| generator of hostility, negativity, and destruction.
Towards you? I expect you to think and I am prepared to deal with you as
a thinking being when you decide to think. That is more generosity than
you will ever experience again. Otherwise, what do you think you deserve?
| What more direct evidence of your very serious personality disorders can
| we expect, now? Get help, OK?
Seems that someone is either not getting the joke, or is perhaps beginning
to get it. Either way, I am inordinately pleased that I got to you and
that you finally feel pain.
| I've often wondered why the Net attracts so many sociopaths and
| misanthropes.
I have often wondered what attracts your kind myself: people whose goal
it is to provoke other people. I respond to your attempts to provoke you.
> Check back in 2005 to see what Len Charest has done since his thread in
> this newsgroup.
| Yes, the measure of a person is the body of his Usenet postings.
That is not what I said, but it is very amusing that you think so.
> You have to be a terminal basket case to enter into this kind of game to
> begin with.
| I know you are, but what am I?
Well, we all know that you attacked me out of nowhere, to provoke me and,
in your inimitable lunacy, expect me to dance. Do you believe that anyone
does not realize that something is seriously wrong with you by now?
| Now, if you really are a visiting alien, which I'm beginning to suspect
| for real, then the egomania engendered by your giant alien brain will
| compel you to post a reply.
*laugh* You are not even sufficiently well versed in logic to understand
what an idiot you look like when you do not understand that posting a
reply can have so many other reasons. Really, Len, take a remedial course
in logic and thinking skills.
| > So have no sympathy
|
| Your sociopathic tendencies are already well known.
Some people see others as they see themselves.
| Poppycock. You want me to self-destruct. That is ipso facto concern.
No, it is the absence of concern. But please make up your mind. If I
were a sociopath, I would not have concern for you, yet you desperately
want me to have concern for you. This is why you think that labeling me
a "sociopath" would hurt. But I do not care what you try to do to hurt
me, as the only consequence I care about is that people see what you are
willing to do. And calling someone a sociopath reflects back on you.
| I am beginning to think you are actually so incredibly unconscious that
| you fail to understand what you are doing.
I am happy that I have finally got to you and wiped that moronic grin off
your stupid face. There is yet hope for you. /Think/, monkey, /think/!
As for being unconscious of what you are doing, you are apparently not
quite aware that you taunt and try to provoke and harrass people. What
does that say about you? What does it say about you when you /sulk/ in
return for being exposed as the really evil person you have posted lots
of articles to prove that you are? Who do you think you are kidding?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> wanting you to suffer a long and painful death
Stupid? Check.
Insane? Check.
Desire for my death/murder? Check.
Woo hoo! I've completed the Naggum Hat Trick!!
> It seems I got to you.
Keep reading.
> | What more direct evidence of your very serious personality disorders can
> | we expect, now? Get help, OK?
>
> Seems that someone is either not getting the joke, or is perhaps beginning
> to get it. Either way, I am inordinately pleased that I got to you and
> that you finally feel pain.
Much of the message to which you were reponding was simply copied from
your own bellicose posts to this newsgroup. For example, the exchange
above is you arguing with yourself, Naggy.
Shadow dancing?
Dance, monkey, dance!
> Some people see others as they see themselves.
Ding ding ding! Hot dog, we have a weiner. You project your
self-loathing all over c.l.l. Some people have tried to convince you
that you fail to practice what you preach. I choose to point and laugh
at the dancing monkey.
Yes, that's schadenfreude, but I have an excuse: I'm retarded and insane.
> you think that labeling me
> a "sociopath" would hurt.
Sociopath is a clinical label. Hurtful labels include retard, idiot,
moron and slut.
> I have finally got to you and wiped that moronic grin off
> your stupid face.
Yeah, those labels. Villainy is as villainy does.
> There is yet hope for you.
I thought I was doomed to self-destruction? Make up your mind, Nagster.
Don't get all warm and fuzzy on me now.
> you taunt and try to provoke and harrass people.
Dance, monkey, dance!
* Len Charest <········@my.inbox>
| Woo hoo! I've completed the Naggum Hat Trick!!
You are right. It was a mistake to expect you to think. I seem to make
that mistake a lot, even with people who make such an effort to prove
that they would rather die than think.
| Much of the message to which you were reponding was simply copied from
| your own bellicose posts to this newsgroup.
Do they teach this style at JPL? I ask because the other nutjob there
also thinks that copying someone else's words somehow makes him less
responsible for what he is saying. Since part of the point with a common
language is that we do indeed copy both words and phrases from one
another, this particularly infantile way to shirk responsibility for your
own actions betrays a serious personality disorder.
On the other hand, I thought what you "said" made sense, so of course I
should have realized it was not "your words".
| For example, the exchange above is you arguing with yourself, Naggy.
You appear to believe, like that "Mel" chimp, that misspelling someone's
name has any other effect than to make people aware of your immaturity.
| You project your self-loathing all over c.l.l.
I note with some humor that you see it this way.
| Some people have tried to convince you that you fail to practice what you
| preach. I choose to point and laugh at the dancing monkey.
*laugh* Yeah, people like you have tried to "convince" me all right.
| Yes, that's schadenfreude, but I have an excuse: I'm retarded and insane.
Indeed, you are the kind of person who needs excuses for what you do.
| > There is yet hope for you.
|
| I thought I was doomed to self-destruction?
No, it is my goal. If you think that my having a goal constitutes your
being doomed, may I suggest an already established religion or cult?
| Make up your mind, Nagster.
I am not the kind of person who makes up his mind about other people. If
I were, you would never have received a response from me to begin with.
So I keep hoping that you will grow a brain and a conscience.
| > you taunt and try to provoke and harrass people.
|
| Dance, monkey, dance!
You make a pretty good case for making up my mind, however.
You are being laid off at JPL, are you not, or fired? What did they
catch you doing? Wacking off to your own news articles, or do you have
wait for me to respond to them first? Or just general monkey business?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> [most of wickety-wack post deleted ]
> *laugh*
*guffaw*
*knee-slap*
*wheeze*
> I am not the kind of person who makes up his mind about other people.
>
> You make a pretty good case for making up my mind, however.
Please make up your mind about making up your mind.
> You are being laid off at JPL, are you not, or fired?
Yeah, my boss said "If you don't finish your work today, don't bother
coming in on Monday." Woo hoo -- three day weekend!
<dance>monkey</dance>
Len Charest wrote:
>
> <dance>monkey</dance>
Holy cow! Four whole days without a reply from Monsieur Naggum. I must
have self-destructed and not noticed.
Len Charest <········@my.inbox> writes:
[SNIP]
Just give it a rest, it stopped being amusing *quite* a while ago.
Speaking of something else, does anyone have experience in getting
UncommonSQL working happily with MySQL and CMU CL?
Last time I tried, I loaded USQL (downloaded via CCLAN, I think) as
per instructions and ended up with what looked like a seriously locked
lisp image (nothing happened, so I cooked dinner and nothing had still
happened afterwards).
Also, if you have a many-many relationship with a glue table, am I
correct that something like this would be the way to handle it?
(sql:def-view-class author ()
((id
:db-kind :key
:type integer
:initform 0)
(born
:type :datetime
:initarg :born)
(dead
:type datetime
:initarg :dead)
(surname
:type string
:initarg :surname)
(firstname
:type string
:initarg :firstname)
(books
:db-kind :join
:db-info (:join-class bookauthor
:set t
:target-slot book
:home-key id
:foreign-key authorid
:retrieval :deferred))))
(sql:def-view-class book
()
((id
:db-kind :key
:type integer
:initform 0)
(publisher
:type integer
:initarg :publisher)
(name
:type string
:initarg :name)
(isbn
:type string
:initarg :isbn)
(authors
:db-kind :join
:db-info (:join-class bookauthor
:set t
:target-slot author
:home-key id
:foreign-key bookid
:retrieval :deferred))))
(sql:def-view-class bookauthor
()
((book
:db-kind :join
:db-info (:join-class book
:home-key bookid
:foreign-key id
:retrieval :immediate))
(author
:db-kind :join
:db-info (:join-class author
:home-key authorid
:foreign-key id
:retrieval :immediate))))
//Ingvar
--
My posts are fair game for anybody who wants to distribute the countless
pearls of wisdom sprinkled in them, as long as I'm attributed.
-- Martin Wisse, in a.f.p
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> Some people have a motto that goes somewhat like "live every moment so
> you can live with it for the rest of your life", causing a life of pain,
> regret, and torture for their failures, because mistakes are inevitable.
> Errare humanum est. What matters to an intelligent person who has
> realized that they have a choice at every single moment of their lives is
> that /they can be in control of their lives/ instead of living under the
> tortured fear that others will "remember" something that those others
> thought was bad. At every single moment, a person who has not /thought/
> about anything may wake up from his comatose state and actually /think/
> for the first time in their life. There is no way to tell when this will
> happen to an individual. All this talk about "free will" boils down to
> one particular choice: to think or not to think.
>
> ...
>
> The most important problem with being focused on the past is that it
> limits your perception of your freedom of choice, and people who start to
> think but discover that they were /really fantastically stupid/ in the
> past tend to shut down just as soon as they have started to think because
> it is so goddamn hurtful to realize what kind of an asshole you have been.
> Therefore, the likelihood that "Len Charest" will ever think diminishes
> with every single one of his non-thinking outbursts and he will be held
> accountable, according to his own standards, for what he has done, and
> not for what he wants to do. Therefore, I have pity for people who have
> closed the door on their own future with such force as "Len Charest" has.
This whole analysis reminds me of "The great divorce" of C. S. Lewis
where he draws a picture of heaven/hell which I find quite
fascinating. The hell characters have very similar problems to those
described in your analysis. If you should not yet know this book you
might enjoy reading it.
Nicolas.
* Nicolas Neuss <·············@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de>
| This whole analysis reminds me of "The great divorce" of C. S. Lewis
| where he draws a picture of heaven/hell which I find quite fascinating.
| The hell characters have very similar problems to those described in your
| analysis. If you should not yet know this book you might enjoy reading
| it.
I have not been a great fan of C.S.Lewis mostly because of his religious
bent, but will check it out. Thank you for the suggestion!
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <uznsxelx0.fsf@poboxes.com>
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:18:01 -0800, Len Charest <········@my.inbox> said:
[...]
LC> "Searched Groups for fuck OR shit OR ass OR insane OR stupid OR idiot OR
LC> retard OR crap group:comp.lang.lisp author:naggum. Results 1 - 50 of
LC> about 970. Search took 2.56 seconds."
Repeating that search without an author specified returned about
4,670 results, and that, too, carries little information.
---Vassil.
--
For an M-person job assigned to an N-person team, only rarely M=N.
> B People who regard the truth as fragile and in need of constant vigilance
> to protect and maintain because we will always be presented with
barrages
> of falsehoods and outright lies, and who therefore try to educate people
> and correct mistakes. These people care mostly about not spreading more
> mistakes and to the extent it is definitely known, avoiding re-opening
> long debates on why things are so. Now, the kicker: These people /feel/
> a great concern for truth and knowledge, a passion for what the
community
> knows and agrees to. When you post falsehoods to such a person, you
have
> hurt /his/ feelings. This fact is incomprehensible to people in group A
> because their feelings have never been about anything but their very own
> selves.
Where does labelling people 'dimwit' and 'slut' fit into this defender of
the truth mould?
Some of these 'outright lies' seem to be misconceptions born out of lack of
information rather than some vile attack on the truth. LISP (and it's
dialects) suffer from mythological distortion - slow gc, only for AI and so
on. What benefit is obtained from thrashing people who hold these
misconceptions over educating them?
Hmmm. How about:
Q: I heard LISP is slow and only good for AI. Isn't it a dead language?
A1: LISP has several superb high-quality compilers. Common LISP has an
extensive library that is designed to facilitate general purpose
programming. CLOS has probably the most feature rich OOP support you'll
find. It's very much alive and being used for net retail systems, research
projects, natural language, commercial games and many others. Realign your
view.
or how about:
A2: Don't give us your poisonous lies. Clearly a person like you ...***
Insert Hannibal Lector style personality breakdown here ***
A1 or A2?
--
Justin Johnson
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>
> | I have learned from the past few months that c.l.l consists of (at
least)
> | three groups of people.
>
> And typically, you have managed to misrepresent your opposition.
>
> | The "professional" people think that making strong statements about
other
> | people's arguments is ok because it's only the counter-argument that
> | counts (or rather the exchange of arguments). To them, saying things
> | like "your argument is fucked up" is ok, and they ask people to
recognize
> | that they don't simultaneously mean that "you are fucked up".
>
> Nobody says "your argument is fucked up", you dimwit. The argument is
> countered calmly and cleanly without undue emotions either way. Then,
if
> some feel-good jerk has never learned to deal with technical arguments,
> goes bananas and attacks people for not helping him feel good about his
> mistake. That you have to invent this position so you can argue against
> something that is easy to argue against is just the kind of evidence
that
> I use to conclude that you are unable to remember events accurately.
>
> | The professional people think that people who are nice to each other
risk
> | that the truth may not be spoken, because the truth can sometimes be
> | brutal. The feel-good people don't think so.
>
> You never speak the truth when it would not be nice, yet you feel free
to
> speak lies when you feel that that would hurt people you do not like.
> The fact is that you feel-good jerks disregard truth because your
feelings
> weigh more than facts and truth.
>
> The distinction between the two groups are better described as follows:
>
> A People whose personal feelings are fragile and of primary importance and
> who attack others (or defend such attacks) when their personal feelings
> are hurt. These people care mostly about their personal feelings, even
> when they are out in public. Many of these are profoundly egoistic and
> self-absorbed, to the point where nobody else's feelings could possibly
> matter. It is therefore OK to people in this group to attack those who
> they think have hurt their feelings.
>
> B People who regard the truth as fragile and in need of constant vigilance
> to protect and maintain because we will always be presented with
barrages
> of falsehoods and outright lies, and who therefore try to educate people
> and correct mistakes. These people care mostly about not spreading more
> mistakes and to the extent it is definitely known, avoiding re-opening
> long debates on why things are so. Now, the kicker: These people /feel/
> a great concern for truth and knowledge, a passion for what the
community
> knows and agrees to. When you post falsehoods to such a person, you
have
> hurt /his/ feelings. This fact is incomprehensible to people in group A
> because their feelings have never been about anything but their very own
> selves.
>
> Now, the result of the immature A meeting the mature B is that when B
> corrects a mistake made by an A, the A whines that B has hurts his
> feelings. A is unable to grasp that his posting a falsehood has hurt
B's
> feelings, and therefore does not understand that B could say anything to
> correct him. Who are correct, anyway, thinks the A, and why does B not
> get a life? It was only a mistake/lie/misrepresentation, and not like
> anybody got hurt. The A's are so unable to grasp that people can be
> concerned with more than their personal selves that very few A's /ever/
> understand why B's react in ways that they associated with hurt pride or
> something when they think they have not hurt anyone. The A's are so
damn
> sure that they have not hurt anyone that they will defend themselves
from
> any claim to the contrary, even lashing out at those who say so. The
B's
> read this as "yes, /of course/ my lies and misrepresentations and
posting
> inflammatory falsehoods was intentional".
>
> The person in group A will therefore launch a personal attack on the
> person who corrected his mistake. What the people in group A do not
> understand is that there never were any personal attacks in the factual
> correction. (Again, nobody says "your argument is fucked up". This is
> the kind of thing that people who feel too much have to invent to make
> their feelings feel reasonable and just when in fact they are not.)
>
> Some people do not care very much about anything and cannot for the life
> of them figure out why anyone would get so worked up about truth or
> knowledge. Some people do not understand how so emotionally immature
> people as those in group A ever got out of kindergarten, but there is
> some reason to believe that the A's were overly encouraged to protect
> their own feelings, and were never encouraged to feel a passion for any
> field of knowledge.
>
> In any case, the feel-good people in group A do not actually consider
> feelings to be the most important thing to protect. If they did, they
> would be able to understand the feelings of others. The only thing that
> matters to the feel-good people is their /personal/ feelings. Truth
does
> not even enter the picture, as the fact that nobody says "your argument
> is fucked up" does not /register/ with the feel-good jerks.
>
> --
> Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
>
> Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
> Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
"Justin Johnson" <·······@mobiusent.com> writes:
[ Snippage eliding nothing that would point to this question ]
> Where does labelling people 'dimwit' and 'slut' fit into this defender of
> the truth mould?
>
> Some of these 'outright lies' seem to be misconceptions born out of
> lack of information rather than some vile attack on the truth. LISP
> (and it's dialects) suffer from mythological distortion - slow gc,
> only for AI and so on. What benefit is obtained from thrashing
> people who hold these misconceptions over educating them?
A willful refusal to listen and to think might well be interpreted as
"vile attack on the truth". The benefit of good "thrashing" is akin to
zen masters "thrashing" students to shock them out of their dualistic
thinking. If someone gets a thrashing in this forum, it is much more
often than not because they are refusing to think.
> Hmmm. How about:
>
> Q: I heard LISP is slow and only good for AI. Isn't it a dead language?
>
In all honesty, with only a few exceptions, I think that this question
cannot honestly be asked by anyone who as spent more than a few
moments thinking about it. This is a troll, and a troll of the most
vicious sort, akin to "I heard your mother performs those USD 5 /Body
Miracles/ that you see adverised in the back of the sports
section. Doesn't this make her a prostitute?"
> A1: LISP has several superb high-quality compilers. Common LISP has an
> extensive library that is designed to facilitate general purpose
> programming. CLOS has probably the most feature rich OOP support you'll
> find. It's very much alive and being used for net retail systems, research
> projects, natural language, commercial games and many others. Realign your
> view.
I'm willing to buy that it's an honest question, asked by someone
ignorant of local custom and netnews in general. How about:
A: http://www.lisp.org
> or how about:
>
> A2: Don't give us your poisonous lies. Clearly a person like you ...***
> Insert Hannibal Lector style personality breakdown here ***
>
> A1 or A2?
If they follow up A: with something like. "I don't understand. The
Python site is *much* easier..." I think that a /visit/ by Hannibal is
preferable. Don't you?
>
> Justin Johnson
--
George Demmy
* Justin Johnson
| Where does labelling people 'dimwit' and 'slut' fit into this defender of
| the truth mould?
Bait, dude. You show what is important to you by taking it.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Ah. Tch. How foolish of me.
With regards to this group I will now redirect my attention to reading
articles about LISP.
--
Justin Johnson
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * Justin Johnson
> | Where does labelling people 'dimwit' and 'slut' fit into this defender
of
> | the truth mould?
>
> Bait, dude. You show what is important to you by taking it.
>
> --
> Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
>
> Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
> Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <lkhef6qwq7.fsf@cartan.de>
[Please learn to configure your News reader to quote properly]
"Justin Johnson" <·······@mobiusent.com> writes:
> Where does labelling people 'dimwit' and 'slut' fit into this
> defender of the truth mould?
Those words are accurate descriptions, as it turned out. How does
``Look, just fuck off will you.'' sound to you? Like some nice person
looking for explanations? You might find it enlightening to look up
who responded to what in that way.
> Hmmm. How about:
>
> Q: I heard LISP is slow and only good for AI. Isn't it a dead language?
>
> A1: LISP has several superb high-quality compilers. Common LISP has
> an extensive library that is designed to facilitate general purpose
> programming. CLOS has probably the most feature rich OOP support
> you'll find. It's very much alive and being used for net retail
> systems, research projects, natural language, commercial games and
> many others. Realign your view.
>
> or how about:
>
> A2: Don't give us your poisonous lies. Clearly a person like you
> ...*** Insert Hannibal Lector style personality breakdown here ***
>
> A1 or A2?
Only that this dialog has absolutely nothing to do with how this
thread evolved. Have you been following it from the beginning?
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
> Only that this dialog has absolutely nothing to do with how this
> thread evolved. Have you been following it from the beginning?
Yes. Arien (Mel) didn't know much about LISP and had many misconceptions
about the language. It seems that some of the people she knows are
suffering from equal misconceptions.
She moaned about parenthesis. She isn't the first to do this and she won't
be the last.
And then it all went pear shaped with her posting:
| Wait until I start on my next assignment, then it'll happen all over
| again :-)
Erik replied. Mel took offense and replied. Erik took offense at Mel's
reply and so on.
And I'm forced to read it all because it's like a strange but compulsive
soap opera. :-)
--
Justin Johnson
"Nils Goesche" <······@cartan.de> wrote in message
···················@cartan.de...
> [Please learn to configure your News reader to quote properly]
>
> "Justin Johnson" <·······@mobiusent.com> writes:
>
> > Where does labelling people 'dimwit' and 'slut' fit into this
> > defender of the truth mould?
>
> Those words are accurate descriptions, as it turned out. How does
> ``Look, just fuck off will you.'' sound to you? Like some nice person
> looking for explanations? You might find it enlightening to look up
> who responded to what in that way.
>
> > Hmmm. How about:
> >
> > Q: I heard LISP is slow and only good for AI. Isn't it a dead language?
> >
> > A1: LISP has several superb high-quality compilers. Common LISP has
> > an extensive library that is designed to facilitate general purpose
> > programming. CLOS has probably the most feature rich OOP support
> > you'll find. It's very much alive and being used for net retail
> > systems, research projects, natural language, commercial games and
> > many others. Realign your view.
> >
> > or how about:
> >
> > A2: Don't give us your poisonous lies. Clearly a person like you
> > ...*** Insert Hannibal Lector style personality breakdown here ***
> >
> > A1 or A2?
>
> Only that this dialog has absolutely nothing to do with how this
> thread evolved. Have you been following it from the beginning?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Nils Goesche
> "Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
>
> PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
In article <··············@cartan.de>, ······@cartan.de says...
> [Please learn to configure your News reader to quote properly]
>
> "Justin Johnson" <·······@mobiusent.com> writes:
>
> > Where does labelling people 'dimwit' and 'slut' fit into this
> > defender of the truth mould?
>
> Those words are accurate descriptions, as it turned out. How does
> ``Look, just fuck off will you.'' sound to you? Like some nice person
> looking for explanations? You might find it enlightening to look up
> who responded to what in that way.
It's called frustration after all the abuse I received for just being a
newbie. I did NOT deserve the abuse. I was told I was dumb and various
other name calling and assumptions which are not true.
After the unnecessary attack from Mr Nagger here, I responded in the
only was that was left for me. It's quite a bit more pleasing for me
now, since I can't see his posts.
And for those of you that say "We are professionals here, don't come
here whinging"..........well all I can say that is a totally stuck up
attitude. It is totally unprofessional to behave in this manner, so it's
about time you guys get your hands out of your butts, and start learning
how to communicate.
>
> > Hmmm. How about:
> >
> > Q: I heard LISP is slow and only good for AI. Isn't it a dead language?
> >
> > A1: LISP has several superb high-quality compilers. Common LISP has
> > an extensive library that is designed to facilitate general purpose
> > programming. CLOS has probably the most feature rich OOP support
> > you'll find. It's very much alive and being used for net retail
> > systems, research projects, natural language, commercial games and
> > many others. Realign your view.
> >
> > or how about:
> >
> > A2: Don't give us your poisonous lies. Clearly a person like you
> > ...*** Insert Hannibal Lector style personality breakdown here ***
> >
> > A1 or A2?
>
> Only that this dialog has absolutely nothing to do with how this
> thread evolved. Have you been following it from the beginning?
>
> Regards,
>
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
> In article <··············@cartan.de>, ······@cartan.de says...
>> [Please learn to configure your News reader to quote properly]
>>
>> "Justin Johnson" <·······@mobiusent.com> writes:
>>
>> > Where does labelling people 'dimwit' and 'slut' fit into this
>> > defender of the truth mould?
>>
>> Those words are accurate descriptions, as it turned out. How does
>> ``Look, just fuck off will you.'' sound to you? Like some nice
>> person looking for explanations? You might find it enlightening to
>> look up who responded to what in that way.
>
> It's called frustration after all the abuse I received for just being
> a newbie. I did NOT deserve the abuse. I was told I was dumb and
> various other name calling and assumptions which are not true.
but the question is: judging by your actions here do they fit the profile
of dumb/immature?
I would say yes. If you want to change peoples perceptions of you act
differently.
>
> After the unnecessary attack from Mr Nagger here, I responded in the
> only was that was left for me. It's quite a bit more pleasing for me
> now, since I can't see his posts.
Now here you go again behaving like a spoiled chiled, Nagger bs. If you
want to be treated with respect be respectful of others. Even if you do
not like Erik you should not take it out on everyone else. This is an
improper public display of being screwed up and childish. You do not
like someone fine, do not make it everyone elses problem.
>
> And for those of you that say "We are professionals here, don't come
> here whinging"..........well all I can say that is a totally stuck up
> attitude. It is totally unprofessional to behave in this manner, so
> it's about time you guys get your hands out of your butts, and start
> learning how to communicate.
>
You are expected to behave like an adult, tough.
marc
In article <····································@167.206.3.2>, mspitze1
@optonline.net says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
> ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
>
> > In article <··············@cartan.de>, ······@cartan.de says...
> >> [Please learn to configure your News reader to quote properly]
> >>
> >> "Justin Johnson" <·······@mobiusent.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > Where does labelling people 'dimwit' and 'slut' fit into this
> >> > defender of the truth mould?
> >>
> >> Those words are accurate descriptions, as it turned out. How does
> >> ``Look, just fuck off will you.'' sound to you? Like some nice
> >> person looking for explanations? You might find it enlightening to
> >> look up who responded to what in that way.
> >
> > It's called frustration after all the abuse I received for just being
> > a newbie. I did NOT deserve the abuse. I was told I was dumb and
> > various other name calling and assumptions which are not true.
>
> but the question is: judging by your actions here do they fit the profile
> of dumb/immature?
no, my questions here fit the profile of someone who is a newbie and
doesn't know a lot about lisp. If you think this is a crime, well then
that's bad luck. I'm not going to apologise for being a newbie.
> I would say yes. If you want to change peoples perceptions of you act
> differently.
My behaviour would have been very different if I wasn't abused. This is
the first time it has ever happened to me (I have seen others abused in
other groups though, and I have always frowned upon it). I'm not sorry
for not taking the abuse particularly well. I'm sure you wouldn't have
either if it was you in my position.
>
> >
> > After the unnecessary attack from Mr Nagger here, I responded in the
> > only was that was left for me. It's quite a bit more pleasing for me
> > now, since I can't see his posts.
>
> Now here you go again behaving like a spoiled chiled, Nagger bs. If you
> want to be treated with respect be respectful of others. Even if you do
> not like Erik you should not take it out on everyone else. This is an
> improper public display of being screwed up and childish. You do not
> like someone fine, do not make it everyone elses problem.
The behaviour of this group is improper public display. To abuse and
flame a newbie is NOT right.
I am not impressed at all with the behaviour of many in this group, so
I'm not trying to treat the likes of Nagger with respect. Unless I get
treated more like a newbie should be treated, then the likes of Nagger
don't get any of my respect. I will not apologise for that.
>
> >
> > And for those of you that say "We are professionals here, don't come
> > here whinging"..........well all I can say that is a totally stuck up
> > attitude. It is totally unprofessional to behave in this manner, so
> > it's about time you guys get your hands out of your butts, and start
> > learning how to communicate.
> >
>
> You are expected to behave like an adult, tough.
Likewise.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
> In article <····································@167.206.3.2>,
> mspitze1 @optonline.net says...
>> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
>> ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
>>
>> > In article <··············@cartan.de>, ······@cartan.de says...
>> >> [Please learn to configure your News reader to quote properly]
>> >>
>> >> "Justin Johnson" <·······@mobiusent.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Where does labelling people 'dimwit' and 'slut' fit into this
>> >> > defender of the truth mould?
>> >>
>> >> Those words are accurate descriptions, as it turned out. How does
>> >> ``Look, just fuck off will you.'' sound to you? Like some nice
>> >> person looking for explanations? You might find it enlightening
>> >> to look up who responded to what in that way.
>> >
>> > It's called frustration after all the abuse I received for just
>> > being a newbie. I did NOT deserve the abuse. I was told I was dumb
>> > and various other name calling and assumptions which are not true.
>>
>> but the question is: judging by your actions here do they fit the
>> profile of dumb/immature?
>
> no, my questions here fit the profile of someone who is a newbie and
> doesn't know a lot about lisp. If you think this is a crime, well then
> that's bad luck. I'm not going to apologise for being a newbie.
>
I was not talking about your questions but your actions. Your actions fit
the profile of someone who is remarably childish.
>> I would say yes. If you want to change peoples perceptions of you
>> act differently.
>
> My behaviour would have been very different if I wasn't abused. This
> is the first time it has ever happened to me (I have seen others
> abused in other groups though, and I have always frowned upon it). I'm
> not sorry for not taking the abuse particularly well. I'm sure you
> wouldn't have either if it was you in my position.
>
You were not abused. If you think you were abused you are wrong.
And I have been on the recieeving end of Erik's colorful use of language.
The short story was he was right, I appoligized for my mistake, no problems
since.
>>
>> >
>> > After the unnecessary attack from Mr Nagger here, I responded in
>> > the only was that was left for me. It's quite a bit more pleasing
>> > for me now, since I can't see his posts.
>>
>> Now here you go again behaving like a spoiled chiled, Nagger bs. If
>> you want to be treated with respect be respectful of others. Even if
>> you do not like Erik you should not take it out on everyone else.
>> This is an improper public display of being screwed up and childish.
>> You do not like someone fine, do not make it everyone elses problem.
>
> The behaviour of this group is improper public display. To abuse and
> flame a newbie is NOT right.
> I am not impressed at all with the behaviour of many in this group, so
> I'm not trying to treat the likes of Nagger with respect. Unless I get
> treated more like a newbie should be treated, then the likes of Nagger
> don't get any of my respect. I will not apologise for that.
You were not treated the way you were because you are new. You were
treated the way you were because you actions were that of a spoiled self
centered child.
>
>>
>> >
>> > And for those of you that say "We are professionals here, don't
>> > come here whinging"..........well all I can say that is a totally
>> > stuck up attitude. It is totally unprofessional to behave in this
>> > manner, so it's about time you guys get your hands out of your
>> > butts, and start learning how to communicate.
>> >
>>
>> You are expected to behave like an adult, tough.
>
> Likewise.
>
But I do. Among the things I do that mark me as an adult is sign my work,
when are you going to start?
marc
In article <····································@167.206.3.2>, mspitze1
@optonline.net says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
> ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
>
> > In article <····································@167.206.3.2>,
> > mspitze1 @optonline.net says...
> >> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
> >> ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
> >>
> >> > In article <··············@cartan.de>, ······@cartan.de says...
> >> >> [Please learn to configure your News reader to quote properly]
> >> >>
> >> >> "Justin Johnson" <·······@mobiusent.com> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Where does labelling people 'dimwit' and 'slut' fit into this
> >> >> > defender of the truth mould?
> >> >>
> >> >> Those words are accurate descriptions, as it turned out. How does
> >> >> ``Look, just fuck off will you.'' sound to you? Like some nice
> >> >> person looking for explanations? You might find it enlightening
> >> >> to look up who responded to what in that way.
> >> >
> >> > It's called frustration after all the abuse I received for just
> >> > being a newbie. I did NOT deserve the abuse. I was told I was dumb
> >> > and various other name calling and assumptions which are not true.
> >>
> >> but the question is: judging by your actions here do they fit the
> >> profile of dumb/immature?
> >
> > no, my questions here fit the profile of someone who is a newbie and
> > doesn't know a lot about lisp. If you think this is a crime, well then
> > that's bad luck. I'm not going to apologise for being a newbie.
> >
>
> I was not talking about your questions but your actions. Your actions fit
> the profile of someone who is remarably childish.
here goes the insults again. You expect me not to get upset when you
insult me? Mr Nagger insulted me by suggesting I was dumb. I got upset
about that, and I won't apologise for that.
>
> >> I would say yes. If you want to change peoples perceptions of you
> >> act differently.
> >
> > My behaviour would have been very different if I wasn't abused. This
> > is the first time it has ever happened to me (I have seen others
> > abused in other groups though, and I have always frowned upon it). I'm
> > not sorry for not taking the abuse particularly well. I'm sure you
> > wouldn't have either if it was you in my position.
> >
>
> You were not abused. If you think you were abused you are wrong.
>
> And I have been on the recieeving end of Erik's colorful use of language.
> The short story was he was right, I appoligized for my mistake, no problems
> since.
Whether he is right or wrong is no excuse for his behaviour. I never
came here pretending to know *anything* about lisp. I started with
saying what I *thought* I knew, and that's when the flood of insults
appeared. It has been stated that I came here with all these
misconceptions. This is incorrect, because I don't even have enough
knowledge of the language to *have* misconceptions. I'm NOT going to
apologise for my lack of knowledge. That's what I came here for, and I
expected someone to help me - without blowing me away with highly
technical advice (that I don't understand), and get abused for
mentioning a few little things that I *thought* was true about lisp.
> >> >
> >> > After the unnecessary attack from Mr Nagger here, I responded in
> >> > the only was that was left for me. It's quite a bit more pleasing
> >> > for me now, since I can't see his posts.
> >>
> >> Now here you go again behaving like a spoiled chiled, Nagger bs. If
> >> you want to be treated with respect be respectful of others. Even if
> >> you do not like Erik you should not take it out on everyone else.
> >> This is an improper public display of being screwed up and childish.
> >> You do not like someone fine, do not make it everyone elses problem.
> >
> > The behaviour of this group is improper public display. To abuse and
> > flame a newbie is NOT right.
> > I am not impressed at all with the behaviour of many in this group, so
> > I'm not trying to treat the likes of Nagger with respect. Unless I get
> > treated more like a newbie should be treated, then the likes of Nagger
> > don't get any of my respect. I will not apologise for that.
>
> You were not treated the way you were because you are new. You were
> treated the way you were because you actions were that of a spoiled self
> centered child.
>
See! Insults again. My actions were of someone who was upset about being
insulted. Perhaps in your next reply you can stop insulting me, so that
this conversation won't be so one sided.
Just because I didn't tolerate the insults very well, DOES NOT make me a
child.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > And for those of you that say "We are professionals here, don't
> >> > come here whinging"..........well all I can say that is a totally
> >> > stuck up attitude. It is totally unprofessional to behave in this
> >> > manner, so it's about time you guys get your hands out of your
> >> > butts, and start learning how to communicate.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You are expected to behave like an adult, tough.
> >
> > Likewise.
> >
>
> But I do. Among the things I do that mark me as an adult is sign my work,
> when are you going to start?
And yet again, another insult. When Mr. Nagger started insulting me and
abusing me, I had done nothing wrong. Now, you seem to perceive that I'm
some little spoilt kid - and yet Mr. Nagger is considered right for his
actions.
No. What I see here in this group is a bunch of stuck up *professionals*
who don't know how to use the English language very well. In this group
they also take part in verbal bashing of other languages. This is also
certainly not professional, since it is this itself which many members
here are sensitive about (when it comes to lisp). This is very
contradictory, and as I have already said, it is unprofessional.
So if you guys want to throw around the *professional* and *adult*
theme. Try practising what you preach. Being *adult* includes being
tolerant of newbies, and allow them to make mistakes. Just because a
newbie says "I heard that lisp is an interpreted language", doesn't mean
they are a troll!
So before you go around stating that you are an *adult*, then try and
reflect on your actions, and whether they are truly *adult* actions.
Remember, you are *not* a newbie, so you must be much more responsible
in your actions, and much more tolerant of ignorant posts.
>
> marc
>
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
> In article <····································@167.206.3.2>,
> mspitze1 @optonline.net says...
>> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
>> ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
>> >
>> > no, my questions here fit the profile of someone who is a newbie
>> > and doesn't know a lot about lisp. If you think this is a crime,
>> > well then that's bad luck. I'm not going to apologise for being a
>> > newbie.
>> >
>>
>> I was not talking about your questions but your actions. Your
>> actions fit the profile of someone who is remarably childish.
>
> here goes the insults again. You expect me not to get upset when you
> insult me? Mr Nagger insulted me by suggesting I was dumb. I got upset
> about that, and I won't apologise for that.
I said that your actions fit a profile, ie you act like a dumb/childish
person. If I wanted to say you were a dumb/childish person I would have
said "you immature stupid twit". And you continue with the Nagger crap
like a spoiled sullen child. You do not like him fine *SHUT THE FUCK UP
ABOUT IT ALREADY*.
>
>>
>> >> I would say yes. If you want to change peoples perceptions of you
>> >> act differently.
>> >
>> > My behaviour would have been very different if I wasn't abused.
>> > This is the first time it has ever happened to me (I have seen
>> > others abused in other groups though, and I have always frowned
>> > upon it). I'm not sorry for not taking the abuse particularly well.
>> > I'm sure you wouldn't have either if it was you in my position.
>> >
>>
>> You were not abused. If you think you were abused you are wrong.
>>
>> And I have been on the recieeving end of Erik's colorful use of
>> language. The short story was he was right, I appoligized for my
>> mistake, no problems since.
>
> Whether he is right or wrong is no excuse for his behaviour. I never
> came here pretending to know *anything* about lisp. I started with
> saying what I *thought* I knew, and that's when the flood of insults
> appeared. It has been stated that I came here with all these
> misconceptions. This is incorrect, because I don't even have enough
> knowledge of the language to *have* misconceptions. I'm NOT going to
> apologise for my lack of knowledge. That's what I came here for, and I
> expected someone to help me - without blowing me away with highly
> technical advice (that I don't understand), and get abused for
> mentioning a few little things that I *thought* was true about lisp.
>
But you use the I ma right justafacation to continue your poor behavior.
Are the rules different for you then the rest of us? Clearly in your
oppinion they are.
>
>> >> >
>> >> > After the unnecessary attack from Mr Nagger here, I responded in
>> >> > the only was that was left for me. It's quite a bit more
>> >> > pleasing for me now, since I can't see his posts.
>> >>
>> >> Now here you go again behaving like a spoiled chiled, Nagger bs.
>> >> If you want to be treated with respect be respectful of others.
>> >> Even if you do not like Erik you should not take it out on
>> >> everyone else. This is an improper public display of being screwed
>> >> up and childish. You do not like someone fine, do not make it
>> >> everyone elses problem.
>> >
>> > The behaviour of this group is improper public display. To abuse
>> > and flame a newbie is NOT right.
>> > I am not impressed at all with the behaviour of many in this group,
>> > so I'm not trying to treat the likes of Nagger with respect. Unless
>> > I get treated more like a newbie should be treated, then the likes
>> > of Nagger don't get any of my respect. I will not apologise for
>> > that.
>>
>> You were not treated the way you were because you are new. You were
>> treated the way you were because you actions were that of a spoiled
>> self centered child.
>>
>
> See! Insults again. My actions were of someone who was upset about
> being insulted. Perhaps in your next reply you can stop insulting me,
> so that this conversation won't be so one sided.
> Just because I didn't tolerate the insults very well, DOES NOT make me
> a child.
I never said you were a child, I said that you were behaving like one.
If you cannot see the difference you need to get someone to explain it to
you, this is called therapy. AU has national health care( I think), go
use some.
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > And for those of you that say "We are professionals here, don't
>> >> > come here whinging"..........well all I can say that is a
>> >> > totally stuck up attitude. It is totally unprofessional to
>> >> > behave in this manner, so it's about time you guys get your
>> >> > hands out of your butts, and start learning how to communicate.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You are expected to behave like an adult, tough.
>> >
>> > Likewise.
>> >
>>
>> But I do. Among the things I do that mark me as an adult is sign my
>> work, when are you going to start?
>
> And yet again, another insult. When Mr. Nagger started insulting me
> and abusing me, I had done nothing wrong. Now, you seem to perceive
> that I'm some little spoilt kid - and yet Mr. Nagger is considered
> right for his actions.
>
see above
> No. What I see here in this group is a bunch of stuck up
> *professionals* who don't know how to use the English language very
> well. In this group they also take part in verbal bashing of other
> languages. This is also certainly not professional, since it is this
> itself which many members here are sensitive about (when it comes to
> lisp). This is very contradictory, and as I have already said, it is
> unprofessional.
then go away. stop wasting your time that could be spend doing your
work.
>
> So if you guys want to throw around the *professional* and *adult*
> theme. Try practising what you preach. Being *adult* includes being
> tolerant of newbies, and allow them to make mistakes. Just because a
> newbie says "I heard that lisp is an interpreted language", doesn't
> mean they are a troll!
newbie != childish idiot
>
> So before you go around stating that you are an *adult*, then try and
> reflect on your actions, and whether they are truly *adult* actions.
> Remember, you are *not* a newbie, so you must be much more responsible
> in your actions, and much more tolerant of ignorant posts.
>
ignorance is tolerated(as long as you make an honest effort to correct
it), lazyness and deliberite stupidity are what cause you problems here.
marc
>>
>> marc
>>
>
>
> ignorance is tolerated(as long as you make an honest effort to correct
> it), lazyness and deliberite stupidity are what cause you problems here.
>
I never realised that an absence of *snobbishness* isn't tolerated in
this group.
I'm sorry I ever came here, it is obvious that people here have their
heads stuck so far up their arses that they can't help a normal human
being.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
>
> I never realised that an absence of *snobbishness* isn't tolerated in
> this group.
So you'd prefer a tolerance of snobbishness?
> I'm sorry I ever came here, it is obvious that people here have their
> heads stuck so far up their arses that they can't help a normal human
> being.
Good riddance. Oh, and you're not normal.
In article <·························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
·····@invalid.dom says...
> arien wrote:
> >
> > I never realised that an absence of *snobbishness* isn't tolerated in
> > this group.
>
> So you'd prefer a tolerance of snobbishness?
>
> > I'm sorry I ever came here, it is obvious that people here have their
> > heads stuck so far up their arses that they can't help a normal human
> > being.
>
> Good riddance.
Who said I was going? I *said* I wish I never came here in the first
place to receive this abuse.
> Oh, and you're not normal.
Oh yeah? by who's definition? In every other group I've visited I've
been treated with respect. I've even asked newbie questions in linux
groups and never been treated like this.
I'd guess that says that this *group* is not normal. From what I've
noticed that is a fair assumption.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
> > > I'm sorry I ever came here, it is obvious that people here have their
> > > heads stuck so far up their arses that they can't help a normal human
> > > being.
> >
> > Good riddance.
>
> Who said I was going? I *said* I wish I never came here in the first
> place to receive this abuse.
So then why do you stay if you wish you never came here?
In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
·····@invalid.dom says...
> arien wrote:
> > > > I'm sorry I ever came here, it is obvious that people here have their
> > > > heads stuck so far up their arses that they can't help a normal human
> > > > being.
> > >
> > > Good riddance.
> >
> > Who said I was going? I *said* I wish I never came here in the first
> > place to receive this abuse.
>
> So then why do you stay if you wish you never came here?
>
I don't think I can honestly answer that. I really don't know why I
stay. Perhaps it's because now that I'm not hurt anymore, the anger
instead is taking over and just wants to prove my point. It is most
obvious that I'm not the first one who's tried, so I'm not sure why I
bother. It's just the principle I guess.
But whatever it is, I just feel compelled to do this.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
> In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> ·····@invalid.dom says...
>> arien wrote:
>> > > > I'm sorry I ever came here, it is obvious that people here have
>> > > > their heads stuck so far up their arses that they can't help a
>> > > > normal human being.
>> > >
>> > > Good riddance.
>> >
>> > Who said I was going? I *said* I wish I never came here in the
>> > first place to receive this abuse.
>>
>> So then why do you stay if you wish you never came here?
>>
>
> I don't think I can honestly answer that. I really don't know why I
> stay. Perhaps it's because now that I'm not hurt anymore, the anger
> instead is taking over and just wants to prove my point. It is most
> obvious that I'm not the first one who's tried, so I'm not sure why I
> bother. It's just the principle I guess.
>
> But whatever it is, I just feel compelled to do this.
>
So you have no reason to do this yet you continue. This compulsion is
disfunctional, go to your schools clinic and get evaluated by a traind
professional and get fixxed.
go away
marc
arien wrote:
>
> I don't think I can honestly answer that. I really don't know why I
> stay. Perhaps it's because now that I'm not hurt anymore, the anger
> instead is taking over and just wants to prove my point. It is most
> obvious that I'm not the first one who's tried, so I'm not sure why I
> bother. It's just the principle I guess.
>
> But whatever it is, I just feel compelled to do this.
So you're not sure why you've received the responses you have, you don't
know whatever it is. However, it's the principle that compels you?
Since you don't seem to be certain of much of anything, perhaps you
would care to elaborate what principle it is you think you're fighting
for.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
> In article <·························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> ·····@invalid.dom says...
>> arien wrote:
>> >
>> > I never realised that an absence of *snobbishness* isn't tolerated
>> > in this group.
>>
>> So you'd prefer a tolerance of snobbishness?
>>
>> > I'm sorry I ever came here, it is obvious that people here have
>> > their heads stuck so far up their arses that they can't help a
>> > normal human being.
>>
>> Good riddance.
>
> Who said I was going? I *said* I wish I never came here in the first
> place to receive this abuse.
>
Stop comming back, all this can end by you doing the nice thing and going
away
>> Oh, and you're not normal.
>
> Oh yeah? by who's definition? In every other group I've visited I've
> been treated with respect. I've even asked newbie questions in linux
> groups and never been treated like this.
>
> I'd guess that says that this *group* is not normal. From what I've
> noticed that is a fair assumption.
>
Well if you are normal, I suspect that many people here would not want
to be like you. I personally do not want to be like you. So stop
comming here where all the not normal people are, go somewhere else and
hang with the normal crowd.
marc
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| You expect me not to get upset when you insult me? Mr Nagger insulted me
| by suggesting I was dumb. I got upset about that, and I won't apologise
| for that.
But insluting other people is perfectly acceptable for you? I must admit
to some fascination with the kinds of people that make up this world, but
one of the saddest things is that I begin to understand how the American
people could have "elected" George W. Bush.
| Whether he is right or wrong is no excuse for his behaviour.
But that you are wrong is apparently an excuse for yours.
| I'm NOT going to apologise for my lack of knowledge.
It is by now clear that you do not intend to do anything about it.
| My actions were of someone who was upset about being insulted.
Yet insluting other people and playing the victim is par for the course?
| Just because I didn't tolerate the insults very well, DOES NOT make me a
| child.
Well, you can basically choose between a child and a retarded adult.
| When Mr. Nagger started insulting me and abusing me, I had done nothing
| wrong.
You have more than made up for it by now, dear.
| Now, you seem to perceive that I'm some little spoilt kid - and yet
| Mr. Nagger is considered right for his actions.
Yet this does not make you think?
| Being *adult* includes being tolerant of newbies, and allow them to make
| mistakes.
No, being adult means helping people get /out/ of newbiehood.
| Just because a newbie says "I heard that lisp is an interpreted
| language", doesn't mean they are a troll!
Yes, unfortunately, it does. You do not get to make these rules.
| Remember, you are *not* a newbie, so you must be much more responsible
| in your actions, and much more tolerant of ignorant posts.
Wonderful! As if lack of knowledge and experience was not sufficiently
repetitively used as an excuse for your immature behavior, you now make
it clear that if you should ever learn something, /you/ would have to act
more responsibly, as well, which, for you, is a massive /disincentive/ to
stop being a newbie.
Where are the snipers when you really need them?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> | You expect me not to get upset when you insult me? Mr Nagger insulted me
> | by suggesting I was dumb. I got upset about that, and I won't apologise
> | for that.
>
> But insluting other people is perfectly acceptable for you? I must admit
> to some fascination with the kinds of people that make up this world, but
> one of the saddest things is that I begin to understand how the American
> people could have "elected" George W. Bush.
Generalizing from a small sample to an entire population, the majority
of whom didn't vote for the asshole in question? I expected better
from you.
> | Just because a newbie says "I heard that lisp is an interpreted
> | language", doesn't mean they are a troll!
>
> Yes, unfortunately, it does. You do not get to make these rules.
Last I heard, 'troll' implied a calculated attempt on the part of the
troll to invoke flames. But to do that Mel would have had to read the
FAQ, maybe done a bit of googling for similar questions to hers and
generally have got a feel for the group before posting.
Maybe she has, maybe this is all a calculated ploy from someone with
too much time on their hands, but since I never attribute to malice
what can be adequately explained with stupidity, I'm going with
stupidity. For the same reason I'm inclined to think that her
continuation is because she has the bit between her teeth, but can
think of nothing better than puerile misspelling as a way of 'hitting
back'...
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Piers Cawley wrote:
[snip]
> Maybe she has, maybe this is all a calculated ploy from someone with
> too much time on their hands, but since I never attribute to malice
> what can be adequately explained with stupidity, I'm going with
> stupidity.
[snip]
The problem with this dictum, I've found, is that it tends to elide the
possibility of malicous stupidity (or of culpable stupidity of a sort that
entails something of the same order as malice).
(Of course, the "adequately" is supposed to cover some of this, but, in
general, I prefer *best* (available) explanations rather than merely
adequate ones.)
Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <3245001249430375@naggum.no>
* Bijan Parsia
| The problem with this dictum, I've found, is that it tends to elide the
| possibility of malicous stupidity (or of culpable stupidity of a sort
| that entails something of the same order as malice).
I quite agree. /Everything/ can be explained by stupidity. One would
have to perform an exhaustive search of all other possible explanations
and determine whether they are less adequate than stupidity to say that
something can be adequately explained by stupidity, so it is a silly rule
to begin with. It only says that people are not evil, they are stupid,
but this is wishful thinking; it pretends that people will change their
mind sooner if they are believed to act from stupidity than from malice.
There is no evidence that this is true.
However, if people are believed to act from /ignorance/ or /unawareness/
in preference to either stupidity or malice (which would exclude willful
ignorance and unawareness), they usually listen to facts and pointers to
more information.
Some invariably believe that if they should have known and that this is
communicated by giving them information they obviously missed, it is
instead an accusation of stupidity and/or malice, in which case that is
precisely what it turns out to be.
| (Of course, the "adequately" is supposed to cover some of this, but, in
| general, I prefer *best* (available) explanations rather than merely
| adequate ones.)
I make it this simple: Willful stupidity is ipso facto malicious.
Errare humanum est. We cannot escape not knowing enough and it is
impossible to cover every possible angle, but once notified of knowledge
or angles that are important to the argument at hand, failure to adapt
the argument accordingly is therefore willful, therefore malicious.
People have asked for the root of all evil for eons. One of the reasons
that many have been afraid to name the obvious candidate is that they
would like to defend some other things that also follow from the same
root and would be hard to defend if this rule was made hard and fast:
The root of all evil is the failure to think.
(For that matter, the root of all stupidity is the failure to think, too.)
In my personal view, stupidity is tantamount to malice, anyway. The only
hope for someone who missed the obvious or important is to claim simple
unawareness -- in which case the person should be happy to be informed of
whatever they missed and there should be no hint of an accusation until
they fight back against what was never there.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
* Piers Cawley
| Generalizing from a small sample to an entire population, the majority
| of whom didn't vote for the asshole in question?
No. Pay attention and try to be honest.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <··············@despairon.bofh.org.uk>, ········@bofh.org.uk
says...
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> > * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> > | You expect me not to get upset when you insult me? Mr Nagger insulted me
> > | by suggesting I was dumb. I got upset about that, and I won't apologise
> > | for that.
> >
> > But insluting other people is perfectly acceptable for you? I must admit
> > to some fascination with the kinds of people that make up this world, but
> > one of the saddest things is that I begin to understand how the American
> > people could have "elected" George W. Bush.
I can't understand how Australian people could have *elected* George W.
Bush either :)
>
> Generalizing from a small sample to an entire population, the majority
> of whom didn't vote for the asshole in question? I expected better
> from you.
This is one thing I dislike about these *professional* programmers. They
are so stuck up that they no longer have any personality.
>
> > | Just because a newbie says "I heard that lisp is an interpreted
> > | language", doesn't mean they are a troll!
> >
> > Yes, unfortunately, it does. You do not get to make these rules.
>
> Last I heard, 'troll' implied a calculated attempt on the part of the
> troll to invoke flames. But to do that Mel would have had to read the
> FAQ, maybe done a bit of googling for similar questions to hers and
> generally have got a feel for the group before posting.
I am not a troll, I came here asking a genuine question. It shows how
bad the behaviour is of this group for it to disintegrate to this.
>
> Maybe she has, maybe this is all a calculated ploy from someone with
> too much time on their hands,
Nope. Why would I do this? I want to learn about lisp, so wouldn't that
be pointless? I wish I had too much time on my hands. I almost certainly
wouldn't be here wasting it. I come to newsgroups to find solutions, and
I have never seen one behave as badly as this.
> but since I never attribute to malice
> what can be adequately explained with stupidity, I'm going with
> stupidity.
> For the same reason I'm inclined to think that her
> continuation is because she has the bit between her teeth,
I won't deny that, yes I have got the bit between my teeth. I don't deny
being a headstrong sort of person and I will fight for what I believe
in. This is a good quality in me. The action of this group have been
disgraceful, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves. First I was
upset, but I am just angry now. I am astonished, and the more this
thread goes on, the more I realise I am right. That there are a few
"Nagger Troopers" who have nothing better to do than slag off at
newbies, or the slightest sign of opposition. It is true, it is a fact,
and all I have to do now is go through the thread and identify those who
are members of this pathetic team.
> but can
> think of nothing better than puerile misspelling as a way of 'hitting
> back'...
....and you just call me dumb? Is that better is it?
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
>
> I come to newsgroups to find solutions, and I have never seen
> one behave as badly as this.
What kind of arrogant, stuck-up snob are you that you think everyone
here has a responsibility to give you solutions in a manner you find
pleasing?
> > For the same reason I'm inclined to think that her
> > continuation is because she has the bit between her teeth,
>
> I won't deny that, yes I have got the bit between my teeth. I don't deny
> being a headstrong sort of person and I will fight for what I believe
> in. This is a good quality in me.
Is it also a good quality of the Klu Klux Klan that they fight for what
they believe in? That they are a headstrong kind of people with the bit
between their teeth?
> The action of this group have been disgraceful, and you should all be
> ashamed of yourselves.
Great... now she's on a crusade! Miss Manners herself with an IQ the
size of a cabbage attempts to edumacate us. How rich.
> First I was upset, but I am just angry now.
Please seek counselling. There is a cure for your whining, insolent
behavior.
> I am astonished, and the more this thread goes on, the more I
> realise I am right.
"There are only two things which are infinite: the universe and human
stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
·····@invalid.dom says...
> arien wrote:
> >
> > I come to newsgroups to find solutions, and I have never seen
> > one behave as badly as this.
>
> What kind of arrogant, stuck-up snob are you that you think everyone
> here has a responsibility to give you solutions in a manner you find
> pleasing?
What kind of arrogant, stuck-up snob are you to interpret my post in
that way?
If newsgroups are not here for coming here to ask questions, and having
discussions, then what do you propose they are here for?
>
> > > For the same reason I'm inclined to think that her
> > > continuation is because she has the bit between her teeth,
> >
> > I won't deny that, yes I have got the bit between my teeth. I don't deny
> > being a headstrong sort of person and I will fight for what I believe
> > in. This is a good quality in me.
>
> Is it also a good quality of the Klu Klux Klan that they fight for what
> they believe in? That they are a headstrong kind of people with the bit
> between their teeth?
That's hardly a comparison
>
> > The action of this group have been disgraceful, and you should all be
> > ashamed of yourselves.
>
> Great... now she's on a crusade! Miss Manners herself with an IQ the
> size of a cabbage attempts to edumacate us. How rich.
Excuse me. Just because you don't like what I said (which is true),
doesn't mean you need to make false, insulting assumptions. I happen to
know my IQ, and it is quite satisfying thankyou.
>
> > First I was upset, but I am just angry now.
>
> Please seek counselling. There is a cure for your whining, insolent
> behavior.
Oh I don't need counselling. yours is just a desperate attack by someone
who can't think of anything better to say.
>
> > I am astonished, and the more this thread goes on, the more I
> > realise I am right.
>
> "There are only two things which are infinite: the universe and human
> stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
>
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
> > arien wrote:
> > >
> > > I come to newsgroups to find solutions, and I have never seen
> > > one behave as badly as this.
> >
> > What kind of arrogant, stuck-up snob are you that you think everyone
> > here has a responsibility to give you solutions in a manner you find
> > pleasing?
>
> What kind of arrogant, stuck-up snob are you to interpret my post in
> that way?
To paraphrase what you wrote, "I came here to find solutions, god
dammit, and even though I'm new I know the standards by which everybody
should behave and I hereby judge the people here as behaving badly."
> If newsgroups are not here for coming here to ask questions, and having
> discussions, then what do you propose they are here for?
A newsgroup isn't your personal help forum. You are free to ask
questions but also anyone is free to answer them (or not) and nobody
guarantees that you will appreciate the answer. If someone thinks your
question was stupid, they are free to tell you so. You are free to heed
their advice or to ignore it. That's the nature of a free discussion.
You seem to want the discussion only on your terms and that's where you
err.
> > > > For the same reason I'm inclined to think that her
> > > > continuation is because she has the bit between her teeth,
> > >
> > > I won't deny that, yes I have got the bit between my teeth. I don't deny
> > > being a headstrong sort of person and I will fight for what I believe
> > > in. This is a good quality in me.
> >
> > Is it also a good quality of the Klu Klux Klan that they fight for what
> > they believe in? That they are a headstrong kind of people with the bit
> > between their teeth?
>
> That's hardly a comparison
Isn't it? If the same attributes apply to both, shouldn't the
conclusion be the same? Why do you think my assertion is incorrect?
In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
·····@invalid.dom says...
> arien wrote:
> > > arien wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I come to newsgroups to find solutions, and I have never seen
> > > > one behave as badly as this.
> > >
> > > What kind of arrogant, stuck-up snob are you that you think everyone
> > > here has a responsibility to give you solutions in a manner you find
> > > pleasing?
> >
> > What kind of arrogant, stuck-up snob are you to interpret my post in
> > that way?
>
> To paraphrase what you wrote, "I came here to find solutions, god
> dammit, and even though I'm new I know the standards by which everybody
> should behave and I hereby judge the people here as behaving badly."
That's bad paraphrasing. Firstly, I ask you, doesn't anybody who asks a
question also perhaps looking for a solution to that question? So by
your definition, it is arrogant to ask a question.
Secondly, I am new to c.l.l, but I am far from new to usenet. I know the
standards of behaviour on usenet, and by those definitions, the people
here are behaving badly.
>
> > If newsgroups are not here for coming here to ask questions, and having
> > discussions, then what do you propose they are here for?
>
> A newsgroup isn't your personal help forum.
I never suggested or implied that it was.
> u are free to ask
> questions but also anyone is free to answer them (or not) and nobody
> guarantees that you will appreciate the answer. If someone thinks your
> question was stupid, they are free to tell you so. You are free to heed
> their advice or to ignore it. That's the nature of a free discussion.
I agree with you here.
> You seem to want the discussion only on your terms and that's where you
> err.
But then, according to your speach on "free discussion", I am also able
to have my own free discussion and state my opinion that the behaviour
of some people here is disgusting. Therefore, by *your* own definition
of usenet, I have not erred.
>
> > > > > For the same reason I'm inclined to think that her
> > > > > continuation is because she has the bit between her teeth,
> > > >
> > > > I won't deny that, yes I have got the bit between my teeth. I don't deny
> > > > being a headstrong sort of person and I will fight for what I believe
> > > > in. This is a good quality in me.
> > >
> > > Is it also a good quality of the Klu Klux Klan that they fight for what
> > > they believe in? That they are a headstrong kind of people with the bit
> > > between their teeth?
> >
> > That's hardly a comparison
>
> Isn't it? If the same attributes apply to both, shouldn't the
> conclusion be the same? Why do you think my assertion is incorrect?
>
OK, I don't know enough about Klu Klux Klan to explain, since they are
not big in Australia. But as a comparison, you could also say that the
Muslim's are a headstrong people, and they will lose their life over it.
But again, this is hardly a comparison, because firstly, not all
Muslim's will take innocent lives for *the cause*.
Secondly, the likes of these Klu Klux Klanner's and *some* Muslim's,
they don't fight for what *they* believe in. They fight for what someone
else believes in.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I come to newsgroups to find solutions, and I have never seen
> > > > > one behave as badly as this.
> >
> > To paraphrase what you wrote, "I came here to find solutions, god
> > dammit, and even though I'm new I know the standards by which everybody
> > should behave and I hereby judge the people here as behaving badly."
>
> That's bad paraphrasing. Firstly, I ask you, doesn't anybody who asks a
> question also perhaps looking for a solution to that question? So by
> your definition, it is arrogant to ask a question.
No, it is arrogant to impose your standards on others. Ask any question
you like. Don't complain about the answers you get.
> Secondly, I am new to c.l.l, but I am far from new to usenet. I know the
> standards of behaviour on usenet, and by those definitions, the people
> here are behaving badly.
And the standards of every group is the same? Hardly! And what makes
you the judge and jury of what is the standard on this group?
> > > If newsgroups are not here for coming here to ask questions, and having
> > > discussions, then what do you propose they are here for?
> >
> > A newsgroup isn't your personal help forum.
>
> I never suggested or implied that it was.
It's the way you act, as many have pointed out. However, you fail to
see this so no point in flogging this dead horse.
> > u are free to ask
> > questions but also anyone is free to answer them (or not) and nobody
> > guarantees that you will appreciate the answer. If someone thinks your
> > question was stupid, they are free to tell you so. You are free to heed
> > their advice or to ignore it. That's the nature of a free discussion.
>
> I agree with you here.
>
> > You seem to want the discussion only on your terms and that's where you
> > err.
>
> But then, according to your speach on "free discussion", I am also able
> to have my own free discussion and state my opinion that the behaviour
> of some people here is disgusting. Therefore, by *your* own definition
> of usenet, I have not erred.
Then why do you get so upset at your belief that others have insulted
you? Why do you insist that others not post anything negative, but then
you turn around and post negative things about them? Shouldn't YOU just
ignore them?
> > > > > I won't deny that, yes I have got the bit between my teeth. I don't deny
> > > > > being a headstrong sort of person and I will fight for what I believe
> > > > > in. This is a good quality in me.
> > > >
> > > > Is it also a good quality of the Klu Klux Klan that they fight for what
> > > > they believe in? That they are a headstrong kind of people with the bit
> > > > between their teeth?
> > >
> > > That's hardly a comparison
> >
> > Isn't it? If the same attributes apply to both, shouldn't the
> > conclusion be the same? Why do you think my assertion is incorrect?
>
> OK, I don't know enough about Klu Klux Klan to explain, since they are
> not big in Australia.
You don't need to know anything about them other than they're not, shall
we say, the most socially accepting people. The comparison between the
Ku Klux Klan and yourself is, on the surface, equivalent (headstrong,
bit between teeth, fight for beliefs). Where it fails, however, is in
the fact that the beliefs are different. Someone who is headstrong and
fights for justice and truth is good. Conversely, another person who is
headstrong and fights, but fights for evil is not good. There's the
difference. So it's not whether you are headstrong or not, it's not
whether you fight for it or not, and it's not whether you have the bit
between your teeth or not -- it's whether what you believe and are
fighting for is correct or not.
Various people in this newsgroup have suggested (politely or otherwise)
that you consider that the insults you perceive are a result of you
interpreting things incorrectly. If there's a chance that they may be
right, then are you willing to continue to fight for something which is
wrong? Are you so headstrong that you are unwilling to reconsider the
situation to determine whether the fight you're fighting makes sense?
What if it really is you who is wrong? What if it's not all a big
conspiracy, c.l.l vs. Mel? What if people here really are trying to
help you think better?
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
> Secondly, I am new to c.l.l, but I am far from new to usenet. I know the
> standards of behaviour on usenet, and by those definitions, the people
> here are behaving badly.
If you knew the standards of usenet as well as you claim, you'd realize
that each group has its own culture, and it is the responsibility of a
newbie to any group to suss out and respect that culture. Judging a
group by the standards of other groups is 100% bad usenet.
If I posted in certain support groups the way that I post here, or in
certain high-octane social discussion groups, I would be quite justly
run off, or mass-ignored. OTOH, if you show up in alt.tasteless or
talk.politics.guns and start imploring everyone to be "nice", you
deserve all the derision you will get.
That a group's culture is not completely obvious from its name alone is
no excuse. One is expected to look, listen and learn before posting,
period.
A lot of what regulars do here *would* be considered horrible behavior
in other groups. That's one reason they are *here* and not there.
> > > If newsgroups are not here for coming here to ask questions, and having
> > > discussions, then what do you propose they are here for?
Whatever the users of a group as a whole have decided to use them for.
Oddly enough, you have come here and asked questions, and we have had
discussions, so this newsgroup certainly meets the requirements of your
little rhetorical. What were you complaining about? Oh, *you* don't
*like* the discussions.
> But then, according to your speach on "free discussion", I am also able
> to have my own free discussion and state my opinion that the behaviour
> of some people here is disgusting. Therefore, by *your* own definition
> of usenet, I have not erred.
It's an unmoderated group. No one will stop you from posting whatever
you want, whether it's interesting or tripe. Readers are also free to
form whatever opinions they want of your posts.
Michael
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
> In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> ·····@invalid.dom says...
>> > The action of this group have been disgraceful, and you should all
>> > be ashamed of yourselves.
>>
>> Great... now she's on a crusade! Miss Manners herself with an IQ the
>> size of a cabbage attempts to edumacate us. How rich.
>
> Excuse me. Just because you don't like what I said (which is true),
> doesn't mean you need to make false, insulting assumptions. I happen
> to know my IQ, and it is quite satisfying thankyou.
Thats right stop insulting cabbages!!!!!!
marc
arien wrote:
>
> here goes the insults again. You expect me not to get upset when you
> insult me? Mr Nagger insulted me by suggesting I was dumb. I got upset
> about that, and I won't apologise for that.
>
Please go back to the first post you found insulting and read it again,
there is not a single mention of your person in it.
>
> I started with
> saying what I *thought* I knew, and that's when the flood of insults
> appeared.
What is the point of saying what you think you know when you
admit yourself you hardly understand the language? What followed
was a statement that this is a bad attitude and you took this as
an insult.
> This is incorrect, because I don't even have enough
> knowledge of the language to *have* misconceptions.
Yet you compare it with Java and C++. Saying parantheses are hard
and how it much easier in Java. Some of us actually only had this
problem for a day or two, and for me personally it was not specially
the parans that was hard, but rather what type of forms to use where.
COND was the biggest troublemaker. But not knowing when to start
and end a form is an indication of "I don't want this".
Someone with a high honours in Java should have no problem learning
Lisp syntax.
> I'm NOT going to
> apologise for my lack of knowledge.
So your lack of knowledge is an excuse for anything? It is not
an apologies for ignorance that is being asked.
> That's what I came here for, and I
> expected someone to help me - without blowing me away with highly
> technical advice (that I don't understand),
This only means you asked questions you are not ready for yet.
> and get abused for
> mentioning a few little things that I *thought* was true about lisp.
>
This is a misconception. This is a contradiction of earlier statements.
>>You were not treated the way you were because you are new. You were
>>treated the way you were because you actions were that of a spoiled self
>>centered child.
>>
>
>
> See! Insults again.
No.
> My actions were of someone who was upset about being
> insulted.
You insulted first. Even the people who disagree strongly with
Naggums style agrees with this. What does this tell you?
> Perhaps in your next reply you can stop insulting me, so that
> this conversation won't be so one sided.
> Just because I didn't tolerate the insults very well, DOES NOT make me a
> child.
You miss the point.
>
> And yet again, another insult. When Mr. Nagger started insulting me and
> abusing me, I had done nothing wrong.
This is a false statement. Get your facts straight.
> Now, you seem to perceive that I'm
> some little spoilt kid - and yet Mr. Nagger is considered right for his
> actions.
That is a very apt observation. Only this Len Charest seems to disagree
with this. And judging by his track record in this thread that is not
much to go by.
> No. What I see here in this group is a bunch of stuck up *professionals*
> who don't know how to use the English language very well.
Isn't this called projection or something?
> In this group
> they also take part in verbal bashing of other languages.
These bashings are often based on technical details, they are not
just insane ramblings.
> Being *adult* includes being
> tolerant of newbies, and allow them to make mistakes.
And correct them when they do. And react harshly when they refuse
to see the error of their ways.
--
Thomas.
>
> Please go back to the first post you found insulting and read it again,
> there is not a single mention of your person in it.
>
Okay I did. Some of the original posts are gone from my newsreader
because the date has expired, but I believe this is where is has all
started:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Wait until I start on my next assignment, then it'll happen all over
| again :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This was my post, and I was saying it light-heartedly. Each assignment
is a new battle that gets harder and harder. You have to go through all
the debugging process again (which I have discovered I am not doing it
the easy way). And here is our friend here, his nice insulting reply:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you admit to being learning-impaired or to think that being
learning-
impaired is a joking matter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you telling me this doesn't mention myself? Or are you going to tell
me this is not insulting? Whether he was meant to be insulting or not,
this reply is unncessary.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Do you admit to being learning-impaired or to think that being
> learning-
> impaired is a joking matter?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Are you telling me this doesn't mention myself?
Yes. (Except in the 'Do you admit' part)
> Or are you going to tell me this is not insulting?
Yes.
> Whether he was meant to be insulting or not,
> this reply is unncessary.
I think you should study the quoted material above in context.
Allthough you have allready shown that you have trouble with
context this might help you understand what has actually happened
here.
And before you go completely ballistic over the 'trouble with
context part' here is what happened:
- You decided that Eric S. Raymond was bad because he was a hacker.
- You were told that the term hacker in the context used by him
is not a criminal, but someone who is good at something and has
a keen interest (usually in computers)
- You then proceeded to say that the definition of hacker you were
using was the one given in the Oxford dictionary.
This shows one (or both) of two things, 1. lack of reading comprehension
and 2. trouble dealing with context.
--
Thomas.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| It's called frustration after all the abuse I received for just being a
| newbie. I did NOT deserve the abuse. I was told I was dumb and various
| other name calling and assumptions which are not true.
No, you were not.
| After the unnecessary attack from Mr Nagger here, I responded in the only
| was that was left for me. It's quite a bit more pleasing for me now,
| since I can't see his posts.
Yet you keep talking about me. This is /very/ indicative.
| And for those of you that say "We are professionals here, don't come
| here whinging"..........well all I can say that is a totally stuck up
| attitude. It is totally unprofessional to behave in this manner, so it's
| about time you guys get your hands out of your butts, and start learning
| how to communicate.
Look who has nothing to learn but everything to teach.
/Why/ are people helping this cretin?
Pascal Costanza, why do you give us the clear and unequivocal message
that you prefer this newsgroup to be filled with this kind of misbehaving
slut who tell people they need to learn to communicate with it instead of
thinking people who want to learn Common Lisp and manage to focus on that
task? What do /you/ gain from a newsgroup full of people who behave the
way you so strongly encourage? You, the master of feel-good egoism, bear
direct responsibility for the continued behavior of this cretin and the
JPL lunatic by encouraging people to vent their feelings instead of trying
to stick to technical matters. This is evidently the kind of people you
prefer to hang around with. Take them with you to one of those feel-good
places where you can all group hug and smooch!
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Pascal Costanza, why do you give us the clear and unequivocal message
> that you prefer this newsgroup to be filled with this kind of misbehaving
> slut who tell people they need to learn to communicate with it instead of
> thinking people who want to learn Common Lisp and manage to focus on that
> task?
Look, you *stupid idiot*: Mel is not a misbehaving slut. She is just a
newbie who has a hard time finding her way around. Most of her actions
are very natural reactions. For example, making jokes about something
she doesn't understand is a very natural thing to do. Of course, this is
a clear sign of uncertainty, and may even not be a very intelligent
thing to do in that situation. But it is natural. If you can't deal with
this, then just leave it to other people who are more capable!
Furthermore, there are many people out there for whom Common Lisp is
_not_ the most important thing in the world. Especially not when they
are new to Common Lisp. There are many misconceptions about programming
languages in general, but these misconceptions are taught almost
everywhere. These misconceptions are backed by seemingly convincing
arguments, they are actually very deceptive. For most people,
programming languages are just tools among a range of other tools. They
have a very neutral relationship to programming languages. This is one
of the most successful misconceptions about programming languages out there.
So when someone enters "the world" of Common Lisp we have to face the
fact that they don't share the same enthusiasm as most of us do. When
they see people who praise Common Lisp beyond everything else, who are
extremely defensive of "their baby", and who attack everyone who is not
"enlightened" yet (and who therefore ridicule what they don't
understand), they will almost inevitably think that we're just a bunch
of idiots and will probably back out. Now, is this what /you/ want?
> What do /you/ gain from a newsgroup full of people who behave the
> way you so strongly encourage?
You still haven't understood what I want to encourage. I don't think
that you even have any clue.
> You, the master of feel-good egoism,
Fuck you.
> bear
> direct responsibility for the continued behavior of this cretin and the
> JPL lunatic by encouraging people to vent their feelings instead of trying
> to stick to technical matters.
>
> This is evidently the kind of people you
> prefer to hang around with.
Yes, I rather prefer to hang around with "this kind of people" than to
hang around with you.
Pascal
--
Given any rule, however �fundamental� or �necessary� for science, there
are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the
rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in
·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de:
> Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> >
> > This is evidently the kind of people you
>> prefer to hang around with.
>
> Yes, I rather prefer to hang around with "this kind of people" than to
> hang around with you.
>
>
> Pascal
>
Well could you take them and go somewhere else? I won't mind, not one bit.
marc
* Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>
| Look, you *stupid idiot*: Mel is not a misbehaving slut.
Glad to see you actually condone her behavior and attack me, again.
It is very informative to see how you make your choices.
| Most of her actions are very natural reactions.
Of course it is to /your kind of people/, the emotionally immature people
who fail to grasp that other people are not there to make you feel good.
I find it rather amusing that you think you can use her.
| If you can't deal with this, then just leave it to other people who are
| more capable!
And just /why/ do you think the misbehaving slut keeps attacking me after
she put me in her kill-file?
Have you succeeded in curbing her misbehavior or have you encouraged her
to continue to inslut me? One has to wonder when reading your rationale.
| Furthermore, there are many people out there for whom Common Lisp is
| _not_ the most important thing in the world.
Pascal, listen carefully, because this will shock you: Common Lisp is not
the most important thing in the world for /anyone/. It is, however, the
most important thing /here/. Your failure to understand contexts is
quite alarming, but I have become used to your inability to grasp key
concepts by now, so nothing shocks me about you, anymore, I am even
getting pretty good at predicting you.
| For most people, programming languages are just tools among a range of
| other tools.
Sure, but not while discussing them with other people where the specific
topic is programming languages.
| So when someone enters "the world" of Common Lisp we have to face the
| fact that they don't share the same enthusiasm as most of us do.
Ah! This yielded some valuable understanding. Clearly, those who enter
the world of Common Lisp do not have to "face any facts". Amazing.
| When they see people who praise Common Lisp beyond everything else, who
| are extremely defensive of "their baby", and who attack everyone who is
| not "enlightened" yet (and who therefore ridicule what they don't
| understand), they will almost inevitably think that we're just a bunch of
| idiots and will probably back out. Now, is this what /you/ want?
But this is not what happened here. That you see it this way is quite
predictable, however. Your failure to understand your opposition is
quite interesting.
| You still haven't understood what I want to encourage. I don't think that
| you even have any clue.
Yes, Pascal, I understand /perfectly/ well what you want to encourage.
It is the kind of good vibrations that you need in a caring relationship
with one caretaker and one cared-for. I once worked with gifted children
and saw just how necessary it was to encourage them and just to be there
when they met with problems they were unprepared for and how important it
was to make them confide in someone than to try everything on their own.
I have a cat, a very trusting and well-behaved cat that does one thing my
veterinarian has not seen before: She accepts anything as long as I talk
to her and hold her, and absolutely nothing if I am not in the room. I
have also worked as a teaching assistant and know extremely well what it
takes to make someone want to overcome problems and be happy to have
solved them. I have designed and given many courses that all have got
rave reviews by people who took them. It is because I like to teach that
I still hang around here. The problem is that you do not understand this.
You think you are this master of another realm, do you not? That your
immature emotions provide you with a different reality from the thinking
and that your New Age approach is superior to thinking rationally and
behaving like an adult in public fora. You actively "understand" only
people who are beneath you, and hate those who think people should grow
the hell up before they enter public spaces. Your selective empathy and
emotional sharing does not extend to people in general, or you would have
been able to understand me, too, but is restricted to children that you
can feel better than by "helping" them feel better and who look up to you.
Do you think you are anything /novel/ in this world? Your kind are all
over the place! The anti-intellectual, emotionally immature, insecure,
overgrown babies who think that the rational world is harsh and demanding
and impersonal and cold. Why do you think your feelings towards me are
so intensely negative as they are? I deny your right not to think.
What I expect from people is something you cannot imagine that anyone
/could/ expect: I expect people to think, and I respond to them as if
they did, but some people are incapable of independent thought. They
need someone like you to validate their stupidity, and you are here to
make every stupid person feel validated and to go on being stupid.
| > You, the master of feel-good egoism,
|
| Fuck you.
Great! I take that as an admission of the short-sighted, self-absorbed,
fuck-others emotional state you are in. You do not care whether I feel
good at all, even with all your disgusting and creepy emotionalism and
all the blathering nonsense about encouraging emotional well-being. For
a person as unevolved as yourself, attacking those who do not share your
emotional immaturity is perfectly all right. The fact that you join the
attackers is such a blemish on your personality that you should feel so
much shame that a personal phone call with an apology should be in order,
but I expect no such thing from you.
If there had been /anything/ to the emotionalism that you favor, you
would have made it your most significant point to prove that it worked on
me, and that would have convinced even me of your ways. That you
completely fail to target this crucial point means that you /know/ it
does not work, except on immature children that can look up to Uncle
Pascal with gratitude and servitude. Yours is not a recipe for building
independent thinkers, but dependent feelers.
| Yes, I rather prefer to hang around with "this kind of people" than to
| hang around with you.
Glad to see it in writing and that I could predict this so well.
The fact that you fail to get along with me with your emotion-dropping
nonsense should really have been a wake-up call to you, but if you ever
/think/ in addition to your disgusting emotions, I suspect that you will
implode. Or put more generally, when your emotion-dripping nonsense does
not work on some people, there is something wrong with the methodology.
Your preferred response will instead be to label those people it works on
"normal" and those who reject your blathering nonsense as "not normal",
which is not quite in line with encouraing people, is it?
The fact is, your methodology is one of /unequals/, where you get to be
the master and everybody you care about be your slaves who are in need of
your validation before they can be anything. Your methodology is the
methodology of people who seek personal power over other people, the
power to make other people feel good without cause is the power to abuse
them and lead them into misery for fear of losing your favor. To make
people feel good even while they do something bad, which is precisely
what you do in this newsgroup and have confirmed so eloquently, is the
path of the Devil in the Christian mythology. The Sirens in the Greek
mythology lured sailors to their death with their songs. Various and
sundry other supernatural creatures in all other mythologies around the
world have lured the innocent (newbies) with temptations they could not
withstand, the one danger that people be taught to look out for. And
what is it that Christians around the world pray for -- "lead us not into
temptation, but deliver us from evil"? What worse temptation is there
than to have some master of feel-good egoism tell them that they should
/not/ think, that misbehaving like a seriously dysfunctional child is not
only acceptable, but /natural/, and what worse evil is there than a person
who actively condones and encourages the wrong-doers to continue to
harrass those the master does not want to exist?
The past evil people on this newsgroup have not had your philosophical
underpinning and "mission" to their destructiveness here. You, Pascal,
have chosen to make this a war where you want the Mels and the Lens to
harrass those you do not like and you seek to destroy other people because
they do not validate stupidity and other vices.
Please take your misbehaving disciples and go somewhere else.
Alternatively, cause your misbehaving disciples to behave well, and get
off that high horse of yours and just show us how well it works, and not
just for people of your own low-brow kind, but for /everybody/. Show me
that you care about /people/ not just /people you like/. Everybody can
do the latter and it is no challenge at all. And before your brain goes
into hyperdrive in self-defense: I respect every single person who has
chosen to /think/ no matter what they think about. Personal like or
dislike is indecent to make a public issue the way you do.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>
> | If you can't deal with this, then just leave it to other people who are
> | more capable!
>
> And just /why/ do you think the misbehaving slut keeps attacking me after
> she put me in her kill-file?
Because other people are attacking her for her supposedly "slutty"
behavior towards you. I agree in that she should stop that.
> | So when someone enters "the world" of Common Lisp we have to face the
> | fact that they don't share the same enthusiasm as most of us do.
>
> Ah! This yielded some valuable understanding. Clearly, those who enter
> the world of Common Lisp do not have to "face any facts". Amazing.
Of course they have to, but this is trivial.
> | When they see people who praise Common Lisp beyond everything else, who
> | are extremely defensive of "their baby", and who attack everyone who is
> | not "enlightened" yet (and who therefore ridicule what they don't
> | understand), they will almost inevitably think that we're just a bunch of
> | idiots and will probably back out. Now, is this what /you/ want?
>
> But this is not what happened here. That you see it this way is quite
> predictable, however. Your failure to understand your opposition is
> quite interesting.
And vice versa. I haven't said that I see it this way. Please read
again: "When _they_ see people who ...".
> | You still haven't understood what I want to encourage. I don't think that
> | you even have any clue.
>
> Yes, Pascal, I understand /perfectly/ well what you want to encourage.
No, you don't. Your posting proves this impressively. Would you please
just stop spreading misinformation about me and/or my motivations?
Thank you,
Pascal
--
Given any rule, however �fundamental� or �necessary� for science, there
are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the
rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
* Erik Naggum
| Ah! This yielded some valuable understanding. Clearly, those who enter
| the world of Common Lisp do not have to "face any facts". Amazing.
* Pascal Costanza
| Of course they have to, but this is trivial.
The fact that people do not get it strongly suggests otherwise.
| I haven't said that I see it this way. Please read again: "When _they_
| see people who ...".
But they do not see people who /do/ this! Damnit, are you so unable to
see reality because of your emotional attachment to a parallel universe
that you cannot even grasp that you are factually wrong about something?
* Pascal Costanza
| You still haven't understood what I want to encourage. I don't think that
| you even have any clue.
* Erik Naggum
| Yes, Pascal, I understand /perfectly/ well what you want to encourage.
* Pascal Costanza
| No, you don't. Your posting proves this impressively. Would you please just
| stop spreading misinformation about me and/or my motivations?
How utterly predictable a response. Your basic problem is that you do
not know how to listen to people who are not just like you, that is, just
like /everybody/. You lack something quite profound, but I am not sure
what. You clearly lack general empathy and need to make a choice about
with whom to share your feelings and the rest you openly favor attacking.
You clearly express such a strong dislike of other /people/ that you must
have failed to realize your own role in how you perceive them. It is not
possible to fail to realize this unless you are functionally braindead.
You clearly believe that your understanding is sufficient and thus refuse
to listen to anything more from the outside world. You believe that when
you find some evidence to confirm your already clearly prejudicial view
of another person, it constitutes proof that they do not understand you.
You would clearly not recognize an accurate description of yourself from
another point of view, but this tremendously consistent with your basic
attitude and your complete and utter failure to /think/.
You tell me that /you/ do not think I grasp what you are after. But look
at this: you claim that your view and your needs represent the majority
of people. You are right about that. Now, /please think/. If you /are/
the majority and I am in the minority, how could you possibly believe
that I have not already and many years ago figured out exactly how you
guys work? If you had the brain to do it, this would be a grave insult,
but you do not think ahead. You do in fact not think at all, because the
things you say can only be uttered by a mind closed shut long ago.
How can I detect that you do not think, you may wonder? It is very, very
easy: Do you exhibit an /understanding/ of ideas or positions you do not
agree with? Now, the first reaction you come up with to this point is
"and vice versa" -- which is a very strong clue that you do not understand
before you attack your opponent. To a thinking person, it does not matter
that the other guy suffers from the same problem. It does not influence
the argument one bit. But to the non-thinking person, this is all there
is to it: Hurling accusations back and forth to cause bad feelings. This
is how I can tell that you are completely /unthinking/: The whole point is
that you are a feeling person who does not believe in thinking. The
first, and if your behavior here is indicative, the /only/ thing you do is
check how you feel about something. If and only if you feel sufficiently
well, can you dare to open your eyes and look at the actual contents.
Now, this is precisely how the majority of people react. There is nothing
special about you at all. There is nothing whatsoever that could prevent
anyone from understanding how these people work. Everywhere, and I really
mean /everywhere/ people are like you, Pascal. Now, in my view, there can
be nothing as insulting towards another person as a claim that he has made
no distinct and personal impression, but some people have to make up the
masses, too. and if they can think of themselves a something because they
are non-descript, replaceable members of the masses, so be it. Pascal has
given voice to the rebellion of the masses, where /not/ knowing anything
means others should listen to them, where being /newbie/ and unwilling to
learn is a virtue. The people that the world would benefit the most from
attracting is, in the views of Pascal Costanza, those who have nothing to
offer anyone. The calls for a more popular Common Lisp is precisely this:
that the more nondescript nonspecific entities we can count, the better.
But how do we attract the masses? Pascal thinks that I do not understand
this because I retch and puke whenever I think of attracting the masses.
To this unthinking member of the masses, anyone who considers the masses
to be the root cause of human misery, does not understand him, and proves
it impressively. The sheer inability of members of the masses to grasp
that someone could /not/ value the masses higher than the individual make
them believe that others have not /understood/ them, because, clearly,
anyone who /understands/ the masses has to agree with their value.
I watch politicians and marketing departments, I watch commercials on TV
and hear them on the radio, I see ads in the newspaper and on the Net, and
I read the deceptive and manipulative nonsense of large companies like
Microsoft and I /know/ how it all works. Propaganda and marketing are not
hard to understand. It is not hard to predict what will make people buy
some piece of shit. All it takes is the total abdication of respect for
the human being as a thinking being. /This/ is the hard part, for even
the terminally comatose retain some inkling of the value of their brain.
But to succeed in mass marketing, you have to dispell every notion of
respect for the human being as anything other than a programmable cash
machine. And it can be programmed very easily. The main problem with
today's mass marketing is not that not all of it works, it is that /all/
of it works, so in order to be heard in the deafening cacophony of mass
market advertising, you /really/ have to go overboard. Again, this would
not be possible if you thought people had a working brain. In order to
attract the masses, you have to stop thinking. The only way you can keep
the masses around is if you do not demand that they think, because the
moment someone thinks, that is the moment they cease to be the masses.
The masses are stupid by /definition/. The masses is defined by absence.
Be /anything/ and you are not a member of the masses. Hell, even /yearn/
for anything and you are not a member of the masses.
The problem is not in understanding Pascal Costanza and his masses, it is
in making them realize that they have been understood. Nobody likes to
hear that they are stupid, but the masses are the only ones to /fight/ it.
Anyone who is /not/ a member of the masses can point to something they
have accomplished in their lives and say "I'm not stupid, so what made
this other guy think I am?". The members of the masses rebel against the
very notion that the masse are stupid with intense feelings of rejection
and hatred towards those who dare speak the truth, but by doing so, they
have proved the very thing they challenge. The only way to successfully
challenge a criticism against your mental capacity is to put it to shame
by showing what you got. Stupid people do not grasp this, while every
smart person I have ever seen have figured this out long before they
talked to me about it. Therefore, the whole point with denying the masses
the opportunity and right to be stupid is to drag those individuals out of
the masses who find that they can do better than being a member of the
masses. Again, the stupid masses do not grasp this, but every individual
worth his salt does. Against this process, we then have Pascal Costanza,
the premier proponent of hedonistic feel-goodism where only one's own
feelings matter and attacking others is perfectly legitimate if it makes
you feel better. (This is also how these dysfunctional idiots see other
people and every form of "attack".) Instead of encouraging people to take
the step out of the masses, Pascal Costanza actively encourages people to
remain members of the masses while he, another member of the masses, tries
to pretend that he is nothing special, /everybody/ has problems with Lisp
syntax and so on and so forth, It is precisely the /everybody/ aspect
that makes Pascal Costanza a member and proponent of the masses.
So, Pascal, I have not spread any misinformation about you at all. What
on earth (or substitute any other place as appropriate) made you think
that I would try to say something I do not actually mean about you or your
cause? You are the kind of person who spreads willful misinformation and
tries to make people believe in falsehoods. The people you defend and go
to great lengths to encourage are the kind of people who revel in making
up things that they think would hurt others. Every facet of your behavior
here confirms that your goal is to reduce Common Lisp to a mass market
language, which means: to chase away every independent thinker, every
person who has a different opinion, evere nonconformist, every single
person who does not agree with everybody else -- which is to say: every
single person who is not "nice" to everybody else. The only way you can
have people together for an extended period of time and have them all be
nice to eachother is if you lobotomize the lot.
Your task here is to destroy every single shred of individuality and real
personality and replace them with your bland niceness and unthinking
masses. The only way you can /actually/ achieve "be nice" for a large
group of people is to get rid of those who think the first and foremost
requirement for a newsgroup posting should be "have an interesting
opinion or point of view". For people who want to think, the worst that
can possibly happen is that they first and foremost need to cater to
every sulking child's "feelings" and "be nice" to every aggressive idiot.
Pascal Costanze has shown us that he is foreign to neither of these.
There is no misrepresentation of motives or desires here. The "be nice"
crap is crap precisely because this is a diverse forum for people who are
not in a parent-child or teacher-student relationship. The "be nice"
line is good and works very well when the "nice" person has an actual
responsibility for the person they are nice to. If the primary purpose
of a group of people is to care for eachother as real human beings. this
is a good line. Such cannot be the primary purpose, nor even a purpose
at all, of an electronic world-wide forum. I do not want to ask this
forum for sympathy when my cat gets ill or when I get ill, nor do I want
to read hundreds of messages that ask for such sympathy. There is no
doubt that it is "nice" to have people who care about you, but a forum
for the programming language Common Lisp is not suitable for it.
I /really/ wish people like Pascal Costanza could undestand that there
are more ways to interact with other people than to become personal
friends with everybody -- and especially that being personal friends with
somebody requires something of you that you cannot spread too thin among
too many people. Something very valuable in the very concept of a friend
breaks down and loses all meaning when you have hundreds of "friends".
Wearing your heart on your sleave is /idiotic/ in the world at large, but
is may work well in a small group of people who have an actual interest
in helping each other. Contrary to what the feel-good people believe,
actually caring about another person requires time and effort that has to
be prioritized over something else. A very good friend of mine battles
some pretty nasty psychological after-effects of ecstacy use and I have
carried him for months at a time over the past two years, but there are
times when I have to take care of myself first. To someone like Pascal
Costanza, who wants me to invest in such a lowlife as "Mel" and spend
time to "help" her (it would not /actually/ be help), and who wants to
waste his life on "helping" such people, I can only say that he has never
been a /real/ friend of anyone, nor had any of his own. It is impossible
for someone to ask people to "be nice" and care for somebody's feelings
if they had ever really taken care of another human being. It is so easy
to fake feelings of deep care over the Net -- children fall for predatory
adults who abuse and kill all the time -- but it is essentially impossible
to /actually/ care deeply about another person you have only met through
their choice of words. For most people, more than 90% of communication
with other people is non-verbal. On the net, 100% is verbal, meaning
that not only is the non-verbal dimension /absent/, the force of their
verbal communication skills completely swamp every other aspect of their
personality. How many have not been infatuated with a person they have
met online only to be shocked by how much that other person differed from
what they had believed they were like? How many times does a person have
to repeat this experience before they learn that people are not what you
believe they "have to" be just because you extrapolate from yourself or
your personal experiences. The incredible injustice you do to another
person by believing you "know" them because of what they have said is
evidently not within the grasp of these feel-good people, who probably
never even bother to check whether other people actually conform to their
mental models or not, but if you /think/ about how /little/ of yourself
you reveal in your words in a public forum, it should be so obvious that
it is impossible to base anything on that information with respect to
what someone might do in the future. Since the most useful feature we
have with our ability to construct a predictable person out of encounters
with real people in real life is that with the continuous flow of further
information and correctives, our predictions are /fluid/ and our ability
to deal with another person is based on the continuity of signals. On
the Net, the signals are /discrete/, in response to particular situations
in a context we do not know and cannot predict. There are people on the
Net who are so devoid of capacity to reason that they say somebody else
is "predictable" if they react hostilely to certain obnoxious behavior --
and yet do not understand that what they tell others about their need to
taunt others is extremely predictive for their future behavior.
"Be nice" is great advice to give to people when the information flow
about them is continuous and you deal with real people, because it
amounts to predictable behavior on your part, as well. However, on the
Net, we have discrete interactions, full messages at a time, with no way
to determine what is coming before it has all been read. What I think is
the real problem here is that the Pascal Costanzas of the world are unfit
for electronic communication -- they re-create their usual continuous
person-to-person interaction electronically and wonder why it does not
work. Because they are also tremendously unthinking and stupid, they do
not consider their failures to be indicative of something wrong in them
-- it is always somebody else who is at fault when those others are not
"nice" to them. So instead of creating a "warmer" environment, the
Pascal Costanzas of the world create an environment of /faked/ care for
eachother, where the /appearance/ of their pretend personal interaction
is vastly more important than discovering the uniqueness of the medium
they are actually using. I am quite certain that the Pascal Costanzas of
the world are harmless beings in their natural habitats, but on the Net,
they are the very anathema of intelligent discussion and debates, because
people are no longer complete people with a continuous information flow
about their entire person. To require people to "be nice" in such a
setting is to tell them to maintain the /illusion/ of continuity between
each message such that the feeble-minded feel-good people are not
subjected to surprises they do not have the capacity to deal with. To
demand this is to kill every /real/ aspect of anyone's personality, as
one has to enter a newsgroup "role" that resumes unchanged from the last
message posted. Instead of achieving a "warm" atmosphere, what they get
is a bunch of role-playing actors who pretend to care for eachother. The
language they use may well bear an uncanny similiarity to the /actual/
warm language of real people in a real social setting, but the only way
this immature and unevolved approach to online interaction can take place
is if the /only/ purpose to the interaction is to be social.
Those who have studied "online addiction" have categorized people's
persona on the Net in three stages: In the first stage, they adopt one or
more "roles" and play various games with respect to other people who are
also expected to play roles. People usually pretend to be their fantasy
self, just like children at play. Most people leave this stage quickly
and quit playing roles. In this stage, the purpose of the interaction is
to have other people approve of their "character". People regularly use
assumed names and work hard to hide their real identity in this stage.
This is the "fantasy stage". The second stage occurs when people switch
to be themselves and make an informed choice about what they are willing
to tell people or not. In this stage, the purpose of the interaction is
to let people in on a restricted part of their life, just as they would
real friends, pen-pals and the like. This is the "realistic stage" where
the online world is a natural part of their real lives. The third stage
occurs when the entire self takes place online. People share an enomrous
amount of personal information with others and seek out others who are
willing share just as much, but they still mainly talk about themselves.
The volume of personal details is often two orders of magnitude more
detailed than the typical secret diary, and some people create web pages
which detail to an incredible degree what they did and how they felt
during each day. This is the "absorbed stage" where the Net has taken
over their lives and they display every symptom of being addicted,
meaning that they would feel intense withdrawal symptoms and feel that
they had ceased to function normally if they could not be online, when in
fact they have ceased to function normally sometime /before/ they entered
the third stage. Now, the real kicker is that some people skip the
second stage and go directly from the fantasy to a self-absorbed stage,
and these are the people that need the most attention and care if they
are to regain normalcy. There is some indication that people who have
never actually grown up in real life also fail to enter the second stage.
What I see with these incredibly immature feel-good people who want the
Net to be "nice" is that they, too, have skipped the realistic stage of
their electronic interaction with people and either relate to others as
fantasy figures mainly of their own creation or attempt to deal with
"real people" by filling in all the blansk. So they live in a fantasy
where both they and other people play roles, like this new JPL lunatic
with his eerie "dance" mantra, or they want a world where other people
are much more personal than they would be in real life, like "Mel" and
Pascal Costanzas.
Unfortunately, people who truly believe that all human interaction should
be exactly like face-to-face interaction can never be expected manage
more complex human relations and processes. To them, everything is about
/people/ and the continous flow of information that people present to
eachother in real life. Interaction through memoranda fails. Interaction
through debate articles in newspapers fails. Interaction through articles
in professional journals fails. Interaction over time by reading books
or articles that are one hundred years old fails completely because these
people need the full /personal/ context of another human being in order
to deal with anything they say at all. The concept of dealing with the
expression of an idea cannot possibly arise with these feel-good people
because they cannot "feel" /anything/ about, say, Thucydides, who founded
the science of history with his history of the Peloponnesian war. The
need to /feel/ before one /understands/ is therefore the very antithesis
of the distinctly /human/ communication over vast spans of time and
geography and with people one does not know personally. First and
foremost to cater to the feelings of other people denies everyone the
opportunity to take part in the distinctly /modern/ tradition of /not/
having to know the person in order to trust his words. When facts can
offend before they illuminate, when ideas can hurt before their meaning
is grasped, when the expression of a thought has to be crushed because
someone becomes ill at ease, we abandon the concept of civilization and
of learning from the experience of others.
What we need to become more civilized is not residents who cater to the
unknowable feelings of "newbies", but newbies who are mature enough not
to take offense at facts and advice offered in good faith. If someone is
likely to feel bad for having received appropriate advice or answers to
his questions, that person should grow up in the confines of people who
care about his development before being let out in public. To attack, or
to defend such attack, someone because one has personal sensitivities
that are deemed to be "offended" on purpose when they are not explicitly
catered to by others is the kind of immaturity that loving parents should
take care of, not other people in a forum where the exchange of ideas and
experiences should be unfettered by the emotional problems of people who
do not have the decency to curb their expression of same. If it is the
ability to learn from the experiences of others we want, we cannot suffer
the debilitating lack of development found in people who think only of
their own feelings and nothing of others. It is precisely /because/ we
all have "sensitivities" that would stifle all communication if all of us
were to rise to demand respect for them that /none/ of us must abuse the
public forum for personal emotional needs. To demand that a public forum
be turned into a /private/ forum where only a few people are allowed to
field their emotoinal needs -- and it will always have to be only a few
-- is to make a demand on some people to suffier in solitude while others
are allowed to demand the attention of everybody to cater to their needs.
The injustice of this scheme is reason enough for its indecency.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Erik Naggum
> | Ah! This yielded some valuable understanding. Clearly, those who enter
> | the world of Common Lisp do not have to "face any facts". Amazing.
>
> * Pascal Costanza
> | Of course they have to, but this is trivial.
>
> The fact that people do not get it strongly suggests otherwise.
It's trivial that they have to face certain facts. It's not trivial for
them to actually face these facts. There's a difference.
> * Pascal Costanza
> | You still haven't understood what I want to encourage. I don't think that
> | you even have any clue.
>
> * Erik Naggum
> | Yes, Pascal, I understand /perfectly/ well what you want to encourage.
>
> * Pascal Costanza
> | No, you don't. Your posting proves this impressively. Would you please just
> | stop spreading misinformation about me and/or my motivations?
[...]
> This
> is how I can tell that you are completely /unthinking/: The whole point is
> that you are a feeling person who does not believe in thinking. The
> first, and if your behavior here is indicative, the /only/ thing you do is
> check how you feel about something. If and only if you feel sufficiently
> well, can you dare to open your eyes and look at the actual contents.
This is an exaggerated portrayal of my point of view, but nevertheless
relatively accurate. It's true that I don't value thinking higher than
feeling, but I also don't value feeling higher than thinking. I don't
believe in thinking insofar that I don't think it is esentially superior
to feeling. (Actually, the term "belief" doesn't make any sense in this
context.)
Yes, I do check first how I feel about something before I take a closer
look at the details. However, this all doesn't make me a "completely
unthinking" person. I just think that I have found a better balance
between the thinking part and the feeling part (which are just two
different sides of the same coin). This has worked extremely well for
me, and I don't see why it shouldn't continue to work well in the future.
Feelings and intuitions are just extremely useful "tools" to sort out
the interesting from the uninteresting "topics". IMHO, they are the only
efficient ones to deal with complexity in the real world. The thinking
part carries out the details afterwards.
(...of course, there are exceptional cases when it's better to look at
the details even if something doesn't feel good. But that's for
psychotherapy and doesn't belong in a technical forum.)
As a consequence, I might have misunderstood several of your arguments,
and essentially I don't care. Several times, I didn't like what I have
felt when I have read your arguments, so I have chosen not to bother
about them. It might even be that I have missed some important lessons,
but I am sure that I will learn them from other people that I feel more
comfortable with when I actually need these lessons. You might regard my
behavior as anti-intellectual, but please note that it is only
anti-intellectual by your standards.
However, thanks for this portrayal of my point of view. It actually has
helped to distill the different axioms that our two different world
views are based on. You value thinking higher than feeling, and I don't.
(I don't say that you do so in general. I don't know you personally, so
I can't draw any conclusions in this respect.)
I only ask you not to judge me and my statements by your standards, but
to respect that I don't share your standards. I am willing to do the
same. (I admit that I haven't always succeeded to do so in the past, and
I am sorry for that.)
(...and please stop trying to provoke me in order to make me switch to
the "thinking-is-better-than-feeling" mode. You won't succeed. I have
made up my mind long time ago and have very good reasons for my world
view. I won't give the details in this forum because this will bore
people even more to death than this thread already does.)
[...]
> Now, this is precisely how the majority of people react. There is nothing
> special about you at all. There is nothing whatsoever that could prevent
> anyone from understanding how these people work. Everywhere, and I really
> mean /everywhere/ people are like you, Pascal.
That's fine by me. I don't find this particularly insulting.
[...]
> The masses are stupid by /definition/. The masses is defined by absence.
> Be /anything/ and you are not a member of the masses. Hell, even /yearn/
> for anything and you are not a member of the masses.
I think your arguments are based on a (possibly unconsciously made)
erroneous assumption. You try to question the masses. However, you can't
question the masses.
> Your task here is to destroy every single shred of individuality and real
> personality and replace them with your bland niceness and unthinking
> masses.
As a sidenote, this is an example of a misrepresentation of my motives.
Pascal
--
Given any rule, however �fundamental� or �necessary� for science, there
are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the
rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
Pascal Costanza wrote:
>
> ...When
> they see people who praise Common Lisp beyond everything else, who are
> extremely defensive of "their baby", and who attack everyone who is not
> "enlightened" yet (and who therefore ridicule what they don't
> understand), they will almost inevitably think that we're just a bunch
> of idiots and will probably back out....
Why "therefore"?
Is it absolutely necessary to ridicule anything you don't understand?
Is it possible that the "attack" is not upon the person, nor upon the
lack of enlightenedness, but is directed against either the ridicule,
or even the "therefore"?
Ian Wild wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>
>>...When
>>they see people who praise Common Lisp beyond everything else, who are
>>extremely defensive of "their baby", and who attack everyone who is not
>>"enlightened" yet (and who therefore ridicule what they don't
>>understand), they will almost inevitably think that we're just a bunch
>>of idiots and will probably back out....
>
> Why "therefore"?
>
> Is it absolutely necessary to ridicule anything you don't understand?
No. It's just what many people do. When you ridicule something you
objectify it, as opposed to letting it disturb you. Many people prefer
not to be disturbed. Note that I don't mean to defend such a behavior.
> Is it possible that the "attack" is not upon the person, nor upon the
> lack of enlightenedness, but is directed against either the ridicule,
> or even the "therefore"?
Of course.
Obviously my wording was ambiguous. Perhaps I should have said "When
they believe to see people who...". I think that we can influence the
impression we make on other people.
Pascal
--
Given any rule, however �fundamental� or �necessary� for science, there
are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the
rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:35:47 +1030, arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
wrote:
> It's called frustration after all the abuse I received for just being a
> newbie. I did NOT deserve the abuse. I was told I was dumb and various
> other name calling and assumptions which are not true.
Some more food for thought:
How to Ask Questions the Smart Way (by Eric Raymond)
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
In article <····························@4ax.com>, ·······@mclink.it
says...
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:35:47 +1030, arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > It's called frustration after all the abuse I received for just being a
> > newbie. I did NOT deserve the abuse. I was told I was dumb and various
> > other name calling and assumptions which are not true.
>
> Some more food for thought:
>
> How to Ask Questions the Smart Way (by Eric Raymond)
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
and that's been written by a hacker. Doesn't that just display how
pathetic this group behaves.
Enough said.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> In article <····························@4ax.com>, ·······@mclink.it
> says...
> > On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:35:47 +1030, arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It's called frustration after all the abuse I received for just being a
> > > newbie. I did NOT deserve the abuse. I was told I was dumb and various
> > > other name calling and assumptions which are not true.
> >
> > Some more food for thought:
> >
> > How to Ask Questions the Smart Way (by Eric Raymond)
> > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> and that's been written by a hacker. Doesn't that just display how
> pathetic this group behaves.
No, it does not. If you had any clue whatsoever about who Eric Raymond
is or what a hacker really is then you would realize just how dumb that
statement is. That's right, the statement. Do you have any clue what a
hacker is? You could have followed the links in the document. Maybe
then you would realize that those guidelines are valid given the
participants of this newsgroup. Obviously, you took the time to read
it.
> Enough said.
Exactly.
--
Shaun Rowland ·······@cis.ohio-state.edu
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~rowland/
arien wrote:
> >
> > Some more food for thought:
> >
> > How to Ask Questions the Smart Way (by Eric Raymond)
> > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> and that's been written by a hacker. Doesn't that just display how
> pathetic this group behaves.
>
> Enough said.
The above message was written by an Australian. Doesn't that just
display how pathetic it is.
Enough said.
[as usual, you missed the point entirely!]
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> In article <····························@4ax.com>, ·······@mclink.it
> says...
> > Some more food for thought:
> >
> > How to Ask Questions the Smart Way (by Eric Raymond)
> > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> and that's been written by a hacker.
Look up what ``hacker'' actually means:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/jargon.html#hacker
Then read who Eric S. Raymond is:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr
> Doesn't that just display how pathetic this group behaves.
>
> Enough said.
*sigh*
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, ···@cartan.de says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> > In article <····························@4ax.com>, ·······@mclink.it
> > says...
>
> > > Some more food for thought:
> > >
> > > How to Ask Questions the Smart Way (by Eric Raymond)
> > > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> >
> > and that's been written by a hacker.
>
> Look up what ``hacker'' actually means:
>
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/jargon.html#hacker
The Oxford dictionary describes hacker as:
1. a person or thing that hacks or cuts roughly
2. a) a perosn whose hobby is computing or computer programming
b) a person who gains unauthorised access to a computer network and uses
or alters data etc.
I believed it was referring to 2. b).
I may have made a mistake in the reference to "hacker", but Mr Eric S.
Raymond is even more incorrect in his definition of hacker. By the way,
a "cracker" is someone who cracks a piece of software ie. a demo version
is *cracked* so that it works indefinately. Mr Raymond doesn't even get
this right.
>
> Then read who Eric S. Raymond is:
>
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr
>
> > Doesn't that just display how pathetic this group behaves.
> >
> > Enough said.
>
> *sigh*
>
> Regards,
>
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
"arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
>
> The Oxford dictionary describes hacker as:
>
> 1. a person or thing that hacks or cuts roughly
> 2. a) a perosn whose hobby is computing or computer programming
> b) a person who gains unauthorised access to a computer network and uses
> or alters data etc.
>
> I believed it was referring to 2. b).
>
> I may have made a mistake in the reference to "hacker", but Mr Eric S.
> Raymond is even more incorrect in his definition of hacker. By the way,
> a "cracker" is someone who cracks a piece of software ie. a demo version
> is *cracked* so that it works indefinately. Mr Raymond doesn't even get
> this right.
>
Well, it's fascinating to know that the programming community is
using the words incorrectly since they are the ones that originally
coined them. The meanings you are applying to the terms came from
journalists misusing the terminology to give their pieces the
"being one with the clique" atmosphere. Of course they won the battle
over dictionary definitions, the outside world was seeing us through
their eyes, but a large number of us still stick to the original spec.
I try to remember that I'm not talking to my nextdoor neighbour here,
but talking to people from around the world, without the benefit
of seeing facial expressions or body language. It's easy to misinterpret
someone else's writing according to my view of the world.
Things that strike me as an insult or attack on my person have a
tendency not to be on closer reading. When I respond to them with
overt hostility it becomes a self-fufilling prophecy.
Trying to change the way someone behaves on NGs is almost always
doomed to failure, we all know the way we behave online is correct,
with the exception of posting after crawling back from the pub. :-)
It's the uncouth idiot on the other end who's the ass.
Welcome to comp.lang.lisp, the initial pain of parenthesis will go
away, if you stick with it, and be replaced with a sense of awe at
the simplicity in form of a very rich language. I love working
with CL in spite of the fact I am still much more adept with C/C++.
--
Geoff
* Geoffrey Summerhayes
| Well, it's fascinating to know that the programming community is using
| the words incorrectly since they are the ones that originally coined
| them.
This is quite strongly incorrect. The verb "hack" is very old. Newer
meanings include "to manage, deal with, carry out successfully", but
usually used in the negative, as in "can't hack it". A "hacker" is one
who does precisely that -- manages, deals with, carries out successfully.
Note that this was the meaning employed at MIT, which is credited with
the coinage of the word "hacker".
| The meanings you are applying to the terms came from journalists misusing
| the terminology to give their pieces the "being one with the clique"
| atmosphere.
In the writing business, which includes journalists, "hack" refers to bad
writing, "a hack" is a writer who works on order or who aims solely for
commercial success, a mercenary writer. To a journalist, the meaning of
a cab driver or unskilled player of golf, tennis, etc, may also be closer
at hand than that of a skilled enthusiast.
| Of course they won the battle over dictionary definitions, the outside
| world was seeing us through their eyes, but a large number of us still
| stick to the original spec.
You are wrong on this count, too. An assortment of entries from my
reference shelf:
Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th ed (50th anniversary rev):
3 a) an adept or highly skilled computer enthusiast or programmer
Random House Webster's College Dictionary:
3 [slang] a. a computer enthusiast who is esp. proficient in programming
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed:
[informal] 1. One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a
computer buff
The New Oxford American Dictionary:
1 [informal] an enthusiastic and skillful computer programmer or user
Random House Webster's Unabridged:
3 [computer slang] a. a computer enthusiast
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, addendum:
an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer : computer
whiz
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
Since the animal with which some people are conversing is not American or
likely to influenced by American traditions, the entries from the Oxford
Reference Online are quite different from the above American dictionaries:
A Dictionary of Business:
An individual with a good understanding of the structure and operation of
computer networks, who deliberately breaks into confidential systems. [...]
A Dictionary of Accounting:
A person who uses a computer system without authorization, generally
gaining access by means of a telephone connection.
A Dictionary of the Internet:
1. Someone who uses a high degree of computer skill to carry out
unauthorized acts within a network: [...]
2. Someone who is possessed of a high degree of computer skills and who
employs them in a conventional, non-criminal way. Because of this duality
of meaning, hackers who are in the second category use the word CRACKER to
describe those in the first category. The second meaning predates the
first.
and also
dark side hacker A malicious HACKER, the implication here being that the
hacker community is dedicated to the overall good of the Internet.
A Dictionary of Computing:
1. A person who attempts to breach the security of a computer system by
access from a remote point, [...]
2. Originally, a person who had an instinctive knowledge enabling him or
her to develop software apparently by trial and error.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary:
3. use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data.
Apparently, the British have some problems with enthusiasts, which may
account for the massive lack of British hackers to begin with.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message ·····················@naggum.no...
> * Geoffrey Summerhayes
> | Well, it's fascinating to know that the programming community is using
> | the words incorrectly since they are the ones that originally coined
> | them.
>
> This is quite strongly incorrect. The verb "hack" is very old. Newer
> meanings include "to manage, deal with, carry out successfully", but
> usually used in the negative, as in "can't hack it". A "hacker" is one
> who does precisely that -- manages, deals with, carries out successfully.
> Note that this was the meaning employed at MIT, which is credited with
> the coinage of the word "hacker".
>
Agreed, but it was "hacker" I was referring to, not "hack". I suppose
the main question is whether it evolved outside MIT's computer lab
and was adopted by them or came about specifically due to their existance.
I was aware of the use of "hack" as a noun in journalism, but the term
"hacker", AFAIK, first appeared to a general audience in articles
on "phone phreaking".
> | Of course they won the battle over dictionary definitions, the outside
> | world was seeing us through their eyes, but a large number of us still
> | stick to the original spec.
>
> You are wrong on this count, too.
I'm guilty of overstating the case, surely. As time progresses, I
expect what I said to become more correct. Current usage of "hacker"
tends to the more derogatory meaning. I suspect, like "villain", the
benign version will slowly fade into obscurity.
--
Geoff
* "Geoffrey Summerhayes" <·············@hotmail.com>
| Agreed, but it was "hacker" I was referring to, not "hack".
The point is that there is no foundation for the coinage at MIT, but the
use of "hack" to mean basically "do well", meant that "hacker" was simply
someone who did something. Only computer hackers became "famous", but
music hackers also exist. The question "what are you hacking?" is only
slang for "what are you doing?".
| I was aware of the use of "hack" as a noun in journalism, but the term
| "hacker", AFAIK, first appeared to a general audience in articles on
| "phone phreaking".
This is not correct, either. The history of "hacker" is quite different
from what people believe -- for the journalists, it has a longer story
than they think, and for the hackers, the meaning to other parts of
society has never been particularly positive to begin with.
| I'm guilty of overstating the case, surely.
You seem overly defensive to me, and when I point out that all of the
American dictionaries I own have a positive entry for "hacker" you only
dismiss it. I find this disturbing.
| As time progresses, I expect what I said to become more correct.
But it has become less and less correct so far, so I have to ask for the
observations you use for this more emphatic rejection of what you
actually find in today's dictionaries.
| Current usage of "hacker" tends to the more derogatory meaning.
If you look for the derogatory meaning, of course you will find it. But
to make "tends to" a valid conclusion, you have to be more objective and
willing to look for data that contradicts your initial assumption.
| I suspect, like "villain", the benign version will slowly fade into
| obscurity.
And what beningn meaning does "villain" have?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * "Geoffrey Summerhayes" <·············@hotmail.com>
> | Agreed, but it was "hacker" I was referring to, not "hack".
>
> The point is that there is no foundation for the coinage at MIT, but the
> use of "hack" to mean basically "do well", meant that "hacker" was simply
> someone who did something. Only computer hackers became "famous", but
> music hackers also exist. The question "what are you hacking?" is only
> slang for "what are you doing?".
And as a testament to this, if I'm talking about the programming
projects I'm working on for programming-as-a-hobby, I'll say, "I'm
hacking on such-and-such, and a system to do something-or-other."
I've yet to have a native speaker have a problem understand what I
mean.
> | I suspect, like "villain", the benign version will slowly fade into
> | obscurity.
>
> And what beningn meaning does "villain" have?
Weren't you just demonstrating the breadth of your dictionary
collection?
Webster's second definition is "villein" :
<http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=villein>
What with the distinct lack of any villain classes anymore, it's kind
of the class-slur equivalent of the racial slur "vandal"...
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
* Thomas F. Burdick
| Weren't you just demonstrating the breadth of your dictionary collection?
But I also read the forewords of same and have worked with dictionary
makers (one of the few benefits of working with SGML) so know something
about how these definitions are both constructed and intended to be read.
| Webster's second definition is "villein" :
| <http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=villein>
When an entry is simply a redirection, the preferred action when writing
is not to use the word that was redirected if one means the word to which
it was redirected, and when reading, to understand that the main entry
word is the historically preferred, so even if there is a sense that only
redirects to another, it has much less historical significance than one
with its own definition. So in this case, I ignored the redirection when
I looked it up because "villein" is a different word with a different
history than "villain" even if "villain" has been used where "villein"
would be the better choice. As far as I can tell, "villain" is uniformly
bad, while the general lack of spelling conventions until recently could
have produced texts where what would now be a typo would then have been
acceptable.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message ·····················@naggum.no...
> I looked it up because "villein" is a different word with a different
> history than "villain" even if "villain" has been used where "villein"
> would be the better choice. As far as I can tell, "villain" is uniformly
> bad, while the general lack of spelling conventions until recently could
> have produced texts where what would now be a typo would then have been
> acceptable.
Ahh, my dictionary lists "villain" as an acceptable spelling of "villein".
Since you are doing a "scan" of the dictionary perhaps I should say I
find your argument "awful", "artificial", and "amusing". Better choices? :-)
--
Geoff
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Thomas F. Burdick
> | Webster's second definition is "villein" :
> | <http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=villein>
>
> When an entry is simply a redirection, the preferred action when writing
> is not to use the word that was redirected if one means the word to which
> it was redirected, and when reading, to understand that the main entry
> word is the historically preferred, so even if there is a sense that only
> redirects to another, it has much less historical significance than one
> with its own definition. So in this case, I ignored the redirection when
> I looked it up because "villein" is a different word with a different
> history than "villain" even if "villain" has been used where "villein"
> would be the better choice. As far as I can tell, "villain" is uniformly
> bad, while the general lack of spelling conventions until recently could
> have produced texts where what would now be a typo would then have been
> acceptable.
"Villain" and "villein" don't have "a different history".
Here's an extract from C S Lewis's admirable "Studies in Words":
| English "villain" could still be used in its literal sense
| by Lancelot Andrewes: "they be men, and not beasts;
| freemen, and not villaiins". But long before his time
| it had dwindled into a term of abuse, and finally into
| a term of mere (i.e., unspecified) abuse: villain (d.s.)[1],
| a synonym for "bad man" [...]
|
| At first its pejorative meaning was closely connected
| with its literal: the image of the actual *vilains*
| or peasant was still operative. [...] Theoretically,
| one who was a *vilains*[2] by status might not have
| the vice of *vilanie*; certainly many a man who is
| not a *vilains* by status will be guilty of it.
[1] "d.s." is his abbreviation for "dangerous sense",
meaning the sense of a word that's now dominant
and which readers are therefore in danger of
assuming without reflection.
[2] At this point he's discussing the "Romance of the
Rose", and therefore in mediaeval French rather
than English. The word's development in the two
languages is parallel.
--
Gareth McCaughan ················@pobox.com
.sig under construc
* Gareth McCaughan
| "Villain" and "villein" don't have "a different history".
Thanks for the information, but why have two words?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
After takin a swig o' grog, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> belched out...:
> * Gareth McCaughan
> | "Villain" and "villein" don't have "a different history".
>
> Thanks for the information, but why have two words?
Probably because some people can't sepll, and sometimes mispellings
can enter the language through authoritative authors that use
different spellings...
--
(concatenate 'string "aa454" ·@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/multiplexor.html
"DTDs are not common knowledge because programming students are not
taught markup. A markup language is not a programming language."
-- Peter Flynn <········@m-net.arbornet.org>
* Christopher Browne <········@acm.org>
| Probably because some people can't sepll, and sometimes mispellings
| can enter the language through authoritative authors that use
| different spellings...
But if you look up these words, you find that "villein" is benign and
"villain" is malign. When the benign intent is intended, dictionaries
redirect from "villain" to "villein". There is no redirect back from
"villein" to "villain", as often happens with close spellings, such as
with "therefore" and "therefor". Something clearly happened to make
these two forms of the same word take different paths. That is their
different history. Do you deny this?
(BTW, I already covered the spelling case.)
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
+---------------
| * Christopher Browne <········@acm.org>
| | Probably because some people can't sepll, and sometimes mispellings
| | can enter the language through authoritative authors that use
| | different spellings...
|
| But if you look up these words, you find that "villein" is benign and
| "villain" is malign. When the benign intent is intended, dictionaries
| redirect from "villain" to "villein". There is no redirect back from
| "villein" to "villain", as often happens with close spellings, such as
| with "therefore" and "therefor".
+---------------
Actually, Merriam-Webster's online <URL:http://www.m-w.com/mw/netdict.htm>
*does* cross-reference the two words in both directions, albeit still
giving only benign meanings (e.g., free villager of certain feudal ranks)
to the "villein" form...
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock, PP-ASEL-IA <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://www.rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
* Rob Warnock
| Actually, Merriam-Webster's online <URL:http://www.m-w.com/mw/netdict.htm>
| *does* cross-reference the two words in both directions, albeit still
| giving only benign meanings (e.g., free villager of certain feudal ranks)
| to the "villein" form...
As far as I can see, no dictionary redirects from "villein" to "villain",
except for etymological purposes, and certainly not Merriam-Webster's.
From the Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, we find this entry.
villain, villein. The two spellings are forms of a single word with two
branches, originally meaning either "a low-born rustic" or "a serf in the
feudal system" and derived from the Latin word villa meaning "country
house or farm". The spelling villain was associated from the 17c with the
worsened meaning "an unprincipled scoundrel", while the other form villein
slipped into historical use as the feudal system was replaced by
capitalism. The distinction is preserved in current usage.
As far as I have been able to ascertain, calling someone a "villein"
would not have either the denotations or the connotations of "villain",
but the reverse may be true in the specific context of medieval usage.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> As far as I have been able to ascertain, calling someone a "villein"
> would not have either the denotations or the connotations of "villain",
> but the reverse may be true in the specific context of medieval usage.
According to C S Lewis's "Studies in Words", Chaucer probably
doesn't ever use "vilein", but does use "vileinye" -- note the
"ei" spelling -- generally with the meaning of rudeness or
coarseness. It looks to me, from the examples in his book,
as if the "ai" spelling took over from the "ei" quite rapidly
after Chaucer's time.
--
Gareth McCaughan ················@pobox.com
.sig under construc
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Gareth McCaughan
> | "Villain" and "villein" don't have "a different history".
>
> Thanks for the information, but why have two words?
The spelling drifted from "vilein" to "villain" in the
same kind of way that lots of spellings change. Concurrently,
the meaning drifted from "peasant" through "boor" to "bad guy";
this sort of thing is common with "status" words (consider
"noble", "bastard", "churl", "frank"). These days, we don't
exactly have villeins any more, but we need to refer to them
for historical purposes. We can't use "villain" because the
meaning of that word has changed, so we use the archaic
spelling to indicate that we intend the archaic meaning
too.
So *now* there are two words, but one of them is a deliberate
reversion to an older spelling and an older meaning that the
other once had.
--
Gareth McCaughan ················@pobox.com
.sig under construc
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> The spelling drifted from "vilein" to "villain" in the
> same kind of way that lots of spellings change.
More that this, at the time that these words were in commmon usage there
was no proscribed (sic) spelling. Written english was (semi)-phonetic
and as such -- subject to accent, education or mood -- any word could be
written with a whole host of different spelling variations.
Although I don't know this to be true in the villain case, the same
person would often change the spelling of a word at a whim. As a further
example, my family name Deakin is taken from a corruption of the word
deacon -- a lowly church official. Written records dealing with distant
relatives -- even of the same person -- have a whole slew of spellings
such as Deakin, Deacon, Daykin, Dakin, Deakins, Daykins...
:)w
Will Deakin wrote:
> Although I don't know this to be true in the villain case, the same
> person would often change the spelling of a word at a whim. As a further
> example, my family name Deakin is taken from a corruption of the word
> deacon -- a lowly church official. Written records dealing with distant
> relatives -- even of the same person -- have a whole slew of spellings
> such as Deakin, Deacon, Daykin, Dakin, Deakins, Daykins...
Ha. So "Dawkins", to take a not very random example,
would be a corruption of "deacon" too. I find this
curiously satisfying. :-)
--
Gareth McCaughan ················@pobox.com
.sig under construc
From: Will Deakin
Subject: OT: An Horace Rumpole Hack [was Re: Difference between LISP and C++]
Date:
Message-ID: <apsbbm$3o7$1@sparta.btinternet.com>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> In the writing business, which includes journalists, "hack" refers to bad
> writing, "a hack" is a writer who works on order or who aims solely for
> commercial success, a mercenary writer.
Not really. It certain circles being an "old hack" is a term of
endearment. IIRC John Mortimer in his excellent `Rumpole of the Bailey'
books often refers to this (slightly) eccentric aging defence barrister
as an `Old Bailey hack.' This is then a badge of distinction amongst
gentlemen of certain professions -- including journalists and doctors.
> Apparently, the British have some problems with enthusiasts, which may
> account for the massive lack of British hackers to begin with.
Hmmm. Enthusiastic in what sense? Despite our general dour grey
miserableness, there are hundreds of British people who are enthusiastic
about sports such as football or cricket, rebuilding steam railways,
aging cars, pen-nib or aging Wedgwood china collecting. I can even think
of a couple of Bristish enthusiasts who have contributed to the field of
computing. My feeling is that the British have more problems with
professionals as gentlemanly amateur pursuits are to be encouraged...
:)w
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: OT: An Horace Rumpole Hack [was Re: Difference between LISP and C++]
Date:
Message-ID: <3245096601281868@naggum.no>
* Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com>
| Not really. It certain circles being an "old hack" is a term of
| endearment.
The addition of "old" to many derogatory terms make them terms of
endearment. The endearment is in "old", not in the next term.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: OT: An Horace Rumpole Hack [was Re: Difference between LISP and C++]
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3n0otvch0.fsf@cley.com>
* Erik Naggum wrote:
> The addition of "old" to many derogatory terms make them terms of
> endearment. The endearment is in "old", not in the next term.
No, this is wrong here, or at least my reading of it is that it is
wrong. You are quite correct that `old' can have the effect you say,
but in this case I think `old hack' means something like `he has
worked in this environment for a very long time (this is where the old
bit comes in) and although he may not be a major figure he knows
*everything* (the hack bit...) and his opinion is to be respected'.
This is quite similar to some senses of `wizard' - the person who has
worked as a system admin for 30 years, has never risen to any high
position in the organization, but actually wrote hugely influential
applications on the way, and is probably the most well-known person in
the organization...
--tim
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com>
> | Not really. It certain circles being an "old hack" is a term of
> | endearment.
> The addition of "old" to many derogatory terms make them terms of
> endearment. The endearment is in "old", not in the next term.
(FWIW, "Old Bailey hack" is [NP [NP Old Bailey] hack], not
[NP [AP old] [NP Bailey hack]], Old Bailey being the street
address and nickname of a criminal court in London.)
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: OT: An Horace Rumpole Hack [was Re: Difference between LISP and C++]
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3iszdabh7.fsf@cley.com>
* O-V R wrote:
> (FWIW, "Old Bailey hack" is [NP [NP Old Bailey] hack], not
> [NP [AP old] [NP Bailey hack]], Old Bailey being the street
> address and nickname of a criminal court in London.)
I think that this is right - the Old Bailey is, as you say, a place -
but it may also be `wrong' in the sense that
old x hack
where this is
[NP [AP old] [NP x] hack]
is OK for some x. For instance `he's an old unix hack' or `he's an
old EMAS hack' sound OK to me (EMAS isn't EMACS, it is (or was) a
timesharing system used at Edinburgh before my time there, but there
were plenty of old EMAS hacks around when I was there...).
So I claim that `Old Bailey hack' might actually be a contraction of
`old Old Bailey hack' because that sounds too silly. Even better it
may just have several meanings.
--tim
From: Martti Halminen
Subject: Re: OT: An Horace Rumpole Hack [was Re: Difference between LISP and C++]
Date:
Message-ID: <3DC1B1B6.E1D59602@kolumbus.fi>
Will Deakin wrote:
>
> Erik Naggum wrote:
> > In the writing business, which includes journalists, "hack" refers to bad
> > writing, "a hack" is a writer who works on order or who aims solely for
> > commercial success, a mercenary writer.
> Not really. It certain circles being an "old hack" is a term of
> endearment. IIRC John Mortimer in his excellent `Rumpole of the Bailey'
> books often refers to this (slightly) eccentric aging defence barrister
> as an `Old Bailey hack.' This is then a badge of distinction amongst
> gentlemen of certain professions -- including journalists and doctors.
Another dictionary quote:
\Hack\, n. [Shortened fr. hackney. See Hackney.] 1. A horse, hackneyed
or let out for common hire; also, a horse used in all kinds of
work, or a saddle horse, as distinguished from hunting and carriage
horses.
2. A coach or carriage let for hire; particularly, a a coach with two
seats inside facing each other; a hackney coach.
On horse, on foot, in hacks and gilded chariots. --Pope.
3. A bookmaker who hires himself out for any sort of literary work; an
overworked man; a drudge.
Here lies poor Ned Purdon, from misery freed, Who long was a
bookseller's hack. --Goldsmith.
4. A procuress.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, � 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.
(via www.dictionary.com)
--
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
["hacker"]
> The Concise Oxford Dictionary:
> 3. use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data.
>
> Apparently, the British have some problems with enthusiasts, which may
> account for the massive lack of British hackers to begin with.
The Shorter OED, on the other hand, lists both meanings.
--
Juergen Nickelsen
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <8z0dz8sf.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> The verb "hack" is very old.
> [Etymology elided]
A good equistrian supply shop will stock ``Hacking Jackets''
I guess grubby T-shirts and patched blue-jeans are out.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <r8e5xtm6.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
>
> > The verb "hack" is very old.
> > [Etymology elided]
>
> A good equistrian supply shop will stock ``Hacking Jackets''
Um, that's supposed to be ``equestrian''
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3znst1i6c.fsf@cley.com>
* Joe Marshall wrote:
> A good equistrian supply shop will stock ``Hacking Jackets''
I think though I'm not sure that hacking jackets (and other horsy
clothing) actually have some purpose other than demonstrating class
distinctions. I think it's a bit like motorcycle clothing - people do
fall off horses and it's quite a long way down, and they also get
scraped through brambles &c, so you do want clothes that work...
Similarly, I understand from bikers that decent leathers can *really*
make a difference if you fall off (people I knew always used to cringe
when they saw people wearing shorts &c).
--tim
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <fzulxs4f.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Joe Marshall wrote:
> > A good equestrian supply shop will stock ``Hacking Jackets''
>
> I think though I'm not sure that hacking jackets (and other horsy
> clothing) actually have some purpose other than demonstrating class
> distinctions. I think it's a bit like motorcycle clothing - people do
> fall off horses and it's quite a long way down, and they also get
> scraped through brambles &c, so you do want clothes that work...
I've never had a computer crash *that* hard, but I guess there is
always a first time.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3vg3h1geg.fsf@cley.com>
* Joe Marshall wrote:
> I've never had a computer crash *that* hard, but I guess there is
> always a first time.
But everyone knows that you need asbestos clothing if you post to
usenet.
--tim
In article <···············@cley.com>, Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com>
wrote:
>* Joe Marshall wrote:
>
>> I've never had a computer crash *that* hard, but I guess there is
>> always a first time.
>
>But everyone knows that you need asbestos clothing if you post to
>usenet.
Ever since architects stopped implementing HCF the world hasn't
been the same.
paul and the double-insulated keyboards
* Tim Bradshaw
| But everyone knows that you need asbestos clothing if you post to usenet.
Maybe I should go into Usenet clothing, things like posting jackets,
asbestos suits, straitjackets, etc. I already get junk mail addressed to
Naggum Softwear, so this could be fun. With a slogan like "tested on
thousands of humans for your comfort and safety".
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
* Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no>:
> [SNIP] With a slogan like "tested on
> thousands of humans for your comfort and safety".
Honesty in advertising please. They've also been tested on animals.
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3r8e51835.fsf@cley.com>
* Erik Naggum wrote:
> Maybe I should go into Usenet clothing, things like posting jackets,
> asbestos suits, straitjackets, etc. I already get junk mail addressed to
> Naggum Softwear, so this could be fun. With a slogan like "tested on
> thousands of humans for your comfort and safety".
Ah, but then they'd start class action asbestos suits (oh dear)
against you, and bankrupt not only you but the entire Norwegan
economy. *Especially* if you test them on people. Even mentioning
the *possibility* of asbestos clothing has caused the horrible red
eyes of a horde of lawyers to be turned in your direction...
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> Similarly, I understand from bikers that decent leathers can *really*
> make a difference if you fall off
Well, actually the leathers is all there is between the rider and the
road when he falls at speed usually more than 100km/h. I can't give
any details of how long the body slides, but without the leathres all
meat and half bones are chiselled off. With [decent] leathers one can
get away with some blueings. Or broken bones in unlucky fallings (when
you do not slide but tumble). And a good helmet, gloves, and boots
are neede, too.
> (people I knew always used to cringe when they saw people wearing
> shorts &c).
Maybe they imagen what they will look like when they fall... And on
bike, everybody falls.
--
Janis Dzerins
If million people say a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3smyin6hd.fsf@cley.com>
* Janis Dzerins wrote:
> Well, actually the leathers is all there is between the rider and the
> road when he falls at speed usually more than 100km/h.
Yes. I know people who have fallen off bikes, and I've seen their
leathers afterwards and realised what would have happened to them. I
believe that silk (rather than man-made) linings are a win too,
because the man-made ones melt and stick to you, ick.
--tim
>>(people I knew always used to cringe when they saw people wearing
>>shorts &c).
>
> Maybe they imagen what they will look like when they fall... And on
> bike, everybody falls.
Oh, now I get it. Lisp is leathers, C++ is shorts, and everybody falls.
Quite a vivid picture of the difference <shudder>.
--
Nobody expects the Swedish Inquisition!
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3r8e5vcwt.fsf@cley.com>
* Erik Naggum wrote:
> Apparently, the British have some problems with enthusiasts, which
> may account for the massive lack of British hackers to begin with.
I think this is wrong, or at least that there is a more interesting
story here than this sentence would imply. In particular, I think the
British are obsessed by enthusiasts to the extent that the notion of
the enthusiastic amateur has an enormous place in our mythology. We
like to think that Everest was climbed by enthusiastic amateurs, that
the 4-minute mile was run by one, that cricket and rugby are played by
them. Enthusiasts working in backrooms in their spare time built
bouncing bombs, broke the enigma code (and as a minor side result
invented these computer thingies which you chaps obsess about so
unhealthily). The spitfire - the iconic weapon of the war - was
designed by an enthusiast and forced onto reluctant professionals so
we could win the war. The man who is probably going to win the
`greatest briton' title[1] - Winston Churchill - was positively
dangerously enthusiastic[2].
Well, I'm exaggerating a little perhaps. And it may be that we have
problems with enthusiasts, but those problems are because we are so
intensely interested in them. I think the lack of British hackers is
for other reasons.
--tim
Footnotes:
[1] This is a TV poll, and therefore obviously meaningless, if
topical. The top 100 had all sorts of strange people in (Robbie
Williams, Boy George) as well as some unlikely but, perhaps,
correct ones (John Peel), but the top 10 has only one really
silly person and one over-rated, being (in some random order):
Brunel, Elizabeth I, Churchill, Lennon, Cromwell, Nelson, Darwin,
Newton, Princess Diana, Shakespeare.
[2] I'm serious. One theory as to the loss of the Hood is that she
was destroyed by the explosion of deck-carried anti-aircraft
rockets (presumably flashing over to some magazine) which were
installed when Churchill overrode the professionals at the
admiralty since he had got all enthusiastic about them. The
missiles did not, by the way, work. This is not the first time
this had happened (although this theory does not seem to be
correct the more conventional shell penetrating to a magazine by
sneaking under the armour during a roll is far more likely).
Churchill had to be more-or-less physically restrained from
getting on ships at D-day.
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
[...]
I am afraid, this is, how it used to be, before 1960 or so.
When the UK still was genuine and the ideal of the
gentleman still existed. To judge from what I hear and read
Anglia has changed a lot (queueing up is not /the/ national
sport any more). And so did Germany and (painful for me) my
native country Hungary as well.
And all these changes are changes in pejus, I am afraid.
They are womderfuly described in the books by the late
George mikes.
As one of our great poets put it: "Native land" is not a
matter of geographic position. It is a matter of time.
--
JB
* Erik Naggum
| Apparently, the British have some problems with enthusiasts, which
| may account for the massive lack of British hackers to begin with.
* Tim Bradshaw
[ rebuttal ]
| I think the lack of British hackers is for other reasons.
Sorry for the overly general phrasing, but I meant the enthusiastic among
the hackers, not the enthusiastic in all generality. I even believe the
British invented the word "hobby", which has no natural equivalent in any
other language and is frequently misunderstood as something to do to
refrain from boring yourself do death while time passes, as opposed to an
active interest. The higher prevalence of "hacker" to mean malice could
mean that British would use "computer hobbyist" and have no need for a
new term for the enthusiastic computer user.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Hobby is often spoken about as pastime. Something pleasent that you do to
pass time. Hobbies generally aren't viewed upon as being serious. This is
annoying for a Brit like me who gets very serious and obsessive about the
things I generally take an interest in. The word 'hacker' (focused hardcore
programming) to me means something different to 'hobbyist' (stamp
collecting, butterfly collecting).
--
Justin Johnson
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * Erik Naggum
> | Apparently, the British have some problems with enthusiasts, which
> | may account for the massive lack of British hackers to begin with.
>
> * Tim Bradshaw
> [ rebuttal ]
> | I think the lack of British hackers is for other reasons.
>
> Sorry for the overly general phrasing, but I meant the enthusiastic
among
> the hackers, not the enthusiastic in all generality. I even believe the
> British invented the word "hobby", which has no natural equivalent in
any
> other language and is frequently misunderstood as something to do to
> refrain from boring yourself do death while time passes, as opposed to
an
> active interest. The higher prevalence of "hacker" to mean malice could
> mean that British would use "computer hobbyist" and have no need for a
> new term for the enthusiastic computer user.
>
> --
> Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
>
> Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
> Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
On 01 Nov 2002 09:48:18 +0000, Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> wrote:
> We like to think that Everest was climbed by enthusiastic amateurs,
Only one of them was an enthusiastic amateur. The other a
professional porter. There is uncertanity as to who was on top first.
So I suppose both were (anyway a difference of a few seconds in
putting the first foot should not matter). So I am a little peeved by
the lack of respect/credit due to one Sherpa Tensing of Nepal.
>unhealthily). The spitfire - the iconic weapon of the war - was
>designed by an enthusiast and forced onto reluctant professionals so
>we could win the war.
If you look at Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers - it seems that
the Yanks won the war[1]. You hardly see the Tommies (apart from when
they are being rescued by the Yanks) *grin*
[1] - I must know better, I read so many of them "Commando" comics ;-)
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/lisp.html
"I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."
~ A. Crowley
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
Abhijit Rao <·········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 01 Nov 2002 09:48:18 +0000, Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> wrote:
> > We like to think that Everest was climbed by enthusiastic amateurs,
>
> Only one of them was an enthusiastic amateur. The other a
> professional porter. There is uncertanity as to who was on top first.
> So I suppose both were (anyway a difference of a few seconds in
> putting the first foot should not matter). So I am a little peeved by
> the lack of respect/credit due to one Sherpa Tensing of Nepal.
Not from Hillary. He has always tried to include Tenzing Norgay
personally in the glory, and he has spent much of the rest of his life
building schools for the people of Nepal in general.
-- Bruce
On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 23:32:39 +1300, Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org>
wrote:
>
>Not from Hillary. He has always tried to include Tenzing Norgay
>personally in the glory, and he has spent much of the rest of his life
>building schools for the people of Nepal in general.
I agree. I have seen a documentary on his work in Nepal on NGC. But
the rest of the people still stubbornly forget him which they talk
about who climbed Mt.Sagarmatha first.
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/lisp.html
"I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."
~ A. Crowley
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3wunun6kf.fsf@cley.com>
* Abhijit Rao wrote:
> Only one of them was an enthusiastic amateur. The other a
> professional porter. There is uncertanity as to who was on top first.
> So I suppose both were (anyway a difference of a few seconds in
> putting the first foot should not matter). So I am a little peeved by
> the lack of respect/credit due to one Sherpa Tensing of Nepal.
Yes. Just in case there is doubt, I wasn't allying myself with the
view that heroic Brits climbed Everest in the cricket off-season, I
was trying to parody the British view. Clearly, whoever got there
first (and as you say, does it matter?), Sherpa Tensing deserves
enormous respect (as do many other people involved).
> If you look at Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers - it seems that
> the Yanks won the war[1]. You hardly see the Tommies (apart from when
> they are being rescued by the Yanks) *grin*
Don't get me started. U571 or whatever it was called was the worst -
not even a good film, and gratuitously rewriting history to boot.
--tim
Abhijit Rao <·········@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<··································@4ax.com>...
> On 01 Nov 2002 09:48:18 +0000, Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> wrote:
> > We like to think that Everest was climbed by enthusiastic amateurs,
>
> Only one of them was an enthusiastic amateur. The other a
> professional porter. There is uncertanity as to who was on top first.
> So I suppose both were (anyway a difference of a few seconds in
> putting the first foot should not matter). So I am a little peeved by
> the lack of respect/credit due to one Sherpa Tensing of Nepal.
Hilary: "At last! The roof of the world! Look at that Tenzing, the whole
himalayas spread out beneath us!"
Tenzing: "yes, I've always liked it up here."
--
Nick Keighley
arien wrote:
> >
> > > > Some more food for thought:
> > > >
> > > > How to Ask Questions the Smart Way (by Eric Raymond)
> > > > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> > >
> > > and that's been written by a hacker.
> >
> > Look up what ``hacker'' actually means:
> >
> > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/jargon.html#hacker
>
> The Oxford dictionary describes hacker as:
>
> 1. a person or thing that hacks or cuts roughly
> 2. a) a perosn whose hobby is computing or computer programming
> b) a person who gains unauthorised access to a computer network and uses
> or alters data etc.
>
> I believed it was referring to 2. b).
>
> I may have made a mistake in the reference to "hacker", but Mr Eric S.
> Raymond is even more incorrect in his definition of hacker. By the way,
> a "cracker" is someone who cracks a piece of software ie. a demo version
> is *cracked* so that it works indefinately. Mr Raymond doesn't even get
> this right.
Why do you assume the Oxford English Dictionary is the definitive source
of computer terminology? Do you learn about Java from the Oxford
dictionary? What does it say about Lisp?
Did you know that Mr. Raymond started the Jargon File, from where the
hacker definition comes? Mr. Raymond is also the author of the "How to
Ask Questions the Smart Way" article which uses the hacker definition.
Don't you think that he would be using his own definition of hacker?
Ah, but here's a little Australian pipsqueak barely out of high school
who knows without a doubt that Eric S. Raymond, who has been actively
working in the computer industry since probably before you were born, is
wrong because the Oxford dictionary told her so. Stop the presses!
This is breaking news!
Brian Palmer <·····@invalid.dom> writes:
> arien wrote:
>> >
>> > > > Some more food for thought:
>> > > >
>> > > > How to Ask Questions the Smart Way (by Eric Raymond)
>> > > > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>> > >
>> > > and that's been written by a hacker.
>> >
>> > Look up what ``hacker'' actually means:
>> >
>> > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/jargon.html#hacker
>>
>> The Oxford dictionary describes hacker as:
>>
>> 1. a person or thing that hacks or cuts roughly
>> 2. a) a perosn whose hobby is computing or computer programming
>> b) a person who gains unauthorised access to a computer network and uses
>> or alters data etc.
>>
>> I believed it was referring to 2. b).
>>
>> I may have made a mistake in the reference to "hacker", but Mr Eric S.
>> Raymond is even more incorrect in his definition of hacker. By the way,
>> a "cracker" is someone who cracks a piece of software ie. a demo version
>> is *cracked* so that it works indefinately. Mr Raymond doesn't even get
>> this right.
>
> Why do you assume the Oxford English Dictionary is the definitive
> source of computer terminology? Do you learn about Java from the
> Oxford dictionary? What does it say about Lisp?
>
> Did you know that Mr. Raymond started the Jargon File, from where
> the hacker definition comes?
Um... I would send this by mail, but you mask your address so:
ESR didn't start the Jargon File, as a quick perusal of
http://tuxedo.org/jargon/html/Revision-History.html would have told
you.
Just a picky point, but you're bang on with the rest of it.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> Um... I would send this by mail, but you mask your address so:
>
> ESR didn't start the Jargon File, as a quick perusal of
> http://tuxedo.org/jargon/html/Revision-History.html would have told
> you.
>
> Just a picky point, but you're bang on with the rest of it.
Thanks, this was pointed out by another poster. I mixed this up with
the New Hacker's Dictionary which he claims he created.
In article <·························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
Brian Palmer <·····@invalid.dom> wrote:
> Did you know that Mr. Raymond started the Jargon File, from where the
> hacker definition comes?
Uh ... no he didn't. The Jargon File has been around since the depths
of time. ESR picked it up sometime around 1990 when it had been
languishing without updates for some time, polished it up a bit, and
published it as a book.
While that was a good service (and possibly even made him a little
money), I am grateful every day for the work he did on making cvs and
gdb work with emacs. Oh and fetchmail is handy too.
-- Bruce
Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> > Did you know that Mr. Raymond started the Jargon File, from where the
> > hacker definition comes?
>
> Uh ... no he didn't. The Jargon File has been around since the depths
> of time. ESR picked it up sometime around 1990 when it had been
> languishing without updates for some time, polished it up a bit, and
> published it as a book.
You're right. I confused this with the New Hacker's Dictionary.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3pttqaixt.fsf@cley.com>
* spammers suck wrote:
> I may have made a mistake in the reference to "hacker", but Mr Eric
> S. Raymond is even more incorrect in his definition of hacker. By
> the way, a "cracker" is someone who cracks a piece of software ie. a
> demo version is *cracked* so that it works indefinately. Mr Raymond
> doesn't even get this right.
Well Eric Raymond is part of the community that *invented* the terms.
He may not get them right (I haven't checked), but he's about a
million times more likely to get them right than some dictionary,
unless, hmm, you mean the hacker's dictionary...
--tim
* Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com>
| Well Eric Raymond is part of the community that *invented* the terms.
| He may not get them right (I haven't checked), but he's about a
| million times more likely to get them right than some dictionary,
| unless, hmm, you mean the hacker's dictionary...
Dictionaries reflect how people use the language. Apparently, as I
documented in another message just posted, the British (and other
European meanings, including translations to "pirate informatico" in
Italian and Spanish, and "pirate informatique" in French) are quite
hostile to the computer enthusiast.
According to some accounts, the majority of free software is developed in
Europe (and according to the atrocious English in much documentation, not
by English-speaking programmers), so perhaps even European languages can
get better dictionaries...
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
On 31 Oct 2002 21:29:57 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> European meanings, including translations to "pirate informatico" in
^
a
> Italian and Spanish, and "pirate informatique" in French) are quite
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:45:19 +1030, arien
<·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
>
>The Oxford dictionary describes hacker as:
The oxford dictionary can go jump. Refer to the Jargon file Nils has
given the link of.
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/jargon.html#hacker
>I may have made a mistake in the reference to "hacker", but Mr Eric S.
>Raymond is even more incorrect in his definition of hacker. By the way,
>a "cracker" is someone who cracks a piece of software ie. a demo version
>is *cracked* so that it works indefinately. Mr Raymond doesn't even get
>this right.
I was feeling slightly sorry for you, but NO more. Mr.Raymond is
infinitely beyond your right to insult. If you insult him, probably
you are in the wrong field - go back to farming sheep, that would
suites you admirably, it seems.
Because you are angry with a few people here, you have absolutely no
right to insult completely non-involved (& very respectable) people.
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/lisp.html
"I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."
~ A. Crowley
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> and that's been written by a hacker. Doesn't that just display how
> pathetic this group behaves.
>
> Enough said.
Let's see. You post to a Lisp Hacker's group, seeking the advice of
Lisp Hackers on your Lisp project. Then you are shocked -*- shocked -*-
to discover that hackers answer?
BTW, you need to expand your definition of the term "hacker", since it
is not the same as "cracker".
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute ···@isi.edu
* ···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ)
| BTW, you need to expand your definition of the term "hacker", since it
| is not the same as "cracker".
The book �Hacker's Delight�, which was mentioned here previously and
which is a delightful read, would go a long way to help understand the
term as used by hackers.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
> The distinction between the two groups are better described as follows:
>
> A People whose personal feelings are fragile and of primary importance and
> who attack others (or defend such attacks) when their personal feelings
> are hurt. These people care mostly about their personal feelings, even
> when they are out in public. Many of these are profoundly egoistic and
> self-absorbed, to the point where nobody else's feelings could possibly
> matter. It is therefore OK to people in this group to attack those who
> they think have hurt their feelings.
>
> B People who regard the truth as fragile and in need of constant vigilance
> to protect and maintain because we will always be presented with barrages
> of falsehoods and outright lies, and who therefore try to educate people
> and correct mistakes. These people care mostly about not spreading more
> mistakes and to the extent it is definitely known, avoiding re-opening
> long debates on why things are so. Now, the kicker: These people /feel/
> a great concern for truth and knowledge, a passion for what the community
> knows and agrees to. When you post falsehoods to such a person, you have
> hurt /his/ feelings. This fact is incomprehensible to people in group A
> because their feelings have never been about anything but their very own
> selves.
C People who think the truth is strong enough to stand up for itself,
and whose feelings therefore aren't hurt by simple falsehoods.
You obviously consider yourself a member of group B. You are just as
obviously in fact a member of group A. You should strive to become a
member of group C.
Erik2
In case it did not get to your news server.
marc
··········@hotmail.com (Erik Naggum) wrote in
·································@posting.google.com:
>> The distinction between the two groups are better described as
>> follows:
>>
>> A People whose personal feelings are fragile and of primary
>> importance and
>> who attack others (or defend such attacks) when their personal
>> feelings are hurt. These people care mostly about their personal
>> feelings, even when they are out in public. Many of these are
>> profoundly egoistic and self-absorbed, to the point where nobody
>> else's feelings could possibly matter. It is therefore OK to
>> people in this group to attack those who they think have hurt their
>> feelings.
>>
>> B People who regard the truth as fragile and in need of constant
>> vigilance
>> to protect and maintain because we will always be presented with
>> barrages of falsehoods and outright lies, and who therefore try to
>> educate people and correct mistakes. These people care mostly
>> about not spreading more mistakes and to the extent it is
>> definitely known, avoiding re-opening long debates on why things
>> are so. Now, the kicker: These people /feel/ a great concern for
>> truth and knowledge, a passion for what the community knows and
>> agrees to. When you post falsehoods to such a person, you have
>> hurt /his/ feelings. This fact is incomprehensible to people in
>> group A because their feelings have never been about anything but
>> their very own selves.
>
> C People who think the truth is strong enough to stand up for itself,
> and whose feelings therefore aren't hurt by simple falsehoods.
>
> You obviously consider yourself a member of group B. You are just as
> obviously in fact a member of group A. You should strive to become a
> member of group C.
>
> Erik2
··········@hotmail.com (Erik Naggum) wrote in
·································@posting.google.com:
>> The distinction between the two groups are better described as
>> follows:
>>
>> A People whose personal feelings are fragile and of primary
>> importance and
>> who attack others (or defend such attacks) when their personal
>> feelings are hurt. These people care mostly about their personal
>> feelings, even when they are out in public. Many of these are
>> profoundly egoistic and self-absorbed, to the point where nobody
>> else's feelings could possibly matter. It is therefore OK to
>> people in this group to attack those who they think have hurt their
>> feelings.
>>
>> B People who regard the truth as fragile and in need of constant
>> vigilance
>> to protect and maintain because we will always be presented with
>> barrages of falsehoods and outright lies, and who therefore try to
>> educate people and correct mistakes. These people care mostly
>> about not spreading more mistakes and to the extent it is
>> definitely known, avoiding re-opening long debates on why things
>> are so. Now, the kicker: These people /feel/ a great concern for
>> truth and knowledge, a passion for what the community knows and
>> agrees to. When you post falsehoods to such a person, you have
>> hurt /his/ feelings. This fact is incomprehensible to people in
>> group A because their feelings have never been about anything but
>> their very own selves.
>
> C People who think the truth is strong enough to stand up for itself,
> and whose feelings therefore aren't hurt by simple falsehoods.
>
> You obviously consider yourself a member of group B. You are just as
> obviously in fact a member of group A. You should strive to become a
> member of group C.
>
> Erik2
This is truely shitty behavior from someone.
marc
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<····································@167.206.3.3>...
> This is truely shitty behavior from someone.
This is truly shitty spelling from Marc Spitzer.
Erik2
··········@hotmail.com (Erik Naggum) writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<····································@167.206.3.3>...
>
> > This is truely shitty behavior from someone.
>
> This is truly shitty spelling from Marc Spitzer.
A Ha! First clue! Our impersonator is either British or Australian!
:-)
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3fzuoffc7.fsf@cley.com>
* Alain Picard wrote:
> A Ha! First clue! Our impersonator is either British or Australian!
Or they can't spell and so picked up truely but not behaviour?
--tim
Alain Picard <·······················@optushome.com.au> writes:
> ··········@hotmail.com (Erik Naggum) writes:
>
> > Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<····································@167.206.3.3>...
> >
> > > This is truely shitty behavior from someone.
> >
> > This is truly shitty spelling from Marc Spitzer.
>
> A Ha! First clue! Our impersonator is either British or Australian!
"truely" is incorrect, even in the US.
--
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 <·············@fast.no> writes:
> Alain Picard <·······················@optushome.com.au> writes:
>
> > ··········@hotmail.com (Erik Naggum) writes:
> >
> > > Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<····································@167.206.3.3>...
> > >
> > > > This is truely shitty behavior from someone.
> > >
> > > This is truly shitty spelling from Marc Spitzer.
> >
> > A Ha! First clue! Our impersonator is either British or Australian!
>
> "truely" is incorrect, even in the US.
Darn. Missed that. :-)
* ··········@hotmail.com (Erik Naggum)
Christ, the people this world has given Internet access.
Watch out for this impostor.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote in message news:<················@naggum.no>...
> Watch out for this impostor.
Are you really such an arrogant fuckwad that you think you are the
only person on the planet named Erik Naggum?
Erik2
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote in message news:<················@naggum.no>...
>> Watch out for this impostor.
>
> Are you really such an arrogant fuckwad that you think you are the
> only person on the planet named Erik Naggum?
>
> Erik2
Is this similar to the so-called "Birthday Coincidence"? The new
formulation would be something like:
In a group of 23 people, at least two have the name 'Erik Naggum'
with the probability higher than 1/2. ;-)
BTW, was that US$100 ever claimed?
* ··········@hotmail.com (Erik Naggum)
| Are you really such an arrogant fuckwad that you think you are the
| only person on the planet named Erik Naggum?
No. I am the only person so name on the planet. Cease and desist.
What is /wrong/ with a person who has to such a thing? *sigh*
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote in message news:<················@naggum.no>...
> * ··········@hotmail.com (Erik Naggum)
> | Are you really such an arrogant fuckwad that you think you are the
> | only person on the planet named Erik Naggum?
>
> No. I am the only person so name on the planet.
So much incoherence (not to mention bad grammar) in so few words. Do
you think you can try to put together two sentences that don't
contradict each other?
> Cease and desist.
I will cease and desist pointing out that you are a moron when you
cease and desist acting like one.
> What is /wrong/ with a person who has to such a thing? *sigh*
What is /wrong/ with a person who can't assemble an English sentence
with the verbs intact? *sigh*
Erik2
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <smyxcly6.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> Then you get lisp thrown in your face, and all these
> ((((((()))))))'s. I mean, a missing ; at the end of a line is easy to
> find, even in Notepad. The syntax of lisp makes it virtually impossible
> to use without a suitable editor.
I posted these before, but they seem relevant to this conversation.
Excerpts from real C header files:
#define FromHex(n) (((n) >= 'A') ? ((n) + 10 - 'A') : ((n) - '0'))
#define StreamFromFOURCC(fcc) ((WORD) ((FromHex(LOBYTE(LOWORD(fcc))) << 4) + (FromHex(HIBYTE(LOWORD(fcc))))))
#define ToHex(n) ((BYTE) (((n) > 9) ? ((n) - 10 + 'A') : ((n) + '0')))
#define MAKEAVICKID(tcc,stream) MAKELONG((ToHex((stream) & 0x0f) << 8) | (ToHex(((stream) & 0xf0) >> 4)),tcc)
#define va_arg(AP, TYPE) \
(AP = (__gnuc_va_list) ((char *) (AP) + __va_rounded_size (TYPE)), \
*((TYPE *) (void *) ((char *) (AP) \
- ((sizeof (TYPE) < __va_rounded_size (char) \
? sizeof (TYPE) : __va_rounded_size (TYPE))))))
#define PLAUSIBLE_BLOCK_START_P(addr, offset) \
((*((format_word *) \
(((char *) (addr)) + ((offset) - (sizeof (format_word)))))) == \
((BYTE_OFFSET_TO_OFFSET_WORD(offset))))
There is a fundamental tension between ease of debugging and ease of
writing code. Imagine the space of all possible strings and consider
the subspace of all syntactically correct (well-formed) strings. If
every syntactically correct string is far away from its nearest
neighbor, then it would be virtually impossible to make a typographic
error that couldn't be easily seen (and possibly corrected by the
computer). Consider a language in which all numbers needed to be
written out longhand. You'd virtually eliminate errors that occur
because of a finger hitting the wrong key. However, such a language
would be quite verbose and difficult to write.
If the semantics were such that nearness in syntactic space lead to
extraordinary distance in semantic space, I imagine that even simple
`braino' errors would be easy to spot. If `<' meant `compare for less
than' and `>' meant `string upcase', you'd quickly discover those
cases where you meant the former but typed the latter. On the other
hand, the intellectual burden of using such a language would be much
higher.
Lisp tends to be more parsimonious in syntax, so a misplaced paren can
often lead to something that is syntactically well-formed and
semantically subtlely different from what the user intended. The
intellectual burden, however, is far lower than for C. In Lisp, you
never ask yourself `what do I delimit *this* expression with?', or
`does *this* form bind closer than *that*?', or `what code has the
responsibility for freeing this temporary storage?'.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> The problem is, that the only languages I have learnt are Java and C++.
> Java first. Learning C++ wasn't much more difficult because the syntax
> is similar. Then you get lisp thrown in your face, and all these
> ((((((()))))))'s. I mean, a missing ; at the end of a line is easy to
> find, even in Notepad. The syntax of lisp makes it virtually impossible
> to use without a suitable editor. Now this, regardless of what you all
> say about how good it is, puts lisp behind the eight-ball when it comes
> to readability. I have sat there with my lecturer going through the
> code, trying to find where the error is. But like I said, Java never has
> this problem.
>
I don't understand why you are still participating in this thread.
Lisp is not your cup of tea, that's fine. So finish your Lisp course,
and never use it again. There are plenty of Java and C++ jobs out
there. Arguing with Lispers about syntax and parentheses is pointless
and only increases the noise in this newsgroup. When I moved from
C/Perl to Lisp my productivity increased by an order of magnitude.
(in fact part of that *IS* because of the parentheses (and s-exps, and
how emacs treats them)). I suspect this is true of most Lispers. So
you're fighting a losing argument, at least in this ng.
In article <··············@jcooper02.sagepub.com>, ·····@mail.com
says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> > The problem is, that the only languages I have learnt are Java and C++.
> > Java first. Learning C++ wasn't much more difficult because the syntax
> > is similar. Then you get lisp thrown in your face, and all these
> > ((((((()))))))'s. I mean, a missing ; at the end of a line is easy to
> > find, even in Notepad. The syntax of lisp makes it virtually impossible
> > to use without a suitable editor. Now this, regardless of what you all
> > say about how good it is, puts lisp behind the eight-ball when it comes
> > to readability. I have sat there with my lecturer going through the
> > code, trying to find where the error is. But like I said, Java never has
> > this problem.
> >
>
> I don't understand why you are still participating in this thread.
Well EXCUSE me for speaking. In case you didn't notice, I was the one
who started this thread! I'm trying to understand why Lisp is the way it
is. I'm just expressing my exasperation with learning Lisp, and how I am
finding it more difficult than learning Java.
> Lisp is not your cup of tea, that's fine.
I never said that I don't like lisp. I don't understand how to use it
yet, but that doesn't mean I don't like it!
> So finish your Lisp course,
> and never use it again. There are plenty of Java and C++ jobs out
> there. Arguing with Lispers about syntax and parentheses is pointless
> and only increases the noise in this newsgroup.
The syntax is harder to learn. From the sounds of it this isn't
uncommon. I don't mean to say that the syntax is bad, and obviously
Lispers have grown to like it. But for me, it is harder to learn.
> When I moved from
> C/Perl to Lisp my productivity increased by an order of magnitude.
> (in fact part of that *IS* because of the parentheses (and s-exps, and
> how emacs treats them)). I suspect this is true of most Lispers. So
> you're fighting a losing argument, at least in this ng.
I'm not argueing about the parentheses. Like I said, it just makes
learning the language hard.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
> In article <··············@jcooper02.sagepub.com>, ·····@mail.com
> says...
> Well EXCUSE me for speaking. In case you didn't notice, I was the one
> who started this thread! I'm trying to understand why Lisp is the way
> it is. I'm just expressing my exasperation with learning Lisp, and how
> I am finding it more difficult than learning Java.
>
There is a lot more to core lisp then there is to core java
> The syntax is harder to learn. From the sounds of it this isn't
> uncommon. I don't mean to say that the syntax is bad, and obviously
> Lispers have grown to like it. But for me, it is harder to learn.
How can the syntax be harder to learn when there is so much less of it?
> I'm not argueing about the parentheses. Like I said, it just makes
> learning the language hard.
The syntax of lisp is not hard, lisp is hard. There is a lot in the core
language that you need to know and that is the hard part.
marc
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| The syntax is harder to learn. From the sounds of it this isn't
| uncommon. I don't mean to say that the syntax is bad, and obviously
| Lispers have grown to like it. But for me, it is harder to learn.
But it is harder to learn becuase you resist it! We all know this. Yes,
it is not uncommon to resist change. Lots of dumb people resist changes
of all kinds, whether they will benefit from them or not, in fact more
often than not, they resist changes they /will/ benefit greatly from.
What is so tragic about people who keep insisting that things are hard to
learn is that saying makes it so. Have you ever heard of a person who
admits to thinking "I can'to do this!" over and over until he finally
succeeded? No? I know I have not. Why not? What is the #1 advice they
give to athletes who want to win so badly they are willing to abuse their
body to the extreme, to experience more pain than they were ever meant to,
to break every reasonable and rational limit to human performance? To
get into the winning mindset. Not only /can/ they beat the odds against
them, they /have to/. Not that I want you to go overboard and ignore the
finely tuned instructions that are embedded in our finely tuned bodies
that pain means a mistake, but you should not yield to resistance if you
want to succeed. Learning is hard work. Succeeding is hard work. If
you only plan to do what you find easy to do in your life, you /will/ go
nuts in no time. Boredom kills people, literally. Every bored moment of
your life is an experience of what death is like. If it is hard to learn,
that means you have to use your brain and concentrate to succeed. This
has "good for you" written all over it. If Java was easy to learn, you
would go mad if you were to program in it for real. As I have said on
several occasions: Life is too long to be good at C++, meaning that if
you spent the decade it takes to become good at it, you would have wasted
the opportunity to be good at something worth being good at, and you
would have to spend the rest of your miserable life programming in C++.
Yes, scream. Now, being good at Java takes the average Joe a good while,
and he can expect to use it for long enough to both be worth it and to be
worth more than the alternatives. But if you found Java easy to learn,
you are not the average Joe. Java is not for you. The only things worth
becoming good at are things that are hard to learn, but not all things
that are hard to learn are worth being good at. The only thing you know
is that if it is too easy to learn, it is not worth wasting brain time on
it. Quit whining about how hard Common Lisp is to learn. Start whining
about how easy Java was and how much you hate wasting your time on the
easy stuff: Yell "BOOORING!" at it and "Gimme something my dog can't do!"
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no says...
> * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> | The syntax is harder to learn. From the sounds of it this isn't
> | uncommon. I don't mean to say that the syntax is bad, and obviously
> | Lispers have grown to like it. But for me, it is harder to learn.
>
> But it is harder to learn becuase you resist it! We all know this. Yes,
> it is not uncommon to resist change. Lots of dumb people resist changes
> of all kinds, whether they will benefit from them or not, in fact more
> often than not, they resist changes they /will/ benefit greatly from.
> What is so tragic about people who keep insisting that things are hard to
> learn is that saying makes it so. Have you ever heard of a person who
> admits to thinking "I can'to do this!" over and over until he finally
> succeeded? No? I know I have not. Why not? What is the #1 advice they
> give to athletes who want to win so badly they are willing to abuse their
> body to the extreme, to experience more pain than they were ever meant to,
> to break every reasonable and rational limit to human performance? To
> get into the winning mindset. Not only /can/ they beat the odds against
> them, they /have to/. Not that I want you to go overboard and ignore the
> finely tuned instructions that are embedded in our finely tuned bodies
> that pain means a mistake, but you should not yield to resistance if you
> want to succeed. Learning is hard work. Succeeding is hard work. If
> you only plan to do what you find easy to do in your life, you /will/ go
> nuts in no time. Boredom kills people, literally. Every bored moment of
> your life is an experience of what death is like. If it is hard to learn,
> that means you have to use your brain and concentrate to succeed. This
> has "good for you" written all over it. If Java was easy to learn, you
> would go mad if you were to program in it for real. As I have said on
> several occasions: Life is too long to be good at C++, meaning that if
> you spent the decade it takes to become good at it, you would have wasted
> the opportunity to be good at something worth being good at, and you
> would have to spend the rest of your miserable life programming in C++.
> Yes, scream. Now, being good at Java takes the average Joe a good while,
> and he can expect to use it for long enough to both be worth it and to be
> worth more than the alternatives. But if you found Java easy to learn,
> you are not the average Joe. Java is not for you. The only things worth
> becoming good at are things that are hard to learn, but not all things
> that are hard to learn are worth being good at. The only thing you know
> is that if it is too easy to learn, it is not worth wasting brain time on
> it. Quit whining about how hard Common Lisp is to learn. Start whining
> about how easy Java was and how much you hate wasting your time on the
> easy stuff: Yell "BOOORING!" at it and "Gimme something my dog can't do!"
>
>
Again, you are weird. Besides, it isn't quite accurate of me to say Lisp
is hard to learn. It is easy to actually learn it, but writing it is
hard.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> Again, you are weird. Besides, it isn't quite accurate of me to say Lisp
> is hard to learn. It is easy to actually learn it, but writing it is
> hard.
It grows on you.
Other people have said it in this thread, but get a good editor. I'm
not sure what you're using, but I use emacs, which is very nice for
lisp, and has several nice lisp modes. vim-users probably have
something equally good.
I don't know if you know emacs; it takes some practice to get used to
it, but it's worth the effort.
The editor minimally has to have parenthesis matching and flashing.
In your editor, when you type a parenthesis, does it immediately
highlight the matching parenthesis? If not, no wonder it's driving
you crazy. If it does, and you're worried about thet parentheses, you
just have to type parentheses until the one you want to close off
blinks. Or delete the last close paren and re-type it, looking for
the match. (emacs gives you many more tools than this, but a basic
programmer's editor should at least do this much.)
Personally, I had to use Scheme in an AI course, and I hated it then.
After a bit more thinking about things, I started to like it quite a
bit. Then I slowly grew frustrated with re-inventing the wheel and
discovered Common Lisp. Give it some time.
As other people have said, real human beings read lisp code by the
indentation, not by the parentheses. I've not seen you post any code;
are you using standard indentation? It really does help.
Cheers,
--Johann
In article <··············@physics.berkeley.edu>,
······@physics.berkeley.edu says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> >
> > Again, you are weird. Besides, it isn't quite accurate of me to say Lisp
> > is hard to learn. It is easy to actually learn it, but writing it is
> > hard.
>
> It grows on you.
>
> Other people have said it in this thread, but get a good editor. I'm
> not sure what you're using, but I use emacs, which is very nice for
> lisp, and has several nice lisp modes. vim-users probably have
> something equally good.
I'm using LispWorks. Yes, the editor helps, but it's still can be
confusing. Initially I kept putting the last bracket for 'cond' in the
wrong spot, for example:
(defun myFunction (myList)
(cond ((listp myList)
(myfunction (cdr (myList))))
(t nil))) ;I would put the closing bracket for cond here
instead of:
(defun myFunction (myList)
(cond ((listp myList)
(myfunction (cdr (myList)))));instead of here
(t nil))
I've learnt this one now. But as you can see, an editor doesn't help you
find this problem, since all the parentheses are there, but one is in
the wrong spot.
>
> I don't know if you know emacs; it takes some practice to get used to
> it, but it's worth the effort.
I've never seen emacs. Is it free, can I download it?
>
> The editor minimally has to have parenthesis matching and flashing.
> In your editor, when you type a parenthesis, does it immediately
> highlight the matching parenthesis? If not, no wonder it's driving
> you crazy. If it does, and you're worried about thet parentheses, you
> just have to type parentheses until the one you want to close off
> blinks. Or delete the last close paren and re-type it, looking for
> the match. (emacs gives you many more tools than this, but a basic
> programmer's editor should at least do this much.)
>
> Personally, I had to use Scheme in an AI course, and I hated it then.
> After a bit more thinking about things, I started to like it quite a
> bit. Then I slowly grew frustrated with re-inventing the wheel and
> discovered Common Lisp. Give it some time.
>
> As other people have said, real human beings read lisp code by the
> indentation, not by the parentheses. I've not seen you post any code;
> are you using standard indentation? It really does help.
>
This is part of the code for the last assignment I did. This part of the
program is not the requirements for the final practical, since someone
in another thread ("hi, I am trying to make some code that does this")
asked how to get the identical prac working. I'm not about to post my
code for this fella.
;Practical 2 - Pattern matcher
(defun match (pattern1 pattern2)
(cond ((or (atom pattern1) (atom pattern2))
(match-atom pattern1 pattern2))
;if the next atom in pattern1 is *
((and (equal (car pattern1) '*) )
;if next two atoms in patterns match
(if (match-atom (cadr pattern1) (cadr pattern2))
;then continue comparing pattern1 with next atom in
pattern2
(match (cdr pattern1) (cdr pattern2))
;if not then match pattern1 against cdr of pattern2
(match pattern1 (cdr pattern2))))
(t (and (match (car pattern1) (car pattern2))
(match (cdr pattern1) (cdr pattern2))))))
------------------------------------------------------------
A further problem I had (with the final version of prac 2), took a long
time to solve. The lecturer had a hard time finding the problem. This
was the code:
(and
(setf glist (append glist (list (car pattern2))))
(match pattern1 (cdr pattern2)))
I kept getting an error saying that glist couldn't append with an atom.
We were puzzled since we had explicitly defined (car pattern2) as a
list.
As it turn out, the global variable 'glist' had been set as an atom in
an earlier test of the program. It took a long time for us to find this
error, since there was nothing wrong with that piece of code. We just
had to include at the start of the program: (setf glist nil)
So there ya go. It's all fixed now, but this is an example of the grief
I went through.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| I'm using LispWorks. Yes, the editor helps, but it's still can be
| confusing. Initially I kept putting the last bracket for 'cond' in the
| wrong spot, for example:
|
| (defun myFunction (myList)
| (cond ((listp myList)
| (myfunction (cdr (myList))))
| (t nil))) ;I would put the closing bracket for cond here
|
| instead of:
|
| (defun myFunction (myList)
| (cond ((listp myList)
| (myfunction (cdr (myList)))));instead of here
| (t nil))
|
| I've learnt this one now. But as you can see, an editor doesn't help you
| find this problem, since all the parentheses are there, but one is in the
| wrong spot.
An editor would help you understand the indentation, but this is an
interesting case since the correct code would look like this:
(defun some-function (list)
(cond ((listp list) (some-function (cdr list)))
(t nil)))
Common Lisp code is very easy to write correctly when you figure out the
indentation that the editor does for you. Do not fight the indentation,
no matter what you think about it. If you think you know better, forget
it, you do not.
| I've never seen emacs. Is it free, can I download it?
It would only confuse you at this juncture and derail you from getting
your assignments done in time. People who do not want to stay for the
duration of the learning curve, and you have certainly given me the
impression that you would not do that, have been known to pester and
plague the Emacs community with their prejudice and preordained knowledge
about how editing should have been done.
| This is part of the code for the last assignment I did. This part of the
| program is not the requirements for the final practical, since someone in
| another thread ("hi, I am trying to make some code that does this") asked
| how to get the identical prac working. I'm not about to post my code for
| this fella.
So incredibly egoistic. So /inviting/ for people to help you out.
| So there ya go. It's all fixed now, but this is an example of the grief I
| went through.
Why is this grief that you are going through so important that you want
to share with the whole entire world?
BTW, you should go rent �The Big Kahuna� with Kevin Spacey and Danny
DeVito, who both do excellent character development in this masterpiece.
Hell, buy it! It is that good.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
arien wrote:
>
> (defun myFunction (myList)
> (cond ((listp myList)
> (myfunction (cdr (myList))))
> (t nil))) ;I would put the closing bracket for cond here
>
But that is where it should be! Though I would format that as:
(defun myFunction (myList)
(cond
((listp myList) (myfunction (cdr (myList))))
(t nil)))
...or if you prefer...
(defun myFunction (myList)
(cond
((listp myList)
(myfunction (cdr (myList))))
(t nil)))
> instead of:
>
> (defun myFunction (myList)
> (cond ((listp myList)
> (myfunction (cdr (myList)))));instead of here
> (t nil))
This one is wrong, and as your lisp improves you will realize at once
that (t nil) aligning with (cond...) means you got too many parens on
the cond form and closed it before you got in the (t nil) final clause.
>
> I've learnt this one now. But as you can see, an editor doesn't help you
> find this problem, since all the parentheses are there, but one is in
> the wrong spot.
Oops. Well, we are making headway now. Like we have been saying, the
auto-indentation /does/ make misplaced parens obvious. But that in turn
relies on knowing where things /should/ indent, so until your Lisp gets
stronger you have to slow down and think about how things should align
lest, as here, you miss the indentation cue.
--
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
In article <················@nyc.rr.com>, ·······@nyc.rr.com says...
>
>
> arien wrote:
> >
> > (defun myFunction (myList)
> > (cond ((listp myList)
> > (myfunction (cdr (myList))))
> > (t nil))) ;I would put the closing bracket for cond here
> >
>
> But that is where it should be! Though I would format that as:
>
> (defun myFunction (myList)
> (cond
> ((listp myList) (myfunction (cdr (myList))))
> (t nil)))
>
> ...or if you prefer...
>
> (defun myFunction (myList)
> (cond
> ((listp myList)
> (myfunction (cdr (myList))))
> (t nil)))
>
> > instead of:
> >
> > (defun myFunction (myList)
> > (cond ((listp myList)
> > (myfunction (cdr (myList)))));instead of here
> > (t nil))
>
> This one is wrong, and as your lisp improves you will realize at once
> that (t nil) aligning with (cond...) means you got too many parens on
> the cond form and closed it before you got in the (t nil) final clause.
>
> >
> > I've learnt this one now. But as you can see, an editor doesn't help you
> > find this problem, since all the parentheses are there, but one is in
> > the wrong spot.
>
> Oops. Well, we are making headway now. Like we have been saying, the
> auto-indentation /does/ make misplaced parens obvious. But that in turn
> relies on knowing where things /should/ indent, so until your Lisp gets
> stronger you have to slow down and think about how things should align
> lest, as here, you miss the indentation cue.
>
>
>
>
Whoops! See, even in my example I got the parentheses in the wrong
spot!!!
:-)
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
> Whoops! See, even in my example I got the parentheses in the wrong
> spot!!!
And do you see that the automatic indentation made the error evident,
given sufficient understanding of Lisp?
btw, saw your bit about having to use (apparently) a Lisp-unaware editor
once you got to campus. yechh.
--
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
In article <··························@news.adl.ihug.com.au>, arien wrote:
> In article <··············@physics.berkeley.edu>,
> ······@physics.berkeley.edu says...
>> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>> > Again, you are weird. Besides, it isn't quite accurate of me
>> > to say Lisp is hard to learn. It is easy to actually learn
>> > it, but writing it is hard.
>>
>> It grows on you.
>>
>> Other people have said it in this thread, but get a good
>> editor. I'm not sure what you're using, but I use emacs,
>> which is very nice for lisp, and has several nice lisp modes.
>> vim-users probably have something equally good.
>
> I'm using LispWorks. Yes, the editor helps, but it's still can
> be confusing. Initially I kept putting the last bracket for
> 'cond' in the wrong spot, for example:
>
> (defun myFunction (myList)
> (cond ((listp myList)
> (myfunction (cdr (myList))))
> (t nil))) ;I would put the closing bracket for cond here
Vim[1] indents your code thusly:
(defun myFunction (myList)
(cond ((listp myList)
(myfunction (cdr (myList))))
(t nil)))
This shows that the cond will see both the (listp myList) and the
t as conditions for it to test ... and that you have the closing
bracket for the cond in the right place.
> instead of:
>
> (defun myFunction (myList)
> (cond ((listp myList)
> (myfunction (cdr (myList)))));instead of here
> (t nil))
Vim indenting again:
(defun myFunction (myList)
(cond ((listp myList)
(myfunction (cdr (myList)))))
(t nil))
You say "instead" -- do you think you have this second form
*right*? You don't. Did you get your examples backwards?
> I've learnt this one now. But as you can see, an editor doesn't
> help you find this problem, since all the parentheses are
> there, but one is in the wrong spot.
An editor with proper indenting probably would've helped you find
this.
<much code elided>
> So there ya go. It's all fixed now, but this is an example of
> the grief I went through.
This has little to do with Lisp, and a lot to do with learning to
debug, learning your debugger, and learning more about the
interactive, persistent environment of the Lisp read-eval-print
loop.
As an aside, while learning C I spent two hours trying to find
out why a variable definition wouldn't compile: it looked okay to
me. After way too long, I finally realized that the *previous*
line needed a terminating semi-colon. So it took too long, but
on the other hand I've never made that mistake again, and also
learned an easily generalizable lesson about debugging.
A further aside: complaining about parentheses makes us perceive
you as whiny, whether you meant to or not. Would you complain to
Java programmers about, for example, "all the silly classes"?
Probably not, because you'd most likely realize that they like
the "silly classes" ;) , and you'd get no sympathy (or help!).
Similarly in comp.lang.lisp about parentheses, and
comp.lang.python about syntactically significant whitespace.
-- Larry
[1] Vim: Vi IMproved, www.vim.org.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <wuo8t02r.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Larry Clapp <·····@theclapp.org> writes:
> As an aside, while learning C I spent two hours trying to find
> out why a variable definition wouldn't compile: it looked okay to
> me. After way too long, I finally realized that the *previous*
> line needed a terminating semi-colon.
That's always fun, especially when the previous line is from an
include file. (and nested within 4 levels of #ifdef so you aren't
quite sure which of those lines is really there.)
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> Larry Clapp <·····@theclapp.org> writes:
>
> > As an aside, while learning C I spent two hours trying to find
> > out why a variable definition wouldn't compile: it looked okay to
> > me. After way too long, I finally realized that the *previous*
> > line needed a terminating semi-colon.
>
> That's always fun, especially when the previous line is from an
> include file. (and nested within 4 levels of #ifdef so you aren't
> quite sure which of those lines is really there.)
Never try to read conditional compilations. This thread has been
about differences in readability in syntax, but such differences
pale and become insignificant compared to the trouble that comes
with a sufficiently complex conditionally compiled program - not
only is the actual syntax not lexically apparent, it is environmentally
decided and thus usually surprising, even for such environmental
conditions that _should_ be obvious.
Instead, use "cc -P ..." or "cc -E ..."
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
* Mel writes about her difficulty in debugging with Lisp
This reminds me of my first time writing a C program that malloc'd
new memory [circa 1989]. After running for about 2 minutes, it had
chewed through all available memory and VM and began yielding malloc
errors [which the code was reporting, but not handling].
A local hacker came over and informed me that my program was not
going to do anything useful because it was broken. I demurred,
saying "maybe it will come back with something different soon." He
just shook his head sadly and walked away.
* Larry Clapp <·····@theclapp.org> to write:
> As an aside, while learning C I spent two hours trying to find
> out why a variable definition wouldn't compile: it looked okay to
> me. After way too long, I finally realized that the *previous*
> line needed a terminating semi-colon.
Indeed, I [eventually] learned that the way to debug C programs was
to fix the *first* syntax error reported by the compiler and then
recompile. All subsequent errors were prone to be bogus anyway.
Nothing like a single misplaced \" to generate dozens of syntax
errors - all of which are auto-magically cleared-up by fixing that
one problem.
* Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> then wrote:
> That's always fun, especially when the previous line is from an
> include file. (and nested within 4 levels of #ifdef so you aren't
> quite sure which of those lines is really there.)
heh. Trying to follow the nesting of #include files can give you
a real head-ache.
* and Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> Never try to read conditional compilations. This thread has been
> about differences in readability in syntax, but such differences
> pale and become insignificant compared to the trouble that comes
> with a sufficiently complex conditionally compiled program - not
> only is the actual syntax not lexically apparent, it is
> environmentally decided and thus usually surprising, even for such
> environmental conditions that _should_ be obvious.
It's almost impossible to follow sufficiently deeply nested
conditional compilations...
> Instead, use "cc -P ..." or "cc -E ..."
so I almost always end up using "cc -E" when trying to figure out
why conditional compilation isn't working in the Linux kernel. Too
many levels of nested include files.
Lisp is *so* much easier by comparison. Better debuggers, better
handling of macros, better #+/#- feature support....
Half of the time I spend debugging C/Perl programs is actually
spent re-implementing (trace ) via printf statements... What's kind
of scary is that I actually was doing this *prior* to learning Lisp
- I just found it a necessity for localizing bugs. I was *thrilled*
when I saw that it was a built-in function in Common Lisp.
-jon
--
------------------
Jon Allen Boone
········@delamancha.org
>
> Half of the time I spend debugging C/Perl programs is actually
> spent re-implementing (trace ) via printf statements... What's kind
> of scary is that I actually was doing this *prior* to learning Lisp
> - I just found it a necessity for localizing bugs. I was *thrilled*
> when I saw that it was a built-in function in Common Lisp.
>
Is it? How do you do that?
Perhaps this would make my life a lot easier? :)
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <3DBD1752.2020704@web.de>
arien wrote:
>> Half of the time I spend debugging C/Perl programs is actually
>> spent re-implementing (trace ) via printf statements... What's kind
>> of scary is that I actually was doing this *prior* to learning Lisp
>> - I just found it a necessity for localizing bugs. I was *thrilled*
>> when I saw that it was a built-in function in Common Lisp.
>
> Is it? How do you do that?
> Perhaps this would make my life a lot easier? :)
The function is called trace. ;)
For example, try the following.
(defun f (x)
(* x x))
(trace f)
(f 5)
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
In article <················@web.de>, ········@web.de says...
> arien wrote:
> >> Half of the time I spend debugging C/Perl programs is actually
> >> spent re-implementing (trace ) via printf statements... What's kind
> >> of scary is that I actually was doing this *prior* to learning Lisp
> >> - I just found it a necessity for localizing bugs. I was *thrilled*
> >> when I saw that it was a built-in function in Common Lisp.
> >
> > Is it? How do you do that?
> > Perhaps this would make my life a lot easier? :)
>
> The function is called trace. ;)
>
> For example, try the following.
>
> (defun f (x)
> (* x x))
>
> (trace f)
>
> (f 5)
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
ah, thankyou. I think I saw the lecturer doing something like that. But
he didn't tell me what he was doing or explain it to me.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
In article <·············@rabbit.ddts.net>, ·····@theclapp.org says...
> In article <··························@news.adl.ihug.com.au>, arien wrote:
> > In article <··············@physics.berkeley.edu>,
> > ······@physics.berkeley.edu says...
> >> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> >> > Again, you are weird. Besides, it isn't quite accurate of me
> >> > to say Lisp is hard to learn. It is easy to actually learn
> >> > it, but writing it is hard.
> >>
> >> It grows on you.
> >>
> >> Other people have said it in this thread, but get a good
> >> editor. I'm not sure what you're using, but I use emacs,
> >> which is very nice for lisp, and has several nice lisp modes.
> >> vim-users probably have something equally good.
> >
> > I'm using LispWorks. Yes, the editor helps, but it's still can
> > be confusing. Initially I kept putting the last bracket for
> > 'cond' in the wrong spot, for example:
> >
> > (defun myFunction (myList)
> > (cond ((listp myList)
> > (myfunction (cdr (myList))))
> > (t nil))) ;I would put the closing bracket for cond here
>
> Vim[1] indents your code thusly:
>
> (defun myFunction (myList)
> (cond ((listp myList)
> (myfunction (cdr (myList))))
> (t nil)))
>
> This shows that the cond will see both the (listp myList) and the
> t as conditions for it to test ... and that you have the closing
> bracket for the cond in the right place.
>
> > instead of:
> >
> > (defun myFunction (myList)
> > (cond ((listp myList)
> > (myfunction (cdr (myList)))));instead of here
> > (t nil))
>
> Vim indenting again:
>
> (defun myFunction (myList)
> (cond ((listp myList)
> (myfunction (cdr (myList)))))
> (t nil))
>
> You say "instead" -- do you think you have this second form
> *right*? You don't. Did you get your examples backwards?
Yeah, sorry. Got the examples back to front.
>
> > I've learnt this one now. But as you can see, an editor doesn't
> > help you find this problem, since all the parentheses are
> > there, but one is in the wrong spot.
>
> An editor with proper indenting probably would've helped you find
> this.
>
> <much code elided>
> > So there ya go. It's all fixed now, but this is an example of
> > the grief I went through.
>
> This has little to do with Lisp, and a lot to do with learning to
> debug, learning your debugger, and learning more about the
> interactive, persistent environment of the Lisp read-eval-print
> loop.
>
> As an aside, while learning C I spent two hours trying to find
> out why a variable definition wouldn't compile: it looked okay to
> me. After way too long, I finally realized that the *previous*
> line needed a terminating semi-colon. So it took too long, but
> on the other hand I've never made that mistake again, and also
> learned an easily generalizable lesson about debugging.
>
> A further aside: complaining about parentheses makes us perceive
> you as whiny, whether you meant to or not. Would you complain to
> Java programmers about, for example, "all the silly classes"?
> Probably not, because you'd most likely realize that they like
> the "silly classes" ;) , and you'd get no sympathy (or help!).
> Similarly in comp.lang.lisp about parentheses, and
> comp.lang.python about syntactically significant whitespace.
OK, I'm sorry. I won't ever complain about the parentheses again :-)
If I knew how much trouble it was going to get me in, I would never have
brought it up!
I haven't ever had anything to do with python, so I can't comment on
that.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <3cqwuerb.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> I've never seen emacs. Is it free, can I download it?
Yes, but...
Emacs is sort of like an industrial machine shop: more tools than you
could possibly want, including some that seem to have no conceivable
use. The upside is that when you want something done, there is a tool
tailor-made for the project that will make it a breeze. The downside
is the steep learning curve. If you have some time to spare and are
willing to tackle the learning curve, it is well worth it. If you
just need to get to the next problem set, then you might want to wait.
I do *everything* in Emacs: read and answer mail and usenet, write
and debug programs, write text and HTML, run interactive shells, browse
the file system, diff and merge programs, etc. etc.
In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, ···@ccs.neu.edu says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> > I've never seen emacs. Is it free, can I download it?
>
> Yes, but...
>
> Emacs is sort of like an industrial machine shop: more tools than you
> could possibly want, including some that seem to have no conceivable
> use. The upside is that when you want something done, there is a tool
> tailor-made for the project that will make it a breeze. The downside
> is the steep learning curve. If you have some time to spare and are
> willing to tackle the learning curve, it is well worth it. If you
> just need to get to the next problem set, then you might want to wait.
>
> I do *everything* in Emacs: read and answer mail and usenet, write
> and debug programs, write text and HTML, run interactive shells, browse
> the file system, diff and merge programs, etc. etc.
>
>
hmmm, I might just wait a little while then before I try it.
Thanks
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>:
> (defun myFunction (myList)
> (cond ((listp myList)
> (myfunction (cdr (myList)))));instead of here
> (t nil))
>
> I've learnt this one now. But as you can see, an editor doesn't help you
> find this problem, since all the parentheses are there, but one is in
> the wrong spot.
When you read the documentation for cond and use it, do not think in
terms of "ok, this is cond, so I have to have two parentheses here,
and three there", etc. but rather as an expression that takes a list
of test-forms.
(cond mytest1
do-stuff1
mytest2
do-stuff2)
Now, if mytest1 is true, do-stuff1 is executed. The thing is, if
do-stuff1 consists of several expressions, you have to group them
together somehow[1], so you get:
(cond (mytest1
do-stuff1a
do-stuff1b)
(mytest2
...))
If mytest1 is not a variable, but an expression, like (listp list),
for example[3], it turns out like this:
(cond ((listp list)
(do-stuff1a)
...)
...)
I realize all this is very basic, but I don't mean to be patronizing.
It's based on my own difficulties when first learning Lisp. I was
wondering why I needed so many parentheses for `do', for example, but
then I read the HyperSpec[2] (I'd only seen examples previously), and
it all made sense, making it a lot easier to remember how to use it.
---
1. This is a convenience, so you don't have to use an explicit progn
like this:
(cond mytest1
(progn do-stuff1a
do-stuff1b)
...)
2. http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/index.html
3. Style note: You can use list as a variable name that refers to
lists, because Common Lisp has separate namespaces for variables
and functions, so that even if there is a function called list, you
can still have a variable called list.
--
Johannes Gr�dem <OpenPGP: 5055654C>
In article <··············@unity.copyleft.no>, ······@ifi.uio.no says...
> * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>:
>
> > (defun myFunction (myList)
> > (cond ((listp myList)
> > (myfunction (cdr (myList)))));instead of here
> > (t nil))
> >
> > I've learnt this one now. But as you can see, an editor doesn't help you
> > find this problem, since all the parentheses are there, but one is in
> > the wrong spot.
>
> When you read the documentation for cond and use it, do not think in
> terms of "ok, this is cond, so I have to have two parentheses here,
> and three there", etc. but rather as an expression that takes a list
> of test-forms.
>
> (cond mytest1
> do-stuff1
> mytest2
> do-stuff2)
>
> Now, if mytest1 is true, do-stuff1 is executed. The thing is, if
> do-stuff1 consists of several expressions, you have to group them
> together somehow[1], so you get:
>
> (cond (mytest1
> do-stuff1a
> do-stuff1b)
> (mytest2
> ...))
>
> If mytest1 is not a variable, but an expression, like (listp list),
> for example[3], it turns out like this:
>
> (cond ((listp list)
> (do-stuff1a)
> ...)
> ...)
>
> I realize all this is very basic, but I don't mean to be patronizing.
> It's based on my own difficulties when first learning Lisp. I was
> wondering why I needed so many parentheses for `do', for example, but
> then I read the HyperSpec[2] (I'd only seen examples previously), and
> it all made sense, making it a lot easier to remember how to use it.
>
>
> ---
> 1. This is a convenience, so you don't have to use an explicit progn
> like this:
>
> (cond mytest1
> (progn do-stuff1a
> do-stuff1b)
> ...)
>
> 2. http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/index.html
>
> 3. Style note: You can use list as a variable name that refers to
> lists, because Common Lisp has separate namespaces for variables
> and functions, so that even if there is a function called list, you
> can still have a variable called list.
>
>
Thanks, yeah I've figured this out now. My problem was that I didn't
realise that the
(t .......)
was actually part of the cond. I now realise that it is just the default
condition. It was also only by trial and error that I also discovered
that if the first condition evaluates to true, then it doesn't execute
any more of the conditions. I still haven't figured out how you get the
program to test *all* conditions and execute them if they are true.
Perhaps you do it with an 'if' statement?
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <u7kg2y5u7.fsf@poboxes.com>
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 20:38:06 +1030, arien <·············@getlost.invalid> said:
[...]
*> It was also only by trial and error that I also discovered
*> that if the first condition evaluates to true, then it doesn't execute
*> any more of the conditions.
With any language, not just Lisp, using a (good) book or equivalent
reference material works far better, and is much less frustrating,
than trial and error, both with regards to communicating with the
language implementation and to communicating with other people.
---Vassil.
--
For an M-person job assigned to an N-person team, only rarely M=N.
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <3DBD1D80.5010506@web.de>
arien wrote:
> Thanks, yeah I've figured this out now. My problem was that I didn't
> realise that the
>
> (t .......)
>
> was actually part of the cond. I now realise that it is just the default
> condition. It was also only by trial and error that I also discovered
> that if the first condition evaluates to true, then it doesn't execute
> any more of the conditions. I still haven't figured out how you get the
> program to test *all* conditions and execute them if they are true.
>
> Perhaps you do it with an 'if' statement?
(cond ...) is similar to repeated "else if combinations" in Java, as
follows.
if (test1) {...}
else if (test2) {...}
else if (test3) {...}
else if (true) {...}
If you want to have all conditions tested and executed, you do it as
follows.
if (test1) {...}
if (test2) {...}
if (test3) {...}
Similarly in Lisp.
(if (test1) ...)
(if (test2) ...)
However, Lisp programmers prefer the if-form to be used only when you
have actions for both the "true" case and the "false" case.
(if (test)
(format t "test is true~%")
(format t "test is false~%"))
Lisp has two more statements that you should use when you have only one
action.
(when (test)
(format t "test is true~%"))
(unless (test)
(format t "test is false~%"))
So because you have only one action for each case in the above example,
you would actually write the following.
(when (test1) ...)
(when (test2) ...)
(when (test3) ...)
Of course, "when" and "unless" are redundant when you have "if", but
Lisp programmers appreciate the clarity that "when" and "unless" introduce.
What's really impressing is that Lisp actually has invented the cond
form back in the 50's. Algol was the second language to include a
similar statement - it was a simplified cond statement borrowed from
Lisp, and was called "if"! So, in fact, Lisp invented the if statement! ;)
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> I'm using LispWorks. Yes, the editor helps, but it's still can be
> confusing. Initially I kept putting the last bracket for 'cond' in the
> wrong spot, for example:
>
> (defun myFunction (myList)
> (cond ((listp myList)
> (myfunction (cdr (myList))))
> (t nil))) ;I would put the closing bracket for cond here
>
> instead of:
>
> (defun myFunction (myList)
> (cond ((listp myList)
> (myfunction (cdr (myList)))));instead of here
> (t nil))
>
> I've learnt this one now. But as you can see, an editor doesn't help you
> find this problem, since all the parentheses are there, but one is in
> the wrong spot.
Two observations. The first one is that your first function above is
the correct one. The second function has the incorrect location. It
seems that they are labeled the other way around in your example.
The second observation is that you are not letting your editor do the
indentation for you. You have to let the tools help. If you were to
use an editor with proper indenting of code (I'm not familiar with the
LispWorks editor), you would have seen:
[1] (defun myFunction (myList)
(cond ((listp myList)
(myfunction (cdr (myList))))
(t nil)))
[2] (defun myFunction (myList)
(cond ((listp myList)
(myfunction (cdr (myList)))))
(t nil))
In example [1], all of the test clauses of the COND are aligned
underneath each other. That is the correct version, since you want the
LISTP test and the T test to be at the same level. In example [2], you
can easily see the error, since the T is at the same level as the COND.
You get the same effect with other languages, such as Java. It is not
always immediately obvious where things are missing in Java unless you
follow the normal line breaking and indentation conventions either:
a = 3*b+1001
c = 5*a;
versus
a = 3*b+1001 c = 5*a;
In the latter case, Notepad won't help you find the missing semi-colon
because it is missing from the middle of the line. Now you probably
wouldn't write your Java or C code like this. Nor should you write Lisp
code without respecting the structure of the program. The IDEs for
Java, etc. also indent your code, which is invaluable for finding the
misplaced } characters in complicated code, particularly if you have a
lot of conditionals and error handlers. This may not be so apparent
when doing school assignments, but in real code it gets to be an issue.
By the way, I just took the code from your message and indented it using
Emacs. There was an observation made in a related parenthesis-bashing
thread a couple months ago that with experience, you end up not focusing
so much on the parentheses, but rather on the indentation structure.
That is why tools help so much.
> A further problem I had (with the final version of prac 2), took a long
> time to solve. The lecturer had a hard time finding the problem. This
> was the code:
>
> (and
> (setf glist (append glist (list (car pattern2))))
> (match pattern1 (cdr pattern2)))
>
>
> I kept getting an error saying that glist couldn't append with an atom.
> We were puzzled since we had explicitly defined (car pattern2) as a
> list.
>
> As it turn out, the global variable 'glist' had been set as an atom in
> an earlier test of the program. It took a long time for us to find this
> error, since there was nothing wrong with that piece of code. We just
> had to include at the start of the program: (setf glist nil)
Well, I think you drew the wrong conclusion here. The correct
conclusion would have been perhaps not to use global variables. That is
why the language has the nice construct LET. Now, many other languages
(such as Java, etc.) will not let you use variables that you haven't
declared. Lisp doesn't always provide the same degree of hand-holding,
but the same general principles apply.
The second conclusion is to not use variables that you haven't
initialized, but again this is a universal programming truth.
You shouldn't use global variables unless you have very carefully
thought it out, since they open the way for bizarre interactions between
code that is not textually close together. In some cases it is
expedient to use special variables, but you really shouldn't make them
truly global. At the top-level of the program section that wishes to
use these variables, they should be bound to a value that you like
(again using LET). An example:
(let ((*glist* nil))
(declare (special *glist*))
....
)
Note also that because of the non-local interaction, most Lisp
programmers have adopted the convention of surrounding their special
variable names with "*" characters. It signals that one has a variable
with dynamic rather than lexical scope, and makes it easier to
understand the code.
To preempt the question about the lack of hand-holding, one benefit of
it is that it can be quite handy not to have those restrictions during
the early, exploratory phase of program design. Lisp makes exploratory
programming and debugging much easier by having a lot of flexibility and
access to the code. The down side is that this flexibility can end up
biting you.
> So there ya go. It's all fixed now, but this is an example of the grief
> I went through.
OK. But as long as you learn the correct lesssons, the grief is at
least not wasted.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute ···@isi.edu
It is a poor carpenter who blames his tools.
>
> Well, I think you drew the wrong conclusion here. The correct
> conclusion would have been perhaps not to use global variables. That is
> why the language has the nice construct LET. Now, many other languages
> (such as Java, etc.) will not let you use variables that you haven't
> declared. Lisp doesn't always provide the same degree of hand-holding,
> but the same general principles apply.
the lecturer suggested the use of the global variable. In fact, it was
in his sample code. I don't think it was possible to create the program
without the global variable.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
"arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> I'm using LispWorks. Yes, the editor helps, but it's still can be
> confusing. Initially I kept putting the last bracket for 'cond' in the
> wrong spot, for example:
>
> (defun myFunction (myList)
> (cond ((listp myList)
> (myfunction (cdr (myList))))
> (t nil))) ;I would put the closing bracket for cond here
>
> instead of:
>
> (defun myFunction (myList)
> (cond ((listp myList)
> (myfunction (cdr (myList)))));instead of here
> (t nil))
I think you are missing a key but very simple idea in Lisp. Basically
a call to a Lisp function is the execution of a Lisp expression (or
in some ways a Lisp sentence). The basic external syntax of a call
is
1) (func arg1 arg2 ... argn)
The parens are used to delimit the sentence. This is a very loose structure
and can formatted in various ways, with various indents. Is some ways indentation
and understanding how to specifiy the args are two seperate skills. In the case
of COND the above sentence has the form
2) (cond conditional-alist1 conditional-alist2 ... conditional-alistn)
I use the word alist (association list) since the conditional args are alists,
here the car (first) element of the list is the expression that is the
conditional and the cdr (rest) of the list are the expression(s) to
execute if the conditional is true. Thus the COND statement even
more specifically is
3) (cond (conditional1 . list-of-code1) (conditional2 . list-of-code2) ...
(conditionaln . list-of-coden))
If you look at the hypersepc you will see the actually spec for COND.
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/m_cond.htm
You will see that COND is actually a macro. It is a macro because one
does not want the conditional-alists to completely execute unless the
conditional is true. This can not be done with a standard function
call as all args are completely executed before the call to COND.
Reading the CL spec is also a skill, as one needs to get used to the
vocabulary and format . The specs wording is very exact and with practice
you can get to read it. One other thing about the specs entry for
COND, in the syntax section the
cond {clause}* => result*
actually is meant as
(cond {clause}*) => result
syntax wise.
You may have have noticed that I broke expression 3 across a line
boundary. This is for readability, and the case of real code it should
to be formatted even further (though one does not have to).
The important part to remember though is that the end parens on
the COND macro must contain ALL the conditional-alists.
If a conditional-alist escapes past the closing parens it will
have unintendended results.
Built in macros like COND and CASE get to be like second nature
after a while. But to really understand why they are the way they are
it definately helps to know more about the language. Just stick with it.
--
Wade
Email: (format nil ···@~A.~A" "whumeniu" "telus" "net")
"Wade Humeniuk" <····@nospam.nowhere> wrote in message
····························@news0.telusplanet.net...
Oops I madea mistake
>
> 2) (cond conditional-alist1 conditional-alist2 ... conditional-alistn)
>
The conditional-alist1 etc. are not alists, they are key value pairs in an
alist. (condtional-alist1 conditional-alist2 ... conditional-alistn) is the
alist. Sorry for the confusion.
See,
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/14_aba.htm
> I use the word alist (association list) since the conditional args are alists,
So that should be "the conditional args are key values in an alist".
Wade
>
> You will see that COND is actually a macro.
*groan*
I don't understand macros either :(
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
"arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
>
> >
> > You will see that COND is actually a macro.
>
>
>
> *groan*
>
> I don't understand macros either :(
Macros are very simple really. A Macro defines a transformation of
one Lisp form to another Lisp form sometime before evaluation.
That's all they are.
After Macro expansion time (which is before evaluation time) all
compound Lisp forms are function forms. All macros have been
expanded and are ready to run.
In some ways you can view all of Lisp compound form-evaluation
as transformations of forms into other forms. In essence the Lisp
interpreter/compiler creates the code to transform one form into another.
For example
(+ 1 2) is transformed by the Lisp machine into => 3
(aref array1 3) => 10
For more complex forms, say...
(/ (+ 2 5) (+ 1 4)) , the form might be first transformed to
(/ 10 (+ 1 4)), and then
(/ 10 5), and then
2
Lisp programs are built up like this into much more involved code.
I had to learn this idea of form transformation/substitution. Once I
"discovered" it the Lisp syntax is very straightforward.
Wade
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3ela9if58.fsf@cley.com>
* Wade Humeniuk wrote:
> After Macro expansion time (which is before evaluation time) all
> compound Lisp forms are function forms. All macros have been
> expanded and are ready to run.
No, this is not so. After macros are expanded, all compound forms are
either function applications or special forms. Special forms are
compound forms whose first element is a special operator, and which
have idiosyncratic syntax. There is a small, fixed, number of special
operators in the language.
--tim
"Tim Bradshaw" <···@cley.com> wrote in message ····················@cley.com...
> * Wade Humeniuk wrote:
> > After Macro expansion time (which is before evaluation time) all
> > compound Lisp forms are function forms. All macros have been
> > expanded and are ready to run.
>
> No, this is not so. After macros are expanded, all compound forms are
> either function applications or special forms. Special forms are
> compound forms whose first element is a special operator, and which
> have idiosyncratic syntax. There is a small, fixed, number of special
> operators in the language.
Yes, indeed, I stand corrected.
Wade
arien wrote:
> ... Initially I kept putting the last bracket for 'cond' in the
> wrong spot...
I don't know whether or not you have realised this yet, but the
parenthesis are just structure markers. It isn't too hard to imagine a
graphical type editor that uses boxes to deliminate the structure of the
expressions instead of parenthesis.
You say you had trouble with cond, well the structure of cond would be
something like:
cond <conditional block 1>
<conditional block 2>
...
<conditional block n>
where each conditional block goes something like:
<conditional expression> <expression 1> ... <expression n>
If you understand the structure of the statement, then the parenthesis
write themselves...
> I've never seen emacs. Is it free, can I download it?
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html
> ;Practical 2 - Pattern matcher
>
> (defun match (pattern1 pattern2)
> (cond ((or (atom pattern1) (atom pattern2))
> (match-atom pattern1 pattern2))
> ;if the next atom in pattern1 is *
> ((and (equal (car pattern1) '*) )
> ;if next two atoms in patterns match
> (if (match-atom (cadr pattern1) (cadr pattern2))
> ;then continue comparing pattern1 with next atom in
> pattern2
> (match (cdr pattern1) (cdr pattern2))
> ;if not then match pattern1 against cdr of pattern2
> (match pattern1 (cdr pattern2))))
> (t (and (match (car pattern1) (car pattern2))
> (match (cdr pattern1) (cdr pattern2))))))
I would format this as (with the help of emacs' lisp-mode):
(defun match (pattern1 pattern2)
(cond ((or (atom pattern1)
(atom pattern2))
(match-atom pattern1 pattern2))
;; if the next atom in pattern1 is *
((equal (car pattern1) '*) ; 'and' was redundant
;; if next two atoms in patterns match
(if (match-atom (cadr pattern1)
(cadr pattern2))
;; then continue comparing pattern1 with next atom in
pattern2
(match (cdr pattern1)
(cdr pattern2))
;; if not then match pattern1 against cdr of pattern2
(match pattern1 (cdr pattern2))))
(t (and (match (car pattern1)
(car pattern2))
(match (cdr pattern1)
(cdr pattern2))))))
Lisp code is dense, it helps readability to add whitespace by breaking
up expressions across multiple lines in the appropriate places.
And a final note; you might find 'first', 'rest', 'second', 'third', etc
easier to read than car/cdr & co, but thats more of a personal
preference thing.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
> In article <··············@jcooper02.sagepub.com>, ·····@mail.com
> says...
> > arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> > > The problem is, that the only languages I have learnt are Java and C++.
> > > Java first. Learning C++ wasn't much more difficult because the syntax
> > > is similar. Then you get lisp thrown in your face, and all these
> > > ((((((()))))))'s. I mean, a missing ; at the end of a line is easy to
> > > find, even in Notepad. The syntax of lisp makes it virtually impossible
> > > to use without a suitable editor. Now this, regardless of what you all
> > > say about how good it is, puts lisp behind the eight-ball when it comes
> > > to readability. I have sat there with my lecturer going through the
> > > code, trying to find where the error is. But like I said, Java never has
> > > this problem.
> > I don't understand why you are still participating in this thread.
> Well EXCUSE me for speaking. In case you didn't notice, I was the one
> who started this thread! I'm trying to understand why Lisp is the way it
> is. I'm just expressing my exasperation with learning Lisp, and how I am
> finding it more difficult than learning Java.
But you aren't getting very many people to sympathize with your
dry-mouthedness, are you? [*]. Surprise, suprise. In a group full of
people who are either professional lisp programmers or avid lisp fans,
there isn't a huge chorus to back up your "Java is so much easier than
lisp" rants.
You might get a bunch of people who say "Yeah, a lot of people feel that
way at first, it gets better." You might get a bunch more who give you
suggestions for making your life easier. And then you get a tactless
genius like Erik who (virtually) grabs your collar and says
(paraphrased) "Don't be a moron -- you can't critique a language until
you actually know it. Either apply yourself to learning it or don't
bother." Erik may be tactless and distinctly unhelpful to a person in
your present state of mind, but he's not wrong.
> > Lisp is not your cup of tea, that's fine.
> I never said that I don't like lisp. I don't understand how to use it
> yet, but that doesn't mean I don't like it!
> > So finish your Lisp course,
> > and never use it again. There are plenty of Java and C++ jobs out
> > there. Arguing with Lispers about syntax and parentheses is pointless
> > and only increases the noise in this newsgroup.
> The syntax is harder to learn.
I disagree. It's hard to get *used* to, especially if you start out
knowing something else well. But the "aha" that comes once you've been
working with lisp a bit is that the standard lisp syntax is practically
no syntax at all! Once you wrap your head around this fact, and how
it's possible to create real code with only 1 special syntax character
(everything except the parens is just shorthand for functions), it
becomes *easier* rather than harder. Which is why so few lispers
actually use any of the tools available to get C-like syntax into common
lisp.
> From the sounds of it this isn't
> uncommon. I don't mean to say that the syntax is bad, and obviously
> Lispers have grown to like it. But for me, it is harder to learn.
> > When I moved from
> > C/Perl to Lisp my productivity increased by an order of magnitude.
> > (in fact part of that *IS* because of the parentheses (and s-exps, and
> > how emacs treats them)). I suspect this is true of most Lispers. So
> > you're fighting a losing argument, at least in this ng.
> I'm not argueing about the parentheses. Like I said, it just makes
> learning the language hard.
In the experience of a lot of people, lisp like languages are actually
*much* easier for someone totally new to programming than C/Java, et al.
It's that syntaxlessness. There are only one or two things to remember
about lisp syntax until you start using macros and get access to the
kind of power that makes for PhD theses in other languages.
What's so hard is *unlearning* all the cruft you have to remember
constantly to make things parse in brain damaged languages. If you
don't start with all that baggage, it's much *easier*, not harder.
Lisp is 99% semantics and 1% syntax. C/Java is more like 70/30.
You think your problem is with the syntax, because that's where the
problem has always been in learning other languages. But it's not.
Trust me. The hardest part of learning lisp, for someone who already
knows something else, is to come at it as a totally fresh start. Forget
everything you ever knew about programming and start fresh.
Michael
[*] reference to the movie _White Men Can't Jump_. Not great, but not
bad, and I love that scene.
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> In article <··············@jcooper02.sagepub.com>, ·····@mail.com
> says...
> > arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
[SNIP]
> > So finish your Lisp course,
> > and never use it again. There are plenty of Java and C++ jobs out
> > there. Arguing with Lispers about syntax and parentheses is pointless
> > and only increases the noise in this newsgroup.
>
> The syntax is harder to learn. From the sounds of it this isn't
> uncommon. I don't mean to say that the syntax is bad, and obviously
> Lispers have grown to like it. But for me, it is harder to learn.
It is possibly harder to get used to. It's some 14 years since I
started writing lisp code, so I don't actually remember how hard I
found it. I do remember that my first lisp environment was rather
feature-poor, though (most of my interaction was via a lisp listener
and I had no editing capabilities outside of backspace, but there was
an indication of "missing right parens" at the prompt).
> > When I moved from
> > C/Perl to Lisp my productivity increased by an order of magnitude.
> > (in fact part of that *IS* because of the parentheses (and s-exps, and
> > how emacs treats them)). I suspect this is true of most Lispers. So
> > you're fighting a losing argument, at least in this ng.
>
> I'm not argueing about the parentheses. Like I said, it just makes
> learning the language hard.
Just out of interest, what are you using to edit your code?
//Ingvar
--
"No. Most Scandiwegians use the same algorithm as you Brits.
"Ingvar is just a freak."
Stig Morten Valstad, in the Monastery
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:02:30 +0930, arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
wrote:
> The syntax is harder to learn. From the sounds of it this isn't
> uncommon. I don't mean to say that the syntax is bad, and obviously
> Lispers have grown to like it. But for me, it is harder to learn.
Here is some food for thought by Dan Bricklin of VisiCalc fame:
The "Computer as Assistant" Fallacy
Learning to use things that are hard is part of being human
http://www.bricklin.com/assistantfallacy.htm
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <3DB6730A.5030307@web.de>
arien wrote:
> The problem is, that the only languages I have learnt are Java and C++.
> Java first. Learning C++ wasn't much more difficult because the syntax
> is similar. Then you get lisp thrown in your face, and all these
> ((((((()))))))'s. I mean, a missing ; at the end of a line is easy to
> find, even in Notepad. The syntax of lisp makes it virtually impossible
> to use without a suitable editor. Now this, regardless of what you all
> say about how good it is, puts lisp behind the eight-ball when it comes
> to readability.
I can really relate to the problems you have with Lisp's syntax. I have
had similar problems not so long ago. (I have started to use Lisp
seriously in April.)
Here is a mental model that might help you in the beginning: Think about
natural languages like Japanese, Chinese, Russian or even sign language.
These languages are totally different from English, especially with
regard to "syntax". Yet, they are at least equally effective for
communication, in some circumstances even more effective. Of course,
their "syntax" makes it a little harder to learn them, but would you
dismiss those languages only because of the "syntax"?
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| The problem is, that the only languages I have learnt are Java and C++.
Well, at least you are aware of your handicap.
| Now this, regardless of what you all say about how good it is, puts lisp
| behind the eight-ball when it comes to readability.
Look, if you spent the time you spent complaining about it just working
with Common Lisp, the problem would go away by itself. However, since
you have gone public with your whining, there is a natural psychological
barrier to growing a clue: It is easy to recognize and fix a mistake made
in good faith, but it is hard for many people to recognize that they did
something stupid, and they spend a lot of time and effort defending their
stupidity so as to make it appear less stupid. This tends to slow down
learning. All good things come later to those who defend everything they
do. Successful people make and fix more mistakes than the unsuccessful.
| But like I said, Java never has this problem.
This would carry more weight if you said you never had any problems with
Java whatsoever. So far, it appears that the /only/ problem you have
with Common Lisp is the parentheses. That is pretty good, actually.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <3DB6A35C.8070103@web.de>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> | Now this, regardless of what you all say about how good it is, puts lisp
> | behind the eight-ball when it comes to readability.
>
> Look, if you spent the time you spent complaining about it just working
> with Common Lisp, the problem would go away by itself.
[...]
> It is easy to recognize and fix a mistake made
> in good faith, but it is hard for many people to recognize that they did
> something stupid, and they spend a lot of time and effort defending their
> stupidity so as to make it appear less stupid. This tends to slow down
> learning.
Things get even worse when the majority of people, including so-called
"professionals", tell us that the stupid things are the right things to do.
However, note that people can only recognize that they have done
something stupid with hindsight.
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
* Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>
| Things get even worse when the majority of people, including so-called
| "professionals", tell us that the stupid things are the right things to do.
This is a completely vacuous statement. What are you talking about?
| However, note that people can only recognize that they have done
| something stupid with hindsight.
They can realize with hindsight that even at the time they did it, it was
stupid. If they rebel against this realization by trying to make it not
stupid at the time, such as by defending themselves, they make matters
much worse since even this is stupid at the time, to be realized later.
You seem to make an assumption that people do not do stupid things. This
is not so. The problem is that people do not /think/, and therefore do
stupid things because they do not pay attention at the time. To /think/
is a choice, perhaps the only choice. Not to think is /really/ stupid,
but some people respond only with emotions when this is pointed out.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>
>| Things get even worse when the majority of people, including
>| so-called "professionals", tell us that the stupid things are
>| the right things to do.
>
> This is a completely vacuous statement. What are you talking
> about?
I figured he meant either Java or xml. :) You hear lots of
"experts" and "professionals" talking about both.
-- L
* Larry Clapp <·····@rabbit.ddts.net>
| In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum wrote:
| > * Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>
| >| Things get even worse when the majority of people, including
| >| so-called "professionals", tell us that the stupid things are
| >| the right things to do.
| >
| > This is a completely vacuous statement. What are you talking
| > about?
|
| I figured he meant either Java or xml. :) You hear lots of
| "experts" and "professionals" talking about both.
But the sad thing is that by being vacuous, he commits the same error.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Hi arien,
> The problem is, that the only languages I have learnt are Java and C++.
> Java first. Learning C++ wasn't much more difficult because the syntax
> is similar. Then you get lisp thrown in your face, and all these
> ((((((()))))))'s. I mean, a missing ; at the end of a line is easy to
> find, even in Notepad. The syntax of lisp makes it virtually impossible
> to use without a suitable editor.
This is true. A suitable editor will perform automatic indentation for
you. This makes finding mistakes with a parenthesis relatively easy to
spot. Especially if you also have matching parenthesis highlighting. You
can see by the display of the code whether it contains a logical error.
For example if an if-then-else doesn't look like this:
(if test (do-something-to a)
(do-something-to b))
or like this:
(if test
(do-something-to a)
(do-something-to b))
Then the code contains a logical error. Let's introduce an incorrect
parenthesis while we type:
(if test (do-something-to a)) <--hit return here
(do-something-to b))
You can see the logical error visually. You don't need to count the
parentheses to see this. And with parenthesis highlighting you would
already have seen that you matched the wrong parenthesis while still in
the top line.
There is one language currently more popular than Lisp that has syntax
where programs cannot even be accurately written on a blank piece of paper
(without drawing a load of vertical lines to make sure all the appropriate
columns match up) Get over the fact that Lisp cannot be written
productively without a suitable editor. I believe you. It can't.
Personally I think Lisp's syntax allows remarkable expressiveness and I
enjoy being able to completely ignore manual indentation.
> Now this, regardless of what you all say about how good it is, puts lisp
> behind the eight-ball when it comes to readability. I have sat there
> with my lecturer going through the code, trying to find where the error
> is. But like I said, Java never has this problem.
You may change this view when you realise that you can press a key to
automatically reindent your code and the indentation levels will describe
a lot of the logical structure of the program.
If a lecturer displays code to the class with mistakes and the
indentation couldn't possibly have been generated by someone typing the
incorrect code within a suitable editor then the examples could give a
false impression about how hard it is to track down errors in Lisp code.
If you are given the source to a broken example try reindenting it and
watch what moves.
Regards,
Adam
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <uy98we4a7.fsf@poboxes.com>
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:11:01 +0930, arien <·············@getlost.invalid> said:
[...]
*> At least curly brace, semicolon, comma etc are all different. It becomes
*> easier to find the error, and the compiler will even tell you which line
*> has the error.
*> In lisp, all you have is parentheses, parentheses, and more
*> parentheses.
In non-Lisp, it is significantly harder to determine where the
other matching endpoint of a syntactic unit is, so navigation,
copying, cutting, etc. are significantly harder (e.g. the cursor is
immediately before ``if'' and I want to move to the point
immediately after the if statement, or to cut (`kill') the if
statement).
---Vassil.
--
Non-googlable is googlable.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message news:<··························@news.adl.ihug.com.au>...
> Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
> error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
If that is the case, then there is only one thing that stands between
you and success, and an intelligent text editor can do most of it for
you.
> Damn things ((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))
Most other programming languages, including C++, have parentheses or
some other kinds of delimiters for indicating the parameter list to a
function call. In C++ you would write f(g(x,y)); whereas in Lisp it
would be (f (g x y)) . Note how there is no comma or semicolon. When
an expression becomes too deeply nested, you have the same kinds of
tools in Lisp as in other languages: namely decomposition into
functions. In addition, Lisp has a very powerful macro system that
lets you write little compilers into your program that translate
simple syntax into complex code. In one freeware program that I wrote
in Lisp, I can traverse a directory tree of files by writing:
(for-each-file-info (info-variable "/dir/to/traverse")
... body ...)
For each object under /dir/to/traverse is visited, the variable
``info-variable'' is bound to a Lisp object which describes that
filesystem object, and the body is executed. There is robust error
handling built in into the above construct. You can add a graphical
user interface that will let a user recover from directory traversal
errors, such as trying to descend into a directory for which the
process has no permissions. And you can add that interface without
touching a line of the above code by writing an error handler
somewhere else which is called when the error occurs, which can
dynamically inquire about the available ways of recovering, and create
a menu for the user. So there are lots of powerful semantics hidden
behind that very simple expression.
You can't get away from syntax; there has to be some way for the
programmer to specify a program, as a complex, nested data structure,
indicating that one element is subordinate to another. Lisp chooses
the most straight forward way of writing nested structures, which
allows programs to be conveniently treated as data structures.
Lastly note that Lisp can be easily taught to understand infix read
syntax. There exists a portable Lisp module that allows you to write
C-like syntax such as f(g(a+3,x++) - b). Lisp does not constrain the
programmer to using only one syntax; the main idea behind Lisp is to
liberate programmers rather than constrain them.
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:27:48 +0930, arien
<·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
>
>Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
>error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
>
>Damn things ((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))
emacs should solve the problem. If you are used to vi, vi can show
matching parenthesis too. About 10% of your "parentheses being in
wrong spot" errors can be eleminated by proper indentation. Emacs
will do this automagically. The remaning such errors should dissapear
with the "show matching parenthesis" ability which both emacs and vi
have.
I find the simple Lisp syntax very clarifying.
regards
p.s.
I have done 95% of all my programming to date in C.
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:27:48 +0930, arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
wrote:
> Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
> error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
Here is some food for thought. The Lisp family of programming languages has
been around for over four decades (compare this to the average longevity of
technology fads). Some of the brightest and more creative researchers and
practitioners have worked on its design and used the language to solve
large, complex and challenging problems.
Although there have been a number of proposals for changing the Lisp syntax
and getting rid of the parentheses, none of them caught up. Lisp has been
preserving its parentheses for a very long time.
What does all of this suggest you? Are Lisp designers and users masochists?
Is there any advantage in the use of parentheses--and what they imply for
the language--that may not be apparent to a novice?
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
In article <····························@4ax.com>, ·······@mclink.it
says...
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:27:48 +0930, arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Hey, I agree with them on the silly parentheses! I haven't had a single
> > error yet that wasn't caused by parentheses being in the wrong spot!
>
> Here is some food for thought. The Lisp family of programming languages has
> been around for over four decades (compare this to the average longevity of
> technology fads). Some of the brightest and more creative researchers and
> practitioners have worked on its design and used the language to solve
> large, complex and challenging problems.
>
> Although there have been a number of proposals for changing the Lisp syntax
> and getting rid of the parentheses, none of them caught up. Lisp has been
> preserving its parentheses for a very long time.
>
> What does all of this suggest you?
It explains to me the reason why no one has ever heard of lisp :-)
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
>
> In article <····························@4ax.com>, ·······@mclink.it
> says...
> > Although there have been a number of proposals for changing the Lisp syntax
> > and getting rid of the parentheses, none of them caught up. Lisp has been
> > preserving its parentheses for a very long time.
> >
> > What does all of this suggest you?
>
> It explains to me the reason why no one has ever heard of lisp :-)
And why lots more people have heard of CGOL I suppose?
Other languages have {, }, [, ], and various other bits of
syntactic aspartame which Lisp doesn't need. Strictly speaking
Lisp doesn't even have parentheses, except by convention. (
is just a read macro, which tells the reader that a list of items
follows, which is terminated by ). So if you don't like those
parentheses, you could always replace them. But then how would
you represent a list of items? And in what way is a sequence of
expressions different from a list?
But I have a solution for you. You complain of Lisp's arcane
syntax, but only of this. You pine for C's familiar mixture of
parentheses, braces, what have you. There is a language out
there, very popular it is too, which looks like C but acts more
like Lisp. It's called JavaScript. Perhaps you'll find it
more to your liking.
> Mel
Le Hibou
--
Dalinian: Lisp. Java. Which one sounds sexier?
RevAaron: Definitely Lisp. Lisp conjures up images of hippy coders,
drugs,
sex, and rock & roll. Late nights at Berkeley, coding in Lisp fueled by
LSD.
Java evokes a vision of a stereotypical nerd, with no life or social
skills.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> , an acolyte of Cthulu the True
God wrote:
>> Although there have been a number of proposals for changing the Lisp syntax
>> and getting rid of the parentheses, none of them caught up. Lisp has been
>> preserving its parentheses for a very long time.
>>
>> What does all of this suggest you?
>
>It explains to me the reason why no one has ever heard of lisp :-)
Touche.
arien wrote:
> I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni,
> and I'm wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly
> simple terms), why (and how) lisp differs from standard
> programming languages such as C++. I think I sort of get
> the idea. Lisp is an AI language for starters, and it is
> based on logic, but after that I'm lost. I just need a bit
> more of an in depth (not TOO deep) explaination as to why
> this is so.
This is a strange question! If you do not know C++, there is
no sense in asking this question.
If you know C++ and played a bit with Common Lisp then you
must have reckognized that memory is allocated
automatically, that is you do not have to deal with memory
allocation. Also, you can write functions that take many
different types of arguments whereas in C++ you must
specify in advance the type of the argument. If you want to
have functions with different argument types, you must
overload the function. But you must have reckognized this.
Statements like "Lisp is based on logic" are so general that
they have no sense. Every programming language is based on
logic.
--
J.... B....
-----------== 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>, ··@yahoo.de says...
> arien wrote:
>
> > I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni,
> > and I'm wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly
> > simple terms), why (and how) lisp differs from standard
> > programming languages such as C++. I think I sort of get
> > the idea. Lisp is an AI language for starters, and it is
> > based on logic, but after that I'm lost. I just need a bit
> > more of an in depth (not TOO deep) explaination as to why
> > this is so.
>
> This is a strange question! If you do not know C++, there is
> no sense in asking this question.
I know Java, and I have started to look at C++ (don't really understand
it though).
> If you know C++ and played a bit with Common Lisp then you
> must have reckognized that memory is allocated
> automatically, that is you do not have to deal with memory
> allocation. Also, you can write functions that take many
> different types of arguments whereas in C++ you must
> specify in advance the type of the argument. If you want to
> have functions with different argument types, you must
> overload the function. But you must have reckognized this.
This is not really what I'm asking about. I'm not talking about the
specific syntax etc, I'm referring to what the language acheives. For
starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable. In Lisp is it
possible to create a UI?
>
> Statements like "Lisp is based on logic" are so general that
> they have no sense. Every programming language is based on
> logic.
>
That is why I am asking this question, I don't understand. All I can see
is that Lisp is very different from Java or C++ and I'm not sure why.
>
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> This is not really what I'm asking about. I'm not talking about the
> specific syntax etc, I'm referring to what the language
> acheives. For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
Says who? Several commercial Lisp implementation can create
stand-alone executables if that's what you're asking for.
> In Lisp is it possible to create a UI?
Yes.
Edi.
In article <··············@bird.agharta.de>, Edi Weitz <···@agharta.de>
wrote:
>arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
>> This is not really what I'm asking about. I'm not talking about the
>> specific syntax etc, I'm referring to what the language
>> acheives. For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
>
>Says who? Several commercial Lisp implementation can create
>stand-alone executables if that's what you're asking for.
>
>> In Lisp is it possible to create a UI?
>
>Yes.
In fact, many/most of the UI features common today -- windows, mice with
multiple buttons, clickable text and graphics, popup menus etc were
common in lisp systems going on 20 years ago. (Where's the new stuff,
folks?)
paul
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <uwuopcopy.fsf@dtpq.com>
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 00:34:58 -0400, Paul Wallich ("Paul") writes:
Paul> In article <··············@bird.agharta.de>, Edi Weitz <···@agharta.de>
Paul> wrote:
>> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> This is not really what I'm asking about. I'm not talking about the
>>> specific syntax etc, I'm referring to what the language
>>> acheives. For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
>>
>> Says who? Several commercial Lisp implementation can create
>> stand-alone executables if that's what you're asking for.
>>
>>> In Lisp is it possible to create a UI?
>>
>> Yes.
Paul> In fact, many/most of the UI features common today -- windows, mice with
Paul> multiple buttons, clickable text and graphics, popup menus etc were
Paul> common in lisp systems going on 20 years ago. (Where's the new stuff,
Paul> folks?)
More like 29 years ago, but who's counting?
arien wrote:
> This is not really what I'm asking about. I'm not talking
> about the specific syntax etc, I'm referring to what the
> language acheives. For starters, Lisp is not compiled into
> an executable. In Lisp is it possible to create a UI?
What I told you was not a matter of syntax.
You can create user interfaces with Lisp, but is is not
quite simple. This is a long story.
For C++, on the other hand, there are a lot of nice GUI
libraries, like C++, wxWindows, Fulltick, Fox, etc.
If you look only at the language, Lisp is suprior to C++ as
far as creating UIs are concerned but Lisp lacks the
infrastructure.
> That is why I am asking this question, I don't understand.
> All I can see is that Lisp is very different from Java or
> C++ and I'm not sure why.
I must confess that I have never used Java. The abstraction
level of Lisp is much higher as the abstraction level of
C++.
--
J.... B....
-----------== 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 =-----
JB <··@yahoo.de> writes:
> arien wrote:
>
> > This is not really what I'm asking about. I'm not talking
> > about the specific syntax etc, I'm referring to what the
> > language acheives. For starters, Lisp is not compiled into
> > an executable. In Lisp is it possible to create a UI?
>
> What I told you was not a matter of syntax.
> You can create user interfaces with Lisp, but is is not
> quite simple. This is a long story.
> For C++, on the other hand, there are a lot of nice GUI
> libraries, like C++, wxWindows, Fulltick, Fox, etc.
> If you look only at the language, Lisp is suprior to C++ as
> far as creating UIs are concerned but Lisp lacks the
> infrastructure.
Uhh ... CL has libraries, too. Garnet, for example. It comes with an
interface builder, and it's much easier to use than wxWindows. If
you're willing to pay money, they commercial vendors have their
systems, too. It's true that CL doesn't have any OS-portable,
vendor-portable, native-look-and-feel GUI libraries ... but I've never
seen one in any language worth using.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> Uhh ... CL has libraries, too. Garnet, for example. It
> comes with an
> interface builder, and it's much easier to use than
> wxWindows. If you're willing to pay money, they
> commercial vendors have their
> systems, too. It's true that CL doesn't have any
> OS-portable, vendor-portable, native-look-and-feel GUI
> libraries ... but I've never seen one in any language
> worth using.
I use Qt with Python. It is excellent and I still consider
myself a Lisp programmer.
I tried the Gtk+ bindings for cmucl: I should use Gtk+, but
I was not even able to build it.
I saw an IDE for cmucl and clisp in CLiki: it is programmed
in Java! And I read what Mac Battyany said about using the
native MS-Windows interface with Corman Lisp. Because there
is nothing else.
I think the missing GUI was one of the points being put
forward by Peter Norvig when he talked about the
shortcomings of Lisp.
It is a pity as the language itself is superior to
everything I have ever come across.
--
J.... B....
-----------== 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 =-----
"JB" <··@yahoo.de> wrote in message ···············@news.newsgroups.com...
> I saw an IDE for cmucl and clisp in CLiki: it is programmed
> in Java! And I read what Mac Battyany said about using the
> native MS-Windows interface with Corman Lisp. Because there
> is nothing else.
The Windows GUI interface is every bit a programming interface as Qt
or Gtk+ is. If you keep your app within the Windows env there is nothing
like using the native toolkit. Using a layered toolkit necessarily limits your ability
to create a GUI on any particular platform.
> I think the missing GUI was one of the points being put
> forward by Peter Norvig when he talked about the
> shortcomings of Lisp.
> It is a pity as the language itself is superior to
> everything I have ever come across.
Hmm, this seems to a common complaint, but nobody seems to wring their
hands about every operating system having its own GUI toolkit. It is just
accepted as the fact it is. There seems to a different GUI for every major OS,
which can be viewed as a good thing. Why limit yourself to Gtk+?
I think every implementation of CL has a GUI toolkit, they are just different,
there is only one implementation of Python, so by trivial definition they
have "standard" GUIs.
I have to pose this as a serious question, do you think there should be only
one implementation of CL?
Wade
Wade Humeniuk wrote:
> Hmm, this seems to a common complaint, but nobody seems to
> wring their hands about every operating system having its
> own GUI toolkit. It is just
> accepted as the fact it is. There seems to a different
> GUI for every major OS, which can be viewed as a good
> thing. Why limit yourself to Gtk+?
I named Gtk because I saw that Gtk+ 2 bindings existed for
cmucl, if I understood this correctly. I could not even
build it.
> I have to pose this as a serious question, do you think
> there should be only one implementation of CL?
Im my opinion this is not an important question.
I must admit that what I wrote to the original poster was
not precise.
I could buy one of the two professional products that
support CLIM and everything would be all right. Maybe I had
not the native look and feel of the OS but I should not
care.
So the correct answer to the original question would have
been /in/ /my/ /opinion/: Yes, it seems to be possible to
creat very nice UIs with CL but only with one of the
commercial products.
(I should remark that when you learn Qt or Gtk then you can
use your knowledge with C++ or other languages as well.
CLIM is limited to Lisp. Even so I used and use CL in my
classes when I do not need a UI.)
--
J.... B....
-----------== 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 =-----
JB <··@yahoo.de> writes:
> So the correct answer to the original question would have
> been /in/ /my/ /opinion/: Yes, it seems to be possible to
> creat very nice UIs with CL but only with one of the
> commercial products.
What's with the Qt/Gtk obsession for free CLs? You can use Garnet
with CMUCL on Unix, and I believe it also works with MCL on the Mac
(OS9/Classic), and the commercial CLs on Unix. There's also CLM, if
you want to use Motif, for a Unix "native"[*] look-and-feel. For
plain-old-X11 stuff, you can use CLX. And there's also CLUE/CLIO,
which may or may not be a good idea, I've never tried them.
On the Mac, it looks like OpenMCL has Cocoa bindings, so if you can't
make nice looking GUIs with it, you're hopeless :). On MS Windows,
Corman Lisp is commercial, but the compiler is freely-available, and
you can make native look-and-feel Windows apps using it.
All in all, if you want the holy grail, something that works on all
platforms, on all implementations, you can't have it. But if you're
willing to pick one or two implementations, and/or one or two
platforms, you're fine, commercial or not.
[*] Scare quotes because while this works on, say, Solaris, Linux
users might not think it looks too native.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
> > wxWindows. If you're willing to pay money, they
> > commercial vendors have their
> > systems, too. It's true that CL doesn't have any
> > OS-portable, vendor-portable, native-look-and-feel GUI
> > libraries ... but I've never seen one in any language
> > worth using.
>
> I use Qt with Python. It is excellent and I still consider
> myself a Lisp programmer.
>
> I tried the Gtk+ bindings for cmucl: I should use Gtk+, but
> I was not even able to build it.
Take a look at http://www.izware.com/mirai/index.html.
Most of the development work was done prior to the end
of 1999. Its heritage can be traced back to Symbolics.
It's written in Allegro CL and run on SGI, Red Hat Linux,
and Micros**t Windows. All its graphical user interface
is done in CL. Based on my miserable experience with
Java, I doubt you can use Java for a system like that.
If you use CMUCL and the old GTK+ 1.2 binding, you still
can get lots of stuff done. The same GTK+ 1.2 binding was
ported to LispWorks to run on Micros**t Windows.
-cph
"JB" <··@yahoo.de> wrote
> I saw an IDE for cmucl and clisp in CLiki: it is programmed
> in Java! And I read what Mac Battyany said about using the
> native MS-Windows interface with Corman Lisp. Because there
> is nothing else.
Hum, that's not what I said... In fact I think I said exactly the opposite.
(or is my English so bad ? ;-))
I use directly the Windows API not because there is nothing else but rather
because it's a very powerful way to do a GUI for Windows. Sure you have to
read the docs and it only works on Windows. But it's really easy. For
instance my window.lisp file that encapsulate the base Windows stuff has
only 649 lines, the full windows directory has 1500 lines and the controls
directory (the lisp code to use standard controls like edit, list, etc.)
only 800.
Using this I can do all I want for a GUI. And thanks to the CLOS method
combinations and multiple dispatch I had much fun doing this.
I even made a Lisp shell extension so that the Lisp UI was embedded into the
Explorer as a set of virtual directories.
Here is what I said (spelling errors not removed...):
"I generally use the FLI/FFI to directly call the Win32 API.
That way you can build the win32 application you want with the all the
functionalities you want. (controls, OpenGL, etc.)
I think that Common Lisp + Win32 API is far superior to the MFC or other
Win32 frameworks. The before/around/after method combinaisons are really
useful here.
Now I tend to use IE as an interface rather than Win32 when I don't need
OpenGL."
BTW I use Lispworks though Corman Lisp is probably a very good
implementation too.(I look forward to attend Roger Corman's presentation at
the ILC)
Marc
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <zntldpcw.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
This isn't directed particularly at arien; about once a month someone
asks about compiling to an `executable' or `standalone executable'.
What is this fascination with `executables'?
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> What is this fascination with `executables'?
I'd say that "all-in-one" executables are usually easier to sell or
give away, because they might be easier to insall than a whole lisp
system and since they sometimes don't require the receiver to buy some
license for the lisp system.
--
(espen)
Joe Marshall wrote:
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>>For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
> This isn't directed particularly at arien; about once a month someone
> asks about compiling to an `executable' or `standalone executable'.
>
> What is this fascination with `executables'?
I don't think this "fascination" has anything to do with executables in
a strict sense. I guess they are actually talking about deployment. Take
Arien as an example: He says he comes from the Java world - you also
don't have executables in Java in a strict sense (apart from some
compilers that directly produce native executables, but that's the
exception and also has some limitations). However, the standardization
of class file and jar file formats in the Java world provides a very
simple model of delivering applications, together with the fact that
almost all operating systems provide a Java runtime environment by default.
There's nothing similar like that in the Lisp world, and this can be
confusing for beginners. When you deliver an application to end users,
you have to take into account that they don't care what language an
application is implemented in and that they don't want to install many
different packages just to try out a single application. (Or, to put it
the other way around: You have an advantage if your application can be
installed with as little intervention by end users as possible.)
Other people have already mentioned that many Common Lisp
implementations offer their own deployment models, and some of them,
especially those of commercial vendors, are actually equally simple like
those of other programming languages, including Java. There's just no
standardized model available.
(For example, several years ago I have used SchemaText as a tool for
commercial website development. I wasn't aware until recently that this
application had been developed in Allegro Common Lisp.)
Pascal
--
Given any rule, however �fundamental� or �necessary� for science, there
are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the
rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
In article <············@newsreader2.netcologne.de>, ········@web.de
says...
> Arien as an example: He says he comes from the Java world
>
Just wanted to point out - it's "She" :-)
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
Joe Marshall wrote:
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
>> For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
>
> This isn't directed particularly at arien; about once a
> month someone asks about compiling to an `executable' or
> `standalone executable'.
>
> What is this fascination with `executables'?
On my Linux system, when I type in a cnsole "lisp", cmucl
starts up and if I type "clisp" then I get clisp. Both are
executables. Why?
--
J.... B....
-----------== 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 <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall wrote:
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
>> For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
>
> This isn't directed particularly at arien; about once a month someone
> asks about compiling to an `executable' or `standalone executable'.
>
> What is this fascination with `executables'?
>
Because it's considered the way you distribute you software. I my
experience this is not even the most common way of distibute software.
I have distributed software as a zip file of java components
in the form of jar files to be used in other applications, and once
in a previous job, we delivered a computer ready installed with
OS and the software we sold. The customer just wanted the job done, and
that was the most convenient way of doing it.
On Windows applications often comes as executables, but the executables
are not the program, but installers, and is really a substitute for
a missing package system. On Linux, software most frequently comes
as rpm or deb archives, which is not executables either.
In practice you can't just deliver just a standalone executable, since you
need to distribute things like data files, documentation, examples etc in
addition to the executable. If your lisp system can't produce standalone
executable, that would in most cases not be a problem, precisly because
it will not suffice to deliver just a standalone executable.
--
Gisle S�lensminde ( ·····@ii.uib.no )
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going
to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
overhead. (from RFC 1925)
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <u7kgoepv6.fsf@dtpq.com>
>>>>> On 11 Oct 2002 10:25:35 -0400, Joe Marshall ("Joe") writes:
Joe> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>> For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
Joe> This isn't directed particularly at arien; about once a month someone
Joe> asks about compiling to an `executable' or `standalone executable'.
Joe> What is this fascination with `executables'?
I suspect it's because there is a popular myth that Lisp is an
"interpreted language", and that this would imply that execution
requires an "interpreter", and that this would be slow.
(Of course, about 30 years ago, that was mostly true!)
In article <·············@dtpq.com>, ······@dtpq.com says...
> >>>>> On 11 Oct 2002 10:25:35 -0400, Joe Marshall ("Joe") writes:
>
> Joe> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> >> For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
>
> Joe> This isn't directed particularly at arien; about once a month someone
> Joe> asks about compiling to an `executable' or `standalone executable'.
>
> Joe> What is this fascination with `executables'?
>
> I suspect it's because there is a popular myth that Lisp is an
> "interpreted language", and that this would imply that execution
> requires an "interpreter", and that this would be slow.
> (Of course, about 30 years ago, that was mostly true!)
>
I've been told that Lisp IS an interpreted language! Now I'm even more
confused.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <d6qae9nj.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> I've been told that Lisp IS an interpreted language! Now I'm even more
> confused.
Dr. Frankenstein: But they told me it was `ee-gore'.
Igor: Well they were wrong then, weren't they?
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
> In article <·············@dtpq.com>, ······@dtpq.com says...
> > >>>>> On 11 Oct 2002 10:25:35 -0400, Joe Marshall ("Joe") writes:
> > Joe> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> > >> For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
> > Joe> This isn't directed particularly at arien; about once a month someone
> > Joe> asks about compiling to an `executable' or `standalone executable'.
> > Joe> What is this fascination with `executables'?
> > I suspect it's because there is a popular myth that Lisp is an
> > "interpreted language", and that this would imply that execution
> > requires an "interpreter", and that this would be slow.
> > (Of course, about 30 years ago, that was mostly true!)
> I've been told that Lisp IS an interpreted language! Now I'm even more
> confused.
There's no such thing as an interpreted language. If a language can be
interpreted, it can be compiled.
Interpretation vs. compilation is an implementation issue. I suppose if
you have a proprietary language where the only implementation is a
purely interpreted one, you could call it an "interpreted language".
Applescript would be a good example. But there's nothing keeping it
from being compiled, except the fact that no one has written a compiler.
Lisp is generally written with an interpreter, but you can direct every
modern Lisp implementation (that I'm aware of) to compile specific
functions, or even all your code.
Since writing code in an interpreter is *much* easier than doing
edit/compile/link/debug cycles, this seems like an intelligent way to
work. If something is too slow when interpreted (and it's not a poor
algorithm problem), compile it.
It's so obviously a good idea, I have a hard time understanding why
things are not done this way in some IDE of every popular language.
Probably because only people who've been exposed to working this way for
long enough to get it, understand what's so wonderful about it.
Michael
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
In the last exciting episode, ·······@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) wrote::
> Lisp is generally written with an interpreter, but you can direct every
> modern Lisp implementation (that I'm aware of) to compile specific
> functions, or even all your code.
Actually, that's wrong, too. The only Common Lisp implementation that
appears to still /include/ a source code interpreter is MCL, and it is
unlikely that you'll use it unless you really work to find it.
> Since writing code in an interpreter is *much* easier than doing
> edit/compile/link/debug cycles, this seems like an intelligent way
> to work. If something is too slow when interpreted (and it's not a
> poor algorithm problem), compile it.
Again, wrong.
Lisp code is /always/ compiled. Always. It may just be compiled into
some form of parse tree that requires some form of runtime
'interpreter,' but the parse tree is nevertheless /compiled/ code, as
it does not need to be parsed over and over.
And note that code written in C that makes use of such functions as
printf(), sprintf(), sscanf(), fprintf(), fscanf() is actually
/interpreted/ code. The standard C library contains an /interpreter/
for the output formatting language.
Entertainingly, Common Lisp provides a standard way of /compiling/
format controls; see the FORMATTER macro for more details; this
arguably means that C code that is heavy-on-formatted I/O may be
essentially /interpreted code,/ whereas the equivalent Lisp would be
compiled.
Truth is much stranger than fiction. (Who would ever have imagined
the "Bert is Evil" picture linking Sesame Street to Al Qaeda would
make it to international news because some bin Laden supporters
printed up posters that included it?)
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@ntlug.org")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxxian.html
"Life. Don't talk to me about life."
-- Marvin the Paranoid Android
Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
> In the last exciting episode, ·······@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) wrote::
> > Lisp is generally written with an interpreter, but you can direct every
> > modern Lisp implementation (that I'm aware of) to compile specific
> > functions, or even all your code.
>
> Actually, that's wrong, too. The only Common Lisp implementation that
> appears to still /include/ a source code interpreter is MCL, and it is
> unlikely that you'll use it unless you really work to find it.
I don't understand what you mean by interpreter here. If you mean an
implementation of eval which does not use the compiler, then this
statement is wrong, because Allegro CL's eval does not use the
compiler.
> > Since writing code in an interpreter is *much* easier than doing
> > edit/compile/link/debug cycles, this seems like an intelligent way
> > to work. If something is too slow when interpreted (and it's not a
> > poor algorithm problem), compile it.
>
> Again, wrong.
>
> Lisp code is /always/ compiled. Always. It may just be compiled into
> some form of parse tree that requires some form of runtime
> 'interpreter,' but the parse tree is nevertheless /compiled/ code, as
> it does not need to be parsed over and over.
I am having a hard time understanding you interpretation of the
word "interpret" CL defines "interpreted function" in the glossary
as "a function that is not a compiled function (it is possible for
there to be a conforming implementation which has no interpreted
functions, but a conforming program must not assume that all functions
are compiled functions)".
You seem to be confusing "interpret" with "parse", to some extent.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
In article <·············@beta.franz.com>,
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
>Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
>
>> In the last exciting episode, ·······@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) wrote::
>> > Lisp is generally written with an interpreter, but you can direct every
>> > modern Lisp implementation (that I'm aware of) to compile specific
>> > functions, or even all your code.
>>
>> Actually, that's wrong, too. The only Common Lisp implementation that
>> appears to still /include/ a source code interpreter is MCL, and it is
>> unlikely that you'll use it unless you really work to find it.
>
>I don't understand what you mean by interpreter here. If you mean an
>implementation of eval which does not use the compiler, then this
>statement is wrong, because Allegro CL's eval does not use the
>compiler.
>
>> > Since writing code in an interpreter is *much* easier than doing
>> > edit/compile/link/debug cycles, this seems like an intelligent way
>> > to work. If something is too slow when interpreted (and it's not a
>> > poor algorithm problem), compile it.
>>
>> Again, wrong.
>>
>> Lisp code is /always/ compiled. Always. It may just be compiled into
>> some form of parse tree that requires some form of runtime
>> 'interpreter,' but the parse tree is nevertheless /compiled/ code, as
>> it does not need to be parsed over and over.
>
>I am having a hard time understanding you interpretation of the
>word "interpret" CL defines "interpreted function" in the glossary
>as "a function that is not a compiled function (it is possible for
>there to be a conforming implementation which has no interpreted
>functions, but a conforming program must not assume that all functions
>are compiled functions)".
>
>You seem to be confusing "interpret" with "parse", to some extent.
Is "interpreted" another one of those words that has effectively lost
its meaning? For most languages there used to be a fairly clear
distinction between interpretation and compilation, because most common
interpreters were fairly heavyweight -- that is, it took them quite a
while to look at each token or statement and figure out what they were
supposed to do, and then even longer to actually do that thing. These
days most of the things called interpreters are fairly lighweight, e.g.
bytecode interpreters and software virtual machines.
Compilers buy you a wider scope for optimization, and lower costs in
terms of boxing and unboxing (or their equivalents) but only if the
compiler is smart and the interpreter (or the parser) is relatively
stupid. So I wonder if the distinction is as important as it once was.
It seems to me that the distinction these days is more about a sort of
mythic sense of justice: languages that have historically only been
compiled require you to stop programming and twiddle your thumbs in pain
while they turn source code into something that can run, and in return
for your sacrifice they promise smaller, faster (fsvo) programs.
Languages that have historically been interpreted (or at least
interactive) don't require the same penance from their users, so it
seems unfair that they should offer the same benefits (or sometimes even
additional ones).
paul
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <n0pe5f7y.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Paul Wallich <··@panix.com> writes:
> Is "interpreted" another one of those words that has effectively lost
> its meaning?
I hope not. The meaning is pretty clear. Suppose a machine
computes some result when given a program and some input:
(M P i) => result
Let's specialize this to a `source' machine and a `source' program.
(Ms Ps i) => result
An `interpreter' is a program that `converts' the target machine into
the source machine.
((I Mt) Ps i) => result
A `compiler' is a program (in any language) that given a source
program produces a target program that runs on a different machine.
(Mt (C Ps) i) => result
In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> Paul Wallich <··@panix.com> writes:
>
> > Is "interpreted" another one of those words that has effectively lost
> > its meaning?
>
> I hope not. The meaning is pretty clear. Suppose a machine
> computes some result when given a program and some input:
>
> (M P i) => result
>
> Let's specialize this to a `source' machine and a `source' program.
>
> (Ms Ps i) => result
>
> An `interpreter' is a program that `converts' the target machine into
> the source machine.
>
> ((I Mt) Ps i) => result
On this view, an operating system is an interpreter...
> A `compiler' is a program (in any language) that given a source
> program produces a target program that runs on a different machine.
>
> (Mt (C Ps) i) => result
and a linker is a compiler.
"Inerpreter" vs. "compiler" is kind of like "scripting language" vs.
"programming language" or "program" vs. "data." These terms are
fictions. Sometimes they are convenient fictions, but they are fictions
nonetheless.
(NB: IMO, the artificial distinction between "program" and "data" is
actually very destructive, in fact the root cause of many of the problems
that software engineering faces today. That's why Lisp is the Right
Thing: it is (so far) the only programming language that works to erase
this distinction rather than reinforce it.)
E.
In article <····················@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov>,
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) wrote:
>In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Paul Wallich <··@panix.com> writes:
>>
>> > Is "interpreted" another one of those words that has effectively lost
>> > its meaning?
>>
>> I hope not. The meaning is pretty clear. Suppose a machine
>> computes some result when given a program and some input:
>>
>> (M P i) => result
>>
>> Let's specialize this to a `source' machine and a `source' program.
>>
>> (Ms Ps i) => result
>>
>> An `interpreter' is a program that `converts' the target machine into
>> the source machine.
>>
>> ((I Mt) Ps i) => result
>
>On this view, an operating system is an interpreter...
Maybe not -- more like OS plus libraries.
>> A `compiler' is a program (in any language) that given a source
>> program produces a target program that runs on a different machine.
>>
>> (Mt (C Ps) i) => result
>
>and a linker is a compiler.
As is a basic tokenizer...
>"Inerpreter" vs. "compiler" is kind of like "scripting language" vs.
>"programming language" or "program" vs. "data." These terms are
>fictions. Sometimes they are convenient fictions, but they are fictions
>nonetheless.
Fiction might not be the right term either. IMO the problem is more that
they're terms that don't map neatly onto the set of distinctions that
are generally important for distinguishing among programming languages.
The difference between "compiled" and "interpreted" doesn't necessarily
say anything about performance or memory footprint, especially with the
growing prevalence of programs that are compiled for machines that are
not the hardware they nominally run on. It doesn't even tell you that
much about which bit patterns, written by whom, may have to be changed
to alter the behavior of a running system in a particular desired
fashion.
This reminds me a little bit of the days when it was important whether a
CPU was "microcoded" or "hardwired" (fsvo each term), and whether its
control store was writable. Those distinctions used to tell you
interesting things, now for the most part they don't.
>(NB: IMO, the artificial distinction between "program" and "data" is
>actually very destructive, in fact the root cause of many of the problems
>that software engineering faces today. That's why Lisp is the Right
>Thing: it is (so far) the only programming language that works to erase
>this distinction rather than reinforce it.)
More likely, it's the only thing recognized as a programming language
(see Alan Kay on spreadhseets for a primitive example) that works to
erase this distinction.
paul
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <8z0x576x.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Paul Wallich <··@panix.com> writes:
> >
> > > Is "interpreted" another one of those words that has effectively lost
> > > its meaning?
> >
> > I hope not. The meaning is pretty clear. Suppose a machine
> > computes some result when given a program and some input:
> >
> > (M P i) => result
> >
> > Let's specialize this to a `source' machine and a `source' program.
> >
> > (Ms Ps i) => result
> >
> > An `interpreter' is a program that `converts' the target machine into
> > the source machine.
> >
> > ((I Mt) Ps i) => result
>
> On this view, an operating system is an interpreter...
Yes. The OS essentially extends the instruction set of the processor.
> > A `compiler' is a program (in any language) that given a source
> > program produces a target program that runs on a different machine.
> >
> > (Mt (C Ps) i) => result
>
> and a linker is a compiler.
I suppose you could view it that way.
> "Interpreter" vs. "compiler" is kind of like "scripting language" vs.
> "programming language" or "program" vs. "data." These terms are
> fictions. Sometimes they are convenient fictions, but they are fictions
> nonetheless.
I disagree. There is a definite difference between interpretation and
compilation.
> (NB: IMO, the artificial distinction between "program" and "data" is
> actually very destructive, in fact the root cause of many of the problems
> that software engineering faces today. That's why Lisp is the Right
> Thing: it is (so far) the only programming language that works to erase
> this distinction rather than reinforce it.)
But there *is* a difference between program and data: a program (in
all practical languages) is a proper subset of data.
In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> There is a definite difference between interpretation and
> compilation.
What is it? Your definition does not work to describe a "definite
difference" because it relies on the definition of the word "machine",
which you don't define. On your definition whether something is a
compiler or an interpreter depends on what you decide to call your "target
machine", but that is itself an arbitrary choice, so the boundary between
interpretation and compilation is likewise an arbitrary choice.
> > (NB: IMO, the artificial distinction between "program" and "data" is
> > actually very destructive, in fact the root cause of many of the problems
> > that software engineering faces today. That's why Lisp is the Right
> > Thing: it is (so far) the only programming language that works to erase
> > this distinction rather than reinforce it.)
>
> But there *is* a difference between program and data: a program (in
> all practical languages) is a proper subset of data.
No, there is no difference. There is a *distinction*, but not a
difference. There's a difference :-) To see this, try to come up with an
example of something that is data but not program. You can't do it,
except by referring to some artificial standard (like the C standard).
Even then one can argue that all data are programs, but only a proper
subset are "correct" or "useful" programs. Even then you get into
trouble. Take a correct C program and introduce a syntax error: is it
still a program, or is it now merely data? What if you had a compiler
with a bug (or a feature) that didn't recognize the error (e.g. a compiler
that automatically inserts a semicolon whenever it thinks one is missing)?
In Lisp, all data are programs. (Some of them throw exceptions when they
"run".) In fact, for any data it is possible to generate a Lisp
environment where that data is not only a program but a *correct* program,
i.e. one that does not throw an exception. In fact, if you really want to
get funky, it's possible to generate a Lisp environment where any
arbitrary piece of data has an arbitrary specified result. I can build a
Lisp environment where the program ·············@oijw" ends up running
Microsoft Excel.
The problem, IMO, is precisely that the customary *distinction* between
program and data causes people to believe that there is an actual
*difference* between the two. There isn't.
E.
P.S. Note that I put the word "run" in scare quotes. That's because
"programs" don't really "run". Both "program" and "run" are purely
artificial concepts with no corresponding physical (or even metaphysical)
reality. Alan Turing proved this in 1936.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <r8eo4x0i.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> > There is a definite difference between interpretation and
> > compilation.
>
> What is it? Your definition does not work to describe a "definite
> difference" because it relies on the definition of the word "machine",
> which you don't define. On your definition whether something is a
> compiler or an interpreter depends on what you decide to call your "target
> machine", but that is itself an arbitrary choice, so the boundary between
> interpretation and compilation is likewise an arbitrary choice.
Not at all. I'm claiming that interpretation and compilation are a
relationship between two languages (you choose the languages, I don't
care). You have the option of
a) compiling a program from the source language into the target
language,
b) writing an interpreter for the source language in the target
language,
or
c) introducing an intermediate language and creating an
interpreted or compiled relationship between it and the source
and target languages.
Yes, your choice of source and target language is arbitrary, but the
notion of interpretation or compilation isn't.
> > > (NB: IMO, the artificial distinction between "program" and "data" is
> > > actually very destructive, in fact the root cause of many of the problems
> > > that software engineering faces today. That's why Lisp is the Right
> > > Thing: it is (so far) the only programming language that works to erase
> > > this distinction rather than reinforce it.)
> >
> > But there *is* a difference between program and data: a program (in
> > all practical languages) is a proper subset of data.
>
> No, there is no difference. There is a *distinction*, but not a
> difference. There's a difference :-) To see this, try to come up with an
> example of something that is data but not program.
Trivial: (1 2 3 4)
this is a list of 4 integers, but not a Common Lisp program. You could
define a language for which this *is* a program, but most programming
languages have `data' elements (pure untyped lambda calculus and TECO
are notable exceptions).
> You can't do it,
> except by referring to some artificial standard (like the C
> standard).
There is a `natural' standard for programming languages?
> Even then one can argue that all data are programs, but only a proper
> subset are "correct" or "useful" programs. Even then you get into
> trouble. Take a correct C program and introduce a syntax error: is it
> still a program, or is it now merely data?
If it isn't a `well-formed' C expression, then it isn't a program.
I.e., the definition of the language C has no mapping for it.
> What if you had a compiler
> with a bug (or a feature) that didn't recognize the error (e.g. a compiler
> that automatically inserts a semicolon whenever it thinks one is missing)?
>
> In Lisp, all data are programs. (Some of them throw exceptions when they
> "run".)
You *could* take this viewpoint, but in doing so you are discarding
huge amounts of relevant information. I'm not interested in creating
`programs' that throw syntax exceptions: there's a lot of them and
they are all boring.
> In fact, for any data it is possible to generate a Lisp
> environment where that data is not only a program but a *correct* program,
> i.e. one that does not throw an exception.
Yes. Lisp is a universal language, so it is possible to write an
interpreter for any other language in it. Because of the flexibility
of lisp, you can even reuse large amounts of the system components to
do so. But you can't do it without writing an interpreter or
compiler.
> In fact, if you really want to
> get funky, it's possible to generate a Lisp environment where any
> arbitrary piece of data has an arbitrary specified result. I can build a
> Lisp environment where the program ·············@oijw" ends up running
> Microsoft Excel.
>
> The problem, IMO, is precisely that the customary *distinction* between
> program and data causes people to believe that there is an actual
> *difference* between the two. There isn't.
Is there a difference between numbers and cons cells? I certainly
think so. You can add numbers, you can take CAR and CDR of cons
cells. Is there a difference between programs and other data? You
can APPLY or FUNCALL a program, you cannot APPLY or FUNCALL a
number.
> E.
>
> P.S. Note that I put the word "run" in scare quotes. That's because
> "programs" don't really "run".
That's absurd. I assume you typed that on a computer. The fact that
it got here and that I am reading it is because your computer (and
mine, and several in between) is running a program.
> Both "program" and "run" are purely artificial concepts with no
> corresponding physical (or even metaphysical) reality. Alan Turing
> proved this in 1936.
He did no such thing. You are spouting mystical nonsense. The common
definition of `program' and `run' is more than adequate for this
argument.
In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> Yes, your choice of source and target language is arbitrary, but the
> notion of interpretation or compilation isn't.
It is no more and no less arbitrary than the choice of languages, which is
to say (as you yourself just admitted), completely arbitrary.
> > No, there is no difference. There is a *distinction*, but not a
> > difference. There's a difference :-) To see this, try to come up with an
> > example of something that is data but not program.
>
> Trivial: (1 2 3 4)
>
> this is a list of 4 integers, but not a Common Lisp program.
Which is an arbitrary decision made by the designers of Common Lisp, as
you yourself observe in the very next sentence:
> You could
> define a language for which this *is* a program, but most programming
> languages have `data' elements (pure untyped lambda calculus and TECO
> are notable exceptions).
... so it seems to me like we're in violent agreement here.
(As an interesting aside you should look at the recent discussion in
comp.lang.scheme over what (call/cc (lambda (e) (0 (e 1)))) ought to do.)
> > You can't do it,
> > except by referring to some artificial standard (like the C
> > standard).
>
> There is a `natural' standard for programming languages?
No, that's the whole point. The "natural" standards (the mathematical
formalisms that describe computations) say nothing about "programming."
That means that interacting with computational machinery by doing what is
today called "programming" is a choice, not a requirement.
Interacting with Microsoft Excel, for example, is in some ways very
similar to programming, but in other ways very different. An Excel
spreadsheet is in some ways like a program, and in other ways not.
Interacting with a Lisp environment is likewise in some ways very similar
to what a C programmer considers "programming" but is in other ways very
different. For example, it is hard for a C programmer to conceive of
"programming" without "creating" something called an "executable." For a
Lisp programmer "programming" without "creating executables" is perfectly
natural. For an Excel user, "programming" without creating a "program" is
perfectly natural.
> You *could* take this viewpoint, but in doing so you are discarding
> huge amounts of relevant information. I'm not interested in creating
> `programs' that throw syntax exceptions: there's a lot of them and
> they are all boring.
Imagine that someone hands you two non-programs. One is a completely
random string, and the other one is one syntax error away from being a
"real" program. Do you consider both of these to be equally boring?
> > In fact, for any data it is possible to generate a Lisp
> > environment where that data is not only a program but a *correct* program,
> > i.e. one that does not throw an exception.
>
> Yes. Lisp is a universal language, so it is possible to write an
> interpreter for any other language in it. Because of the flexibility
> of lisp, you can even reuse large amounts of the system components to
> do so. But you can't do it without writing an interpreter or
> compiler.
Since "interpreter" and "compiler" are not well defined this is a vacuous
statement. I can make this happen by doing nothing but modifying the
readtable, which is arguably writing neither an interpreter nor a compiler
but rather a parser. But "parser" is also not well defined. That's my
whole point. Computatinal systems do interesting things when you interact
with them. Sometimes it's useful to impose some mental structure onto
those interactions and use labels like "program" and "interpreter" and
"compiler" to label that mental structure. But it's important not to
confuse that mental structure with the underlying reality because then you
can end up restricting yourself (and others) unnecessarily.
> > The problem, IMO, is precisely that the customary *distinction* between
> > program and data causes people to believe that there is an actual
> > *difference* between the two. There isn't.
>
> Is there a difference between numbers and cons cells? I certainly
> think so.
Have you heard of Church numerals?
> You can add numbers, you can take CAR and CDR of cons cells.
You can also add cons cells (which is to say you can define an operation
that has the same semantics as addition, except that it operates on cons
cells), and take the car and cdr of numbers (likewise). These operations
are not built in to Common Lisp, but nothing prevents you from adding
these capabilities to the language.
> Is there a difference between programs and other data? You
> can APPLY or FUNCALL a program, you cannot APPLY or FUNCALL a
> number.
Again, this is just an arbitrary restriction imposed by a particular
language design. As an absolute claim it is no more true than when a C
programmer says it's impossible to create lexical closures. It is true in
C. It is not true in general. Likewise the claim that you can't apply a
number is true in Lisp, but not in general. I can think of at least two
reasonable semantics for applying numbers: the first is to simply return
the number, i.e. a number is a function that discards its argument and
returns itself. The second is for numbers to be shorthand for projection
functions, i.e. when you apply N you get back the Nth argument to N.
These ideas may be useful, or they may not be, but the point is that you
would never even consider them if you took the non-applyability of numbers
and the immutable Gospel truth.
> > P.S. Note that I put the word "run" in scare quotes. That's because
> > "programs" don't really "run".
>
> That's absurd. I assume you typed that on a computer. The fact that
> it got here and that I am reading it is because your computer (and
> mine, and several in between) is running a program.
My computer is performing a computational process, but that's not
necessarily the same thing as "running a program" in the sense that the
term is normally understood. The difference is that when a process stops
it ceases to exist. When a "program" no longer "runs", it (the program)
is commonly understood to continue to exist. (When I quit my newsreader,
the newsreader process vanishes, but the program doesn't.) Programs can
be a useful way to think about computation, but they are not necessary,
and IMO the concept is often harmful.
Actually, this newsreader is a perfect example of how "program" is a
harmful concept. My newsreader *is* a "program". It is, in fact, a
particular kind of program, an "application" (as contrasted with, say, a
"plug-in"). Because of this it is extremely limited in how it can
interact with other "programs", and it is virtually impossible for me to
change its behavior. In some contexts, those limitations are features.
In others, they are problems.
> > Both "program" and "run" are purely artificial concepts with no
> > corresponding physical (or even metaphysical) reality. Alan Turing
> > proved this in 1936.
>
> He did no such thing.
Well, of course he didn't show this directly (the idea of a "program"
didn't exist in Turing's day, and the word doesn't appear in his paper).
But he did show that if you draw a line between "program" and "data" in a
universal computer then the information in the "program" can be freely
migrated into the "data" (and it's straightforward to extend this result
to show that by repeated application of this process the "program" can be
arbitrarily obfuscated inside the "data"). It seems to me a reasonable
interpretation of this result that a distinction between "program" and
"data" is not fundamentally meaningful.
E.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <elan4tqq.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Yes, your choice of source and target language is arbitrary, but the
> > notion of interpretation or compilation isn't.
>
> It is no more and no less arbitrary than the choice of languages, which is
> to say (as you yourself just admitted), completely arbitrary.
Imagine a computer language in which
void main (int argc, char ** argv) { return 0; }
is a valid program (for the colloquial definition of `valid
program'). Now consider Common Lisp as defined by the hyperspec. The
above `program' is *not* a Common Lisp program. No one would expect
that all conforming Common Lisp systems would understand it.
However....
Considering that the above *is* a program in a language, then we can
set up a relationship involving Common Lisp, our hypothetical
language, and our program. That relationship is either an
`interpreter' or a 'compiler'. An interpreter is a Common Lisp
program that, when given a program in our hypothetical language,
performs the same effect. A compiler is a program that, when given a
program in our hypothetical language, finds an *eqivalent* program in
Common Lisp.
> (As an interesting aside you should look at the recent discussion in
> comp.lang.scheme over what (call/cc (lambda (e) (0 (e 1)))) ought to do.)
If you look at that thread you will see that I am of the opinion that
such a program ought to return 1 (and not complain about zero in
function position). I also think that it would be desirable for the
compiler to warn about such an unlikely program, but should not
disallow it. My rationale is that it may be possible for such a form
to be created via some macro expansion and forcing the user to
avoid `erroneous' expansions in `dead code' is a burden. But I
digress....
> That means that interacting with computational machinery by doing what is
> today called "programming" is a choice, not a requirement.
If you want to interact with a computer, you have to, at the very
least, tell it what you want done. This will be the case until they
make computers that can read minds. These days, we have to use a very
formal language and describe the mechanism to achieve what we want.
In the future we may be able to speak our native language and just ask
for some result. Either way, though, we are programming the computer.
> > > In fact, for any data it is possible to generate a Lisp
> > > environment where that data is not only a program but a *correct* program,
> > > i.e. one that does not throw an exception.
> >
> > Yes. Lisp is a universal language, so it is possible to write an
> > interpreter for any other language in it. Because of the flexibility
> > of lisp, you can even reuse large amounts of the system components to
> > do so. But you can't do it without writing an interpreter or
> > compiler.
>
> Since "interpreter" and "compiler" are not well defined this is a vacuous
> statement. I can make this happen by doing nothing but modifying the
> readtable, which is arguably writing neither an interpreter nor a compiler
> but rather a parser. But "parser" is also not well defined. That's my
> whole point.
They *are* well defined. If you modify the readtable such that
reading your program results causes the computer to perform as if it
were executing the other language, you have built an interpreter. If
you modify the readtable such that the result of reading your program
is a valid common lisp program that performs the same action as your
original program, you have built a compiler. If you wish, you may
introduce an intermediate language which is `compiled' by the
readtable and `interpreted' by a common lisp program.
> > Is there a difference between numbers and cons cells? I certainly
> > think so.
>
> Have you heard of Church numerals?
Yes, have you heard of the `typed lambda calculus'? When did Church
numerals become part of the hyperspec?
> > You can add numbers, you can take CAR and CDR of cons cells.
>
> You can also add cons cells (which is to say you can define an operation
> that has the same semantics as addition, except that it operates on cons
> cells), and take the car and cdr of numbers (likewise). These operations
> are not built in to Common Lisp,
and as such *not* part of the language
> but nothing prevents you from adding these capabilities to the
> language.
Yes. I could either extend the semantics with a program that knows
how to `add' cons cells (write an interpreter), or define a macro that
transforms (jrm:+ '(a b) '(c d)) into (cl:append '(a b) '(c d))
(write a compiler).
> > Is there a difference between programs and other data? You
> > can APPLY or FUNCALL a program, you cannot APPLY or FUNCALL a
> > number.
>
> Again, this is just an arbitrary restriction imposed by a particular
> language design. As an absolute claim it is no more true than when a C
> programmer says it's impossible to create lexical closures. It is true in
> C. It is not true in general. Likewise the claim that you can't apply a
> number is true in Lisp, but not in general.
I'm not talking in general. I'm talking about the relationship
between two arbitrary, but concrete, languages. The notion of
universal computation is that any universal computer can simulate any
other. The mechanism by which this occurs is either interpretation
(writing a program on the target machine that emulates the source
machine) or compilation (writing a program that transforms source code
into target code).
> > > P.S. Note that I put the word "run" in scare quotes. That's because
> > > "programs" don't really "run".
> >
> > That's absurd. I assume you typed that on a computer. The fact that
> > it got here and that I am reading it is because your computer (and
> > mine, and several in between) is running a program.
>
> My computer is performing a computational process, but that's not
> necessarily the same thing as "running a program" in the sense that the
> term is normally understood.
It isn't? It certainly seems so to me. When I talk about `running a
program' I am talking *exactly* about the computer performing a
computational process described by the program.
> The difference is that when a process stops
> it ceases to exist. When a "program" no longer "runs", it (the program)
> is commonly understood to continue to exist. (When I quit my newsreader,
> the newsreader process vanishes, but the program doesn't.) Programs can
> be a useful way to think about computation, but they are not necessary,
> and IMO the concept is often harmful.
Programs are as necessary as words are. A program is a formal
description of a computation. As you mention, the newsreader process
disappears when you are done reading. Without the notion of a
program, we would be restricted to talking about only those
computations that are currently being performed.
> Well, of course he didn't show this directly (the idea of a "program"
> didn't exist in Turing's day, and the word doesn't appear in his paper).
> But he did show that if you draw a line between "program" and "data" in a
> universal computer then the information in the "program" can be freely
> migrated into the "data" (and it's straightforward to extend this result
> to show that by repeated application of this process the "program" can be
> arbitrarily obfuscated inside the "data"). It seems to me a reasonable
> interpretation of this result that a distinction between "program" and
> "data" is not fundamentally meaningful.
At one level I agree. I said before that a program is a subset of
`data' in most languages. The difference between `interpretation' and
`compilation' is in the direction that you do the migration. It isn't
all that big a deal, but it *is* well defined.
In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>
> > In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, your choice of source and target language is arbitrary, but the
> > > notion of interpretation or compilation isn't.
> >
> > It is no more and no less arbitrary than the choice of languages, which is
> > to say (as you yourself just admitted), completely arbitrary.
>
> Imagine a computer language in which
>
> void main (int argc, char ** argv) { return 0; }
>
> is a valid program (for the colloquial definition of `valid
> program'). Now consider Common Lisp as defined by the hyperspec. The
> above `program' is *not* a Common Lisp program. No one would expect
> that all conforming Common Lisp systems would understand it.
>
> However....
>
> Considering that the above *is* a program in a language, then we can
> set up a relationship involving Common Lisp, our hypothetical
> language, and our program. That relationship is either an
> `interpreter' or a 'compiler'.
(null? '()) is is program in a language, but it is not a Common Lisp
program. But it can be made to be a valid program within the context of a
Common Lisp environment by writing (defun null? (x) (null x)), but that is
neither an interpreter nor a compiler. It is a "library". So your
argument does not apply in general, but only for very specific examples,
which is precisely my point.
> An interpreter is a Common Lisp
> program that, when given a program in our hypothetical language,
> performs the same effect. A compiler is a program that, when given a
> program in our hypothetical language, finds an *eqivalent* program in
> Common Lisp.
On this definition an interpreter and a compiler could be identical but
for the fact that the interpreter runs the resulting Common Lisp code and
the compiler doesn't.
> > That means that interacting with computational machinery by doing what is
> > today called "programming" is a choice, not a requirement.
>
> If you want to interact with a computer, you have to, at the very
> least, tell it what you want done. This will be the case until they
> make computers that can read minds. These days, we have to use a very
> formal language and describe the mechanism to achieve what we want.
No, you don't. That just shows a lack of imagination. In fact, it has
been the case for a long time that you don't have to use any formal
languages in order to interact with a computer to perform a wide variety
of useful tasks -- drawing pictures with a mouse, for example. It is not
out of the question to imagine that we could extend this interaction
paradigm to those activities that given today's technology still require
formal languages. (In fact, there is a system called Labview that is
already a significant step in this direction.)
> In the future we may be able to speak our native language and just ask
> for some result. Either way, though, we are programming the computer.
Of course. Look, I'm not saying that programming is a useless concept.
What I'm saying is that 1) today there is a sharp distinction made between
"programming" a computer and "using" one, 2) that this distinction is one
that we *choose* to make rather than being imposed on us by the underlying
mathematics of computation, 3) that maintining this sharp boundary line
between "programming" and "use" can be harmful and therefore 4) it can be
fruitful to consider making the boundary line less sharp.
Consider an analogous argument that one might find in a C++ newsgroup: 1)
today there is a sharp boundary line between "code" and "data", 2) this
distinction is one that we choose to make (by virtue of the fact that many
facilities present in our compilers are not required to be available at
runtime), 3) maintaining this sharp distinction between "code" and "data"
can be harmful (because we spend half our lives writing lex and yacc code
for badly designed mini-languages) and therefore 4) is might be fruitful
to consider making the boundary between code and data less sharp (by
inventing Lisp).
> > > > In fact, for any data it is possible to generate a Lisp
> > > > environment where that data is not only a program but a *correct*
program,
> > > > i.e. one that does not throw an exception.
> > >
> > > Yes. Lisp is a universal language, so it is possible to write an
> > > interpreter for any other language in it. Because of the flexibility
> > > of lisp, you can even reuse large amounts of the system components to
> > > do so. But you can't do it without writing an interpreter or
> > > compiler.
> >
> > Since "interpreter" and "compiler" are not well defined this is a vacuous
> > statement. I can make this happen by doing nothing but modifying the
> > readtable, which is arguably writing neither an interpreter nor a compiler
> > but rather a parser. But "parser" is also not well defined. That's my
> > whole point.
>
> They *are* well defined. If you modify the readtable such that
> reading your program results causes the computer to perform as if it
> were executing the other language, you have built an interpreter. If
> you modify the readtable such that the result of reading your program
> is a valid common lisp program that performs the same action as your
> original program, you have built a compiler. If you wish, you may
> introduce an intermediate language which is `compiled' by the
> readtable and `interpreted' by a common lisp program.
You've defined "interpreter" and "compiler" but not "parser". And you've
defined them in such a way that the only difference between an interpreter
and a compiler is that an interpreter runs the code and a compiler
doesn't.
> > > Is there a difference between numbers and cons cells? I certainly
> > > think so.
> >
> > Have you heard of Church numerals?
>
> Yes, have you heard of the `typed lambda calculus'? When did Church
> numerals become part of the hyperspec?
I must confess I am not well versed in the typed lambda calculus.
When did matrix multiplication become part of the hyperspec? Oh, it's not
in the Hyperspec? Does that mean that Common Lisp can't do matrix
multiplication?
> Yes. I could either extend the semantics with a program that knows
> how to `add' cons cells (write an interpreter), or define a macro that
> transforms (jrm:+ '(a b) '(c d)) into (cl:append '(a b) '(c d))
> (write a compiler).
Do you consider a library function to be an interpreter? I don't think
that jibes with most people's intuition about what an interpreter is.
> > > Is there a difference between programs and other data? You
> > > can APPLY or FUNCALL a program, you cannot APPLY or FUNCALL a
> > > number.
> >
> > Again, this is just an arbitrary restriction imposed by a particular
> > language design. As an absolute claim it is no more true than when a C
> > programmer says it's impossible to create lexical closures. It is true in
> > C. It is not true in general. Likewise the claim that you can't apply a
> > number is true in Lisp, but not in general.
>
> I'm not talking in general.
Well, there's the source of our disagreement. I am.
> I'm talking about the relationship
> between two arbitrary, but concrete, languages. The notion of
> universal computation is that any universal computer can simulate any
> other. The mechanism by which this occurs is either interpretation
> (writing a program on the target machine that emulates the source
> machine) or compilation (writing a program that transforms source code
> into target code).
And my claim is that this is not a meaningful distinction in general
because you cannot in general distinguish what is "code" and what is not.
> > > > P.S. Note that I put the word "run" in scare quotes. That's because
> > > > "programs" don't really "run".
> > >
> > > That's absurd. I assume you typed that on a computer. The fact that
> > > it got here and that I am reading it is because your computer (and
> > > mine, and several in between) is running a program.
> >
> > My computer is performing a computational process, but that's not
> > necessarily the same thing as "running a program" in the sense that the
> > term is normally understood.
>
> It isn't? It certainly seems so to me. When I talk about `running a
> program' I am talking *exactly* about the computer performing a
> computational process described by the program.
"Running a program" as the terms are commonly used is a *subset* of the
computational processes that a computer is capable of performing. For
example, an operating system is, strictly speaking, a program, but it's
usually not talked about that way. It is not completely nonsensical in
common usage to say, "My computer has booted up, but it isn't running any
programs yet."
(BTW, "operating system" is another convenient fiction that isn't really
necessary for computation.)
> > The difference is that when a process stops
> > it ceases to exist. When a "program" no longer "runs", it (the program)
> > is commonly understood to continue to exist. (When I quit my newsreader,
> > the newsreader process vanishes, but the program doesn't.) Programs can
> > be a useful way to think about computation, but they are not necessary,
> > and IMO the concept is often harmful.
>
> Programs are as necessary as words are.
I would actually agree with that, but counter by saying that words aren't
necessary for doing a lot of the things we try to do with words, and in
fact, a lot of things we sometimes try to do with words might be better
done with something other than words (like pictures), or with words
augmented with other things like inflections and gestures. Words are at
once enabling and constraining, just like programming.
> A program is a formal
> description of a computation. As you mention, the newsreader process
> disappears when you are done reading. Without the notion of a
> program, we would be restricted to talking about only those
> computations that are currently being performed.
No, again you're showing a lack of imagination. A program is one way to
construct a computational process, but it is not the only way.
> > Well, of course he didn't show this directly (the idea of a "program"
> > didn't exist in Turing's day, and the word doesn't appear in his paper).
> > But he did show that if you draw a line between "program" and "data" in a
> > universal computer then the information in the "program" can be freely
> > migrated into the "data" (and it's straightforward to extend this result
> > to show that by repeated application of this process the "program" can be
> > arbitrarily obfuscated inside the "data"). It seems to me a reasonable
> > interpretation of this result that a distinction between "program" and
> > "data" is not fundamentally meaningful.
>
> At one level I agree. I said before that a program is a subset of
> `data' in most languages. The difference between `interpretation' and
> `compilation' is in the direction that you do the migration. It isn't
> all that big a deal, but it *is* well defined.
The definitions you've given do not produce a meaningful distinction
between interpretation and compilation. On your definitions, anything
that ends up running a program is an interpreter, and anything that
performs any kind of transformation on code without running it is a
compiler. (Rot13 is a compiler according to your definitions.)
E.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <wuof38s8.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> (null? '()) is is program in a language, but it is not a Common Lisp
> program. But it can be made to be a valid program within the context of a
> Common Lisp environment by writing (defun null? (x) (null x)), but that is
> neither an interpreter nor a compiler. It is a "library". So your
> argument does not apply in general, but only for very specific examples,
> which is precisely my point.
No, that is an interpreter. Had you written:
(defmacro null? (x) `(null ,x))
you would have written a compiler.
> > An interpreter is a Common Lisp
> > program that, when given a program in our hypothetical language,
> > performs the same effect. A compiler is a program that, when given a
> > program in our hypothetical language, finds an *eqivalent* program in
> > Common Lisp.
>
> On this definition an interpreter and a compiler could be identical but
> for the fact that the interpreter runs the resulting Common Lisp code and
> the compiler doesn't.
You could mimic an interpreter by compiling on the fly and executing
the resulting code.
> Of course. Look, I'm not saying that programming is a useless concept.
> What I'm saying is that 1) today there is a sharp distinction made between
> "programming" a computer and "using" one, 2) that this distinction is one
> that we *choose* to make rather than being imposed on us by the underlying
> mathematics of computation, 3) that maintining this sharp boundary line
> between "programming" and "use" can be harmful and therefore 4) it can be
> fruitful to consider making the boundary line less sharp.
Agreed.
> Consider an analogous argument that one might find in a C++ newsgroup: 1)
> today there is a sharp boundary line between "code" and "data", 2) this
> distinction is one that we choose to make (by virtue of the fact that many
> facilities present in our compilers are not required to be available at
> runtime), 3) maintaining this sharp distinction between "code" and "data"
> can be harmful (because we spend half our lives writing lex and yacc code
> for badly designed mini-languages) and therefore 4) is might be fruitful
> to consider making the boundary between code and data less sharp (by
> inventing Lisp).
Also agreed.
> > > > > In fact, for any data it is possible to generate a Lisp
> > > > > environment where that data is not only a program but a *correct*
> program,
> > > > > i.e. one that does not throw an exception.
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Lisp is a universal language, so it is possible to write an
> > > > interpreter for any other language in it. Because of the flexibility
> > > > of lisp, you can even reuse large amounts of the system components to
> > > > do so. But you can't do it without writing an interpreter or
> > > > compiler.
> > >
> > > Since "interpreter" and "compiler" are not well defined this is a vacuous
> > > statement. I can make this happen by doing nothing but modifying the
> > > readtable, which is arguably writing neither an interpreter nor a compiler
> > > but rather a parser. But "parser" is also not well defined. That's my
> > > whole point.
> >
> > They *are* well defined. If you modify the readtable such that
> > reading your program results causes the computer to perform as if it
> > were executing the other language, you have built an interpreter. If
> > you modify the readtable such that the result of reading your program
> > is a valid common lisp program that performs the same action as your
> > original program, you have built a compiler. If you wish, you may
> > introduce an intermediate language which is `compiled' by the
> > readtable and `interpreted' by a common lisp program.
>
> You've defined "interpreter" and "compiler" but not "parser".
In general, a parser is a subset of `compiler'. (Note that parsers
are generally not capable of universal computation.) The parser
transforms a program from one form (typically a string of characters)
into another form (typically some sort of expression tree).
> And you've defined them in such a way that the only difference
> between an interpreter and a compiler is that an interpreter runs
> the code and a compiler doesn't.
I've been *trying* to show that the difference between an interpreter
and compiler is that a compiler is a `code' to `code' transform while
an interpreter is a `machine' to `machine' transform.
> When did matrix multiplication become part of the hyperspec? Oh, it's not
> in the Hyperspec? Does that mean that Common Lisp can't do matrix
> multiplication?
Common Lisp doesn't do matrix multiplacation right out of the box.
You need to extend it. You can either add functions to the
environment that can perform matrix multiplication or you can
transform the matrix multiplication syntax into a common lisp program
that does the equivalent.
> > Yes. I could either extend the semantics with a program that knows
> > how to `add' cons cells (write an interpreter), or define a macro that
> > transforms (jrm:+ '(a b) '(c d)) into (cl:append '(a b) '(c d))
> > (write a compiler).
>
> Do you consider a library function to be an interpreter? I don't think
> that jibes with most people's intuition about what an interpreter is.
Perhaps not, but formally, a library function extends the `machine'
and is thus an interpreter.
> > I'm not talking in general.
>
> Well, there's the source of our disagreement. I am.
I suspected that.
> > I'm talking about the relationship
> > between two arbitrary, but concrete, languages. The notion of
> > universal computation is that any universal computer can simulate any
> > other. The mechanism by which this occurs is either interpretation
> > (writing a program on the target machine that emulates the source
> > machine) or compilation (writing a program that transforms source code
> > into target code).
>
> And my claim is that this is not a meaningful distinction in general
> because you cannot in general distinguish what is "code" and what is not.
You can't define `compilation' or `interpretation' in an absolute
(general) sense because it is a relationship between languages. Any
language can either be compiled or interpreted by any other.
> > > The difference is that when a process stops
> > > it ceases to exist. When a "program" no longer "runs", it (the program)
> > > is commonly understood to continue to exist. (When I quit my newsreader,
> > > the newsreader process vanishes, but the program doesn't.) Programs can
> > > be a useful way to think about computation, but they are not necessary,
> > > and IMO the concept is often harmful.
> >
> > Programs are as necessary as words are.
>
> I would actually agree with that, but counter by saying that words aren't
> necessary for doing a lot of the things we try to do with words, and in
> fact, a lot of things we sometimes try to do with words might be better
> done with something other than words (like pictures), or with words
> augmented with other things like inflections and gestures. Words are at
> once enabling and constraining, just like programming.
Well, we could go semiotic and just talk about signs....
> > A program is a formal
> > description of a computation. As you mention, the newsreader process
> > disappears when you are done reading. Without the notion of a
> > program, we would be restricted to talking about only those
> > computations that are currently being performed.
>
> No, again you're showing a lack of imagination. A program is one way to
> construct a computational process, but it is not the only way.
Let me re-iterate: a program is a formal description of a
computation. `Formal' in this sense doesn't mean `all dressed up with
no place to go' or even `stilted', but rather `in an agreed-upon
common terminology' that can be rather `informal'. It is a
description because as you mentioned, a program is not in itself a
computation.
> > > Well, of course he didn't show this directly (the idea of a "program"
> > > didn't exist in Turing's day, and the word doesn't appear in his paper).
> > > But he did show that if you draw a line between "program" and "data" in a
> > > universal computer then the information in the "program" can be freely
> > > migrated into the "data" (and it's straightforward to extend this result
> > > to show that by repeated application of this process the "program" can be
> > > arbitrarily obfuscated inside the "data"). It seems to me a reasonable
> > > interpretation of this result that a distinction between "program" and
> > > "data" is not fundamentally meaningful.
> >
> > At one level I agree. I said before that a program is a subset of
> > `data' in most languages. The difference between `interpretation' and
> > `compilation' is in the direction that you do the migration. It isn't
> > all that big a deal, but it *is* well defined.
>
> The definitions you've given do not produce a meaningful distinction
> between interpretation and compilation. On your definitions, anything
> that ends up running a program is an interpreter, and anything that
> performs any kind of transformation on code without running it is a
> compiler. (Rot13 is a compiler according to your definitions.)
Rot13 could very well be a compiler. If someone were perverse enough
to define a language `ROT13 Java' which was identical to Java but for
having to be expressed in ROT13, a compiler that transformed a `ROT13
Java' program into a `standard' Java program would be that simple.
On the other hand, someone could take a Java interpreter and fudge
around with the representation of characters and create a `ROT13 Java'
interpreter rather trivially, too.
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> > If you want to interact with a computer, you have to, at the very
> > least, tell it what you want done. This will be the case until they
> > make computers that can read minds. These days, we have to use a very
> > formal language and describe the mechanism to achieve what we want.
>
> No, you don't. That just shows a lack of imagination. In fact, it has
> been the case for a long time that you don't have to use any formal
> languages in order to interact with a computer to perform a wide variety
> of useful tasks -- drawing pictures with a mouse, for example. It is not
> out of the question to imagine that we could extend this interaction
> paradigm to those activities that given today's technology still require
> formal languages. (In fact, there is a system called Labview that is
> already a significant step in this direction.)
Graphical languages such as LabVIEW's G and Gensym's G2 system are
still formal languages.
In article <···············@panix3.panix.com>, Carl Shapiro
<·············@panix.com> wrote:
> Graphical languages such as LabVIEW's G and Gensym's G2 system are
> still formal languages.
Well, that just begs the definition of the word "formal". If you believe
Church's thesis then everything is a formal language.
Whether Labview is a formal language or not (I'm happy to concede that it
is) I claim that Labview is fundamentally different from other formal
languages in one important way: Labview has a structure that is inherently
two-dimensional, while most other languages have a one-dimensional
structure. Let me explain what I mean by that.
Most languages are sets of *sentences* or strings of symbols. The
semantics of a sentence is determined by the identity of the symbols and
their order, but not by their physical relationship to each other when
presented in written form (except insofar as their layout helps to define
their order). If I say "The dog chased the cat" that means something
different from "The cat chased the dog." But "The dog chased the cat"
means the same thing as
"The dog
chased
the cat."
The way you make connections between symbols that are far apart from each
other in a sentence is with symbolic identity. If I say "The dog chased
the cat which had stolen the dog's bone," I make a connection between the
thing doing the chasing and the thing whose bone has been stolen by
referring to both with the symbol "dog."
In Labview things are very very different. There is no order defined on
the symbols, and connections between entities are made not by
identical-looking references, but by physically drawing lines and arrows
between them. It's very hard to represent Labview in ascii because ascii
was designed for traditional languages, but here's my best shot at
rendering the dog-and-cat example into something labview-like:
The -> dog -> chased -> the -> cat.
cat. <- the <- chased <- dog <- The
In labview, those two examples are identical. (Of course, the whole point
is that by drawing arrows you can create structures that are more complex
than the simple order of the cat-and-dog example, but I am not a gifted
ascii artist.)
So Labview is an existence proof that you can produce the effect of
"writing a program" by "drawing a picture" instead. If you let your
imagination run wild you could imagine producing the same effect by
playing a song, or doing a dance. And before you say, "That's
ridiculous", think about motion-capture technology and Midi controllers.
E.
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
+---------------
| ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
| > On your definition whether something is a compiler or an interpreter
| > depends on what you decide to call your "target machine", but that is
| > itself an arbitrary choice, so the boundary between interpretation and
| > compilation is likewise an arbitrary choice.
|
| Not at all. I'm claiming that interpretation and compilation are a
| relationship between two languages (you choose the languages, I don't
| care). You have the option of
| a) compiling a program from the source language into the target language,
| b) writing an interpreter for the source language in the target language, or
| c) introducing an intermediate language and creating an interpreted or
| compiled relationship between it and the source and target languages.
|
| Yes, your choice of source and target language is arbitrary, but the
| notion of interpretation or compilation isn't.
+---------------
Exactly so. Those definitions and relationships are *decades* old!!
If one is not familiar with them then one's computer science education
(whether formal or self-taught) is sadly lacking.
Possibly the best presentation I have seen of them is the transformational
"T-diagrams" in the book "A Compiler Generator" (for the XPL language)
by McKeeman, Horning, and Wortman <URL:http://www.cs.toronto.edu/XPL/>.
Inside the front & back covers of that book are a series of T-diagrams
which graphically & clearly show the relationships between four kinds of
things -- Machines, Interpreters, Translators/Compilers, and Programs --
and how each is used at various stages of, say, bootstrapping a language
system to a new environment.
The XPL book itself goes into much further detail on T-diagrams and their
uses, but if you're not familiar at all with the concepts, the following
pages (especially the first one) will give one some taste of them:
<URL:http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~occ/comp0029/t_diagrams.shtml>
<URL:http://www-vs.informatik.uni-ulm.de/Papers/MPWOberon/
Implementation%20Strategy.html>
<URL:http://www.cs.ru.ac.za/CSc301/Translators/tut08s.htm>
<URL:http://www.math.grin.edu/~rebelsky/Courses/CS362/2002F/
Reference/TerryBook/chap03.pdf>
In any case, all of this is *VERY* old stuff (circa 1968), and doesn't
need to be debated here...
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock, PP-ASEL-IA <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://www.rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Erann Gat wrote:
> (NB: IMO, the artificial distinction between "program" and "data" is
> actually very destructive, in fact the root cause of many of the problems
> that software engineering faces today. That's why Lisp is the Right
> Thing: it is (so far) the only programming language that works to erase
> this distinction rather than reinforce it.)
(The) Lisp (family) is not unique in this. Prolog also works to
erase the distinction between code and data.
> E.
Le Hibou
--
Dalinian: Lisp. Java. Which one sounds sexier?
RevAaron: Definitely Lisp. Lisp conjures up images of hippy coders,
drugs,
sex, and rock & roll. Late nights at Berkeley, coding in Lisp fueled by
LSD.
Java evokes a vision of a stereotypical nerd, with no life or social
skills.
Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
> In the last exciting episode, ·······@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) wrote::
> > Since writing code in an interpreter is *much* easier than doing
> > edit/compile/link/debug cycles, this seems like an intelligent way
> > to work. If something is too slow when interpreted (and it's not a
> > poor algorithm problem), compile it.
>
> Again, wrong.
>
> Lisp code is /always/ compiled. Always. It may just be compiled
> into some form of parse tree that requires some form of runtime
> 'interpreter,' but the parse tree is nevertheless /compiled/ code,
> as it does not need to be parsed over and over.
Well, that's exactly what I always thought an interpreter does; or are
there actually people who store the textual representation in memory
and parse it over and over again when interpreting it? If yes, why
has nobody cared enough to give the poor suckers a coup de grace?
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3smz6d0ht.fsf@cley.com>
* spammers suck wrote:
> I've been told that Lisp IS an interpreted language! Now I'm even more
> confused.
Lisp systems may be interpreted or compiled or both. Almost all
serious modern implementations have a compiler. Common Lisp (which is
the dominant modern dialect, at least as far as this group is
concerned), specifies a compiler and some minimal things that it must
do (which are not very onerous - it could be implemented as an
interpreter more-or-less). All CL implementations that I know of have
a compiler, although one compiles to a virtual machine, and at least
one uses the system's C compiler as the back-end of the compiler.
The myth that Lisp is an interpreted language is just that - a myth:
* (defun foo (x)
(cons (car x) (cadr x)))
foo
* (compile 'foo)
Compiling lambda (x):
Compiling Top-Level Form:
foo
nil
nil
* (disassemble 'foo)
400BA170: .entry foo(x) ; (function (t) cons)
188: add -18, %code
18C: add %cfp, 32, %csp
190: cmp %nargs, 4 ; %nargs = #:g0
194: bpne,pn %icc, L0
198: nop
19C: mov %a0, %a1 ; %a0 = #:g1
1A0: and %a1, 7, %nl0 ; No-arg-parsing entry point
1A4: cmp %nl0, 3
1A8: bpne %icc, L1
1AC: nop
1B0: mov %a1, %a0
1B4: lduw [%a0-3], %a2
1B8: lduw [%a1+1], %a0
1BC: and %a0, 7, %nl0
1C0: cmp %nl0, 3
1C4: bpne %icc, L2
1C8: nop
1CC: lduw [%a0-3], %a3
1D0: add 4, %alloc ; Set pseudo-atomic flag
1D4: andn %alloc, 7, %a0
1D8: or 3, %a0
1DC: add 4, %alloc ; Reset pseudo-atomic, allocated 8 bytes
1E0: andcc %alloc, 3, %zero ; pseudo-atomic interrupted?
1E4: tne %icc, 16
1E8: st %a2, [%a0-3]
1EC: st %a3, [%a0+1]
1F0: mov %cfp, %csp
1F4: mov %ocfp, %cfp
1F8: j %lra+5
1FC: mov %lra, %code
200: L0: illtrap 10 ; Error trap
204: byte #x04
205: byte #x19 ; INVALID-ARGUMENT-COUNT-ERROR
206: byte #xFE, #xED, #x01 ; NARGS
209: .align 4
20C: L1: illtrap 10 ; Error trap
210: byte #x04
211: byte #x02 ; OBJECT-NOT-LIST-ERROR
212: byte #xFE, #x2E, #x02 ; A1
215: .align 4
218: L2: illtrap 10 ; Error trap
21C: byte #x04
21D: byte #x02 ; OBJECT-NOT-LIST-ERROR
21E: byte #xFE, #x0E, #x02 ; A0
221: .align 4
*
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
;; * spammers suck wrote:
;;
;; > I've been told that Lisp IS an interpreted language! Now I'm even more
;; > confused.
;;
;; Lisp systems may be interpreted or compiled or both. Almost all
;; serious modern implementations have a compiler. Common Lisp (which is
;; the dominant modern dialect, at least as far as this group is
;; concerned), specifies a compiler and some minimal things that it must
;; do (which are not very onerous - it could be implemented as an
;; interpreter more-or-less). All CL implementations that I know of have
;; a compiler, although one compiles to a virtual machine, and at least
;; one uses the system's C compiler as the back-end of the compiler.
;;
;; The myth that Lisp is an interpreted language is just that - a myth:
What does this mean for the "Lisp code *is* Lisp data" paradigm? It
seems to me that 'compiled Lisp code isn't Lisp data'... Compiled code
is then an object to be used, yes, but not quite in the same manner, I
think. I guess I'm reading 'compiled' as 'code not subject to
change'. I dunno if that's a worthy, or even worthwhile, distinction
to be made.
I've always thought that interpreted referred to the fact that part of
the natural evolution of the Lisp use of operations on forms is
recursive in nature.
Peace,
Petr
In article <··············@blade-runner.mit.edu>,
Petr Swedock <····@blade-runner.mit.edu> wrote:
>Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
>
>;; * spammers suck wrote:
>;;
>;; > I've been told that Lisp IS an interpreted language! Now I'm even more
>;; > confused.
>;;
>;; Lisp systems may be interpreted or compiled or both. Almost all
>;; serious modern implementations have a compiler. Common Lisp (which is
>;; the dominant modern dialect, at least as far as this group is
>;; concerned), specifies a compiler and some minimal things that it must
>;; do (which are not very onerous - it could be implemented as an
>;; interpreter more-or-less). All CL implementations that I know of have
>;; a compiler, although one compiles to a virtual machine, and at least
>;; one uses the system's C compiler as the back-end of the compiler.
>;;
>;; The myth that Lisp is an interpreted language is just that - a myth:
>
>What does this mean for the "Lisp code *is* Lisp data" paradigm? It
>seems to me that 'compiled Lisp code isn't Lisp data'... Compiled code
>is then an object to be used, yes, but not quite in the same manner, I
>think. I guess I'm reading 'compiled' as 'code not subject to
>change'. I dunno if that's a worthy, or even worthwhile, distinction
>to be made.
You're reading "compiled" wrong for most practical purposes. There are
some things you can't do with compiled code that you can do with
interpreted, but thanks to incremental compilation and friends, changing
function definitions, object classes, methods and so forth on the fly
are relatively straightforward.
There are a few things, such as macroexpansions, that you can't change
as easily (see the recent thread on recompiling/re-evaluating), but
those restrictions aren't exactly a result of compilation.
The fact that lisp programs have always been data (in pure s-expression
form rather than text in some implementations) means that as the
language has evolved, so have the tools needed to maintain that point of
view.
paul
Petr Swedock wrote:
> I guess I'm reading 'compiled' as 'code not subject to
> change'.
Hmmm. An interesting definition for a language with dynamic typing and
garbage collection. How imutable is this `not subject to change?' and
what happens if you have code that in itself calls compile?
> I've always thought that interpreted referred to the fact that part of
> the natural evolution of the Lisp use of operations on forms is
> recursive in nature.
I have read and re-read this about four or five times and I can still
make head-nor-tail of it. Maybe it's just me.
> Peace,
With or without chips?
;)w
Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> writes:
;; Petr Swedock wrote:
;; > I guess I'm reading 'compiled' as 'code not subject to
;; > change'.
;;
;; Hmmm. An interesting definition for a language with dynamic typing and
;; garbage collection. How imutable is this `not subject to change?' and
;; what happens if you have code that in itself calls compile?
I dunno. I guess I'm fuzzy on the concepts here. Which is why I ask
the questions.
;; > I've always thought that interpreted referred to the fact that part
;; > of the natural evolution of the Lisp use of operations on forms is
;; > recursive in nature.
;;
;; I have read and re-read this about four or five times and I can still
;; make head-nor-tail of it. Maybe it's just me.
Or maybe it's me... the bulk of my experience with Lisp, to date, is
with the Symbolics Virtual Lisp Machine running on Alphas. There, if
you got into trouble C-M-<esc> would drop you into the debugger and
you could modify your code, get out of the debugger, and keep moving.
My understanding is that you could do this only because the code was
not compiled and that, in fact, compiling would interrupt this cycle
because it changed the structure of the data. I've always thought
that the interpreter was simply 'stopped' at one level of recursion
and that the debugger was simply a means of stepping throught the
levels of recursion.
;; > Peace,
;; With or without chips?
With whatever side order you wish.
Peace,
Petr
Petr Swedock wrote:
> Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> ;; Petr Swedock wrote:
> ;; > I guess I'm reading 'compiled' as 'code not subject to
> ;; > change'.
> ;;
> ;; Hmmm. An interesting definition for a language with dynamic typing and
> ;; garbage collection. How imutable is this `not subject to change?' and
> ;; what happens if you have code that in itself calls compile?
>
> I dunno. I guess I'm fuzzy on the concepts here. Which is why I ask
> the questions.
Sure. (I'm probably just being smart and, as my dad often told me,
nobody likes a smartarse.)
I have now read this and thought about this a little bit and FWIW my
rather muddled take is: Common lisp is really powerful in many ways. One
of which being that you can in a running lisp modify and evaluate a new
function and the next time the function is called the new ernie is run
and it *doesn't* matter if the function is compiled or not. I think you
can break things -- like if the new function is broken -- but otherwise
you should be fine.
Do this in c or c++ -- even using shared libraries -- or perl and then
you then get to run `find . -name core -exec rm {} \;' unless you are
running windows in which case you could get to cycle the power. Although
maybe this is due to my hamfisted programming.
There are some wrinkles to do with macros which are being discussed
elsewhere on c.l.l. Probably at this very moment.
> Or maybe it's me... the bulk of my experience with Lisp, to date, is
> with the Symbolics Virtual Lisp Machine running on Alphas.
Cool. (sigh). Wish I had...
> My understanding is that you could do this only because the code was
> not compiled and that, in fact, compiling would interrupt this cycle
> because it changed the structure of the data.
Since I don't know enough -- or is that anything -- about Symbolics I
couldn't say but this is not my experience of common lisp.
> I've always thought that the interpreter was simply 'stopped' at
> one level of recursion and that the debugger was simply a means of
> stepping throught the levels of recursion.
What is puzzling me is the use of recursion in this context. If you were
talking about, say, stack frames and you were moving up or down these
stack grames it would sit more happily with what I think goes on. Again
I don't know how symbolics work.
:)w
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3fzv4viif.fsf@cley.com>
* Petr Swedock wrote:
> What does this mean for the "Lisp code *is* Lisp data" paradigm?
Lisp *source* code is structured data with a structure that is
standardized.
> It
> seems to me that 'compiled Lisp code isn't Lisp data'... Compiled code
> is then an object to be used, yes, but not quite in the same manner, I
> think. I guess I'm reading 'compiled' as 'code not subject to
> change'. I dunno if that's a worthy, or even worthwhile, distinction
> to be made.
Compiled code is also Lisp data, may also be structured (other than
being a sequence of words), but that structure is not standardized.
The only operation defined on a function is to call it (this isn't
true - you can also ask for (and may get) its lambda expression, as
well as various operations common to all objects such as asking them
their type &c).
--tim
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| I've been told that Lisp IS an interpreted language!
| Now I'm even more confused.
This may be a turning point in your life. In some ways you have been
lucky, but you have mostly been unlucky. Your first brush with a lie can
be a riveting experience. When you first notice that somebody was less
than truthful, outright misleading, or even told you something that was
hurtful to you, many questions arise in your mind. Why would anyone lie?
The sad answer is that people have no reason to lie. People get a reason
to tell the truth and to spend time and effort to find things out when
they discover that doing so has even greater benefits in society than to
lie and cheat, but the history of mankind has generally been about not
telling the truth. Why would anyone pass on a myth that they could not
back up by fact? Sadly, again, they have no reason to do this: it is the
prevailing default behavior. People do not generally think unless they
have been shown the great benefits of thinking. It has actually happened
that people have become the president of very large countries without
realizing the benefits of thinking. Thinking is hard work. Sorting true
from false is hard work. If this is your first experience of a lie, of
people who only parrot what they have heard unthinkingly, of people who
have not yet experienced the great benefits of telling the truth and of
thinking about what they say, I almost envy you, but only /after/ I spent
so much time agonizing over /why/ people would lie and only /after/ I saw
that people lie all the time and they do not have any reason to do so.
Lying is the default human action. Telling things how you want them to
be (without being particularly conscious of it) is much /easier/ than
getting up every morning to spend the whole day making enemies with
others because you want to know the truth and they want to tell lies.
So be not confused. Many things you have been told have been lies. In
fact, most of what you have been told should really have turned out to be
wrong if you acted on what you had been told and checked to see if things
developed as they would have if what you were told had been true. This
takes time and effort, but so many more interesting things happen when
you make that effort.
If you want to know what is true about Lisp, just watch this newsgroup.
People who tell lies and spread misinformation are quickly corrected, and
if you hang around long enough, almost all the lies will be debunked and
what you have left is a pretty good approximation to the truth. But just
as in life in general, even most people here will not have thought very
carefully about everything they say and will repeat myths and confusions
in the service of maintaining a consensus of views, which is very useful,
even when the consensus thus built is based on misrepresentations. The
only result of wanting to debunk all the myths is that people think you
are out to start trouble and will invent all sorts of stupid lies to tell
about you, instead, so the price one pays for wanting the most correct
technical environment is one where a lot of people who do not care about
the truth when it does not serve their immediate needs will tell lies
about something non-technical. Note how many discussions in this
newsgroup are all about people telling stories about me. This is a
pretty good indication that I have exposed them as liars and frauds and
careless people who tell stories instead of thinking and caring about the
truth. But at the very least they won't be telling lies about Lisp while
they tell lies about me. This means that the remainder of this newsgroup
is mostly true, and if it is technical, very likely the best answers you
can get. Still, do not /believe/ what you are told, think about it and
spend the time and effort to sort out the true from the false. We'll be
here to help debunk myth after myth and falsehood after falsehood.
So in a way, you are very lucky to have found us and it is good of you to
notice that what you have been told is wrong. Welcome to Common Lisp.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
The world rejoiced as arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
> In article <·············@dtpq.com>, ······@dtpq.com says...
>> >>>>> On 11 Oct 2002 10:25:35 -0400, Joe Marshall ("Joe") writes:
>>
>> Joe> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>> >> For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
>>
>> Joe> This isn't directed particularly at arien; about once a month someone
>> Joe> asks about compiling to an `executable' or `standalone executable'.
>>
>> Joe> What is this fascination with `executables'?
>>
>> I suspect it's because there is a popular myth that Lisp is an
>> "interpreted language", and that this would imply that execution
>> requires an "interpreter", and that this would be slow.
>> (Of course, about 30 years ago, that was mostly true!)
>>
>
> I've been told that Lisp IS an interpreted language! Now I'm even more
> confused.
Then you have been told wrongly.
Try to find an "interpreted" implementation of Common Lisp.
You won't, because there /isn't one./
/All/ Common Lisp implementations compile their code. Some (CLISP
being most notable) compile to bytecode, not native code.
But they /all/ compile the code.
Whomever told you that "Lisp is an interpreted language" is either
talking about facts a dozen years obsolete, thus indicating that they
are woefully ignorant, or they are outright lying. Neither option is
terribly flattering.
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@acm.org")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/finances.html
"If a word in the dictionary were misspelled, how would we know?"
-- Steven Wright
Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
> The world rejoiced as arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <·············@dtpq.com>, ······@dtpq.com says...
> >> >>>>> On 11 Oct 2002 10:25:35 -0400, Joe Marshall ("Joe") writes:
> >>
> >> Joe> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> >> >> For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
> >>
> >> Joe> This isn't directed particularly at arien; about once a month someone
> >> Joe> asks about compiling to an `executable' or `standalone executable'.
> >>
> >> Joe> What is this fascination with `executables'?
> >>
> >> I suspect it's because there is a popular myth that Lisp is an
> >> "interpreted language", and that this would imply that execution
> >> requires an "interpreter", and that this would be slow.
> >> (Of course, about 30 years ago, that was mostly true!)
> >>
> >
> > I've been told that Lisp IS an interpreted language! Now I'm even more
> > confused.
>
> Then you have been told wrongly.
>
> Try to find an "interpreted" implementation of Common Lisp.
>
> You won't, because there /isn't one./
>
> /All/ Common Lisp implementations compile their code. Some (CLISP
> being most notable) compile to bytecode, not native code.
>
> But they /all/ compile the code.
Careful, here; let's not go the opposite direction away from the truth.
I uunderstand what you're intention is, here, but on the face of it,
it isn't accurate.
All CL implementations _can_ compile their code. This is by definition,
since CL defines the compiler. And some CL implementations compile
their code by default; i.e. if you say (defun foo (x) (bar x)) at
the toplevel, you get a compiled function. But this is not a
requirement, and not all CL implementations compile their code by
default.
> Whomever told you that "Lisp is an interpreted language" is either
> talking about facts a dozen years obsolete, thus indicating that they
> are woefully ignorant, or they are outright lying. Neither option is
> terribly flattering.
I agree with this part.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ufzv6i51s.fsf@dtpq.com>
>>>>> On 16 Oct 2002 14:59:07 GMT, Christopher Browne ("Christopher") writes:
Christopher> Whomever told you that "Lisp is an interpreted language" is either
Christopher> talking about facts a dozen years obsolete,
A lot longer ago than a dozen years: try "more than three decades" ago!
arien wrote:
> > I suspect it's because there is a popular myth that Lisp is an
> > "interpreted language", and that this would imply that execution
> > requires an "interpreter", and that this would be slow.
> > (Of course, about 30 years ago, that was mostly true!)
> I've been told that Lisp IS an interpreted language! Now I'm even more
> confused.
Very few languages as such are either interpreted or compiled; their
implementations may be. Major Lisp implementations have had compilers
for a long time (someone mentioned Lisp 1.5 having a compiler; I
wouldn't know: I started with MacLisp, which had one, about 20 years
ago.)
Many people see Lisp's interactive programming environment, and
automatically assume that it needs to be interpreted. While most of
those are, there are some implementations (at least Macintosh Common
Lisp, IIRC) without interpreters: it just compiles any code written by
the user on-the-fly, and executes the compiled code.
Generally, the current style in using CL on those implementations that
have both a compiler and an interpreter is to run mostly compiled code:
interpreted code is mostly only the trivial stuff written on the command
line, or when needing better debugging information that you get from
compiled code.
--
Martti Halminen <···············@kolumbus.fi> writes:
> those are, there are some implementations (at least Macintosh Common
> Lisp, IIRC) without interpreters: it just compiles any code written by
> the user on-the-fly, and executes the compiled code.
This is probably only confusing in the current thread, but anyway:
MCL does in fact have an interpreter, but AFAIR you have to set at
least two flags in order to make it crawl out of its hiding place.
With standard MCL environment configuration, your description is
accurate.
--
(espen)
arien wrote in message ...
>I've been told that Lisp IS an interpreted language! Now I'm even more
>confused.
If they were insulting Lisp, as in "Lisp is interpreted hence slow", they
were wrong.
If they were complimenting Lisp, as in "I type in a form, hit RETURN, it
runs!", they were right.
Lispers also talk about a REPL, or 'read-evaluate-print loop'. In
casualspeak, being "interpreted" often is used to describe a language
implementation having such a thing. What is going on behind the scenes may
in fact be compilation, as with MCL which (out of the box) quickly
compiles/executes the form one types.
So the safest way to compliment Lisp is to say it has a REPL.
kenny
clinisys
"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> arien wrote in message ...
> >I've been told that Lisp IS an interpreted language! Now I'm even more
> >confused.
>
> If they were insulting Lisp, as in "Lisp is interpreted hence slow", they
> were wrong.
>
> If they were complimenting Lisp, as in "I type in a form, hit RETURN, it
> runs!", they were right.
>
> Lispers also talk about a REPL, or 'read-evaluate-print loop'. In
> casualspeak, being "interpreted" often is used to describe a language
> implementation having such a thing. What is going on behind the scenes may
> in fact be compilation, as with MCL which (out of the box) quickly
> compiles/executes the form one types.
>
> So the safest way to compliment Lisp is to say it has a REPL.
A more generalized term to use, and in my opinion just as
complimentary, might be "interactive".
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
On 11 Oct 2002 10:25:35 -0400, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
>> For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
>
>This isn't directed particularly at arien; about once a month someone
>asks about compiling to an `executable' or `standalone executable'.
>
>What is this fascination with `executables'?
for someone who come from, say, the C world, the only way to get a
"hello world" to display is to compile the source into and executable
and then run it by typing it's name. When I first started programming
(first lang. C), getting the code to compile and getting a running
executable made me more happy than getting it to do what I wanted it
to. But of course this was only in the beginning... '-)
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, quasi <·········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2002 10:25:35 -0400, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
>>arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
>>
>>This isn't directed particularly at arien; about once a month someone
>>asks about compiling to an `executable' or `standalone executable'.
>>
>>What is this fascination with `executables'?
>
> for someone who come from, say, the C world, the only way to get a
> "hello world" to display is to compile the source into and executable
> and then run it by typing it's name. When I first started programming
> (first lang. C), getting the code to compile and getting a running
> executable made me more happy than getting it to do what I wanted it
> to. But of course this was only in the beginning... '-)
This is actually /not/ true.
It is /not/ the only way to get "hello, world!" to display.
There have been numerous C interpreters implemented, including CINT,
CH, and EiC. (EiC is the most ambitious one; it appears to have
recently gone AWOL.)
People don't commonly use them, but it's as true that there "are no C
interpreters" as it is that "Common Lisp is an interpreted language."
(Which is to say that the correct response is: "Nonsense!")
It seems to me that in a lot of cases, people would be better off
using a C interpreter instead of some of the shell scripting
languages; it provides the not inconsiderable merit that they could
readily move to a compiled application should that prove necessary...
[I know the author of a shell language called "BUSH" that's basically
a subset of Ada; part of the express intent of it is to allow users
work in a language that doesn't forcibly need them to do a complete
rewrite when it turns out that a "quick script" has to be turned into
a "real application."]
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ··········@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/
A student, in hopes of understanding the Lambda-nature, came to
Greenblatt. As they spoke a Multics system hacker walked by. "Is it
true", asked the student, "that PL-1 has many of the same data types
as Lisp?" Almost before the student had finished his question,
Greenblatt shouted, "FOO!", and hit the student with a stick.
From: Friedrich Dominicus
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <87it08ce8v.fsf@fbigm.here>
Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, quasi <·········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 11 Oct 2002 10:25:35 -0400, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> >>
> >>> For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
> >>
> >>This isn't directed particularly at arien; about once a month someone
> >>asks about compiling to an `executable' or `standalone executable'.
> >>
> >>What is this fascination with `executables'?
> >
> > for someone who come from, say, the C world, the only way to get a
> > "hello world" to display is to compile the source into and executable
> > and then run it by typing it's name. When I first started programming
> > (first lang. C), getting the code to compile and getting a running
> > executable made me more happy than getting it to do what I wanted it
> > to. But of course this was only in the beginning... '-)
>
> This is actually /not/ true.
exactly.
It's nonsense as it is to say Lisp is an interpreted language.
You can use e.g Cint as you C/C++ Interpreter, and it works quite
nicely.
Regards
Friedrich
On 12 Oct 2002 01:45:36 GMT, Christopher Browne <········@acm.org>
wrote:
>>
>> for someone who come from, say, the C world, the only way to get a
>> "hello world" to display is to compile the source into and executable
>> and then run it by typing it's name. When I first started programming
>> (first lang. C), getting the code to compile and getting a running
>> executable made me more happy than getting it to do what I wanted it
>> to. But of course this was only in the beginning... '-)
>
>This is actually /not/ true.
>
>It is /not/ the only way to get "hello, world!" to display.
I was inaccurate in my post. I overlooked adding "like me". When I
was first introduced to a PC it was a 386 running MSDOS and Turbo C.
I did not know what Lisp was and I did not know what google was. I
did not have internet access till 2 years later and that too for about
once a week for 15 minutes to check email for the next year.
/No/ one in my personal contact who programmed in C has started with
an interpreter or has used one (I live in Mumbai, India). This does
/not/ say that there are no interpreters. That was not what I wanted
to convey.
*sigh* - All I was saying was that there /are/ people like me. And
those are the reasons for "the facination".
>
>[ some very interesting information ]
regards
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/
Joe Marshall wrote:
> What is this fascination with `executables'?
That is a very good question. I was going to say something smarmy like
"When all a man has is a UNIX, everything looks like an executable...", but
I stopped myself when I realized that almost all OS's out there have this
odd fascination with the concept. In the fundamental sense, an executable
is simply a proxy for a stopped process - and not a very good one at that.
There's a huge amount of work in turning the executable back into a running
process, it doesn't save any state, so you have to reload that, too, and in
the end, it's a holdover from when disk sizes were small and whose
usefulness has come to an end. But, then, so are a lot of the dumb things
in computers.
faa
In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, ···@ccs.neu.edu says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> > For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
>
> This isn't directed particularly at arien; about once a month someone
> asks about compiling to an `executable' or `standalone executable'.
>
> What is this fascination with `executables'?
>
>
>
I don't have a fascination with executables, I just don't understand any
other way to do it. For example, although I've been learning Java, I
have not understood how the programs could be deployed.
For example, I have never downloaded a program (say, from Tucows), that
wasn't delivered as an executable.
So to add another question, how are programs such as Microsoft Office
deployed? Are these considered executables (even though there is more
than 1 file)? Does anyone know what language the programs in Office are
written in?
(please don't start bashing Microsoft! I will totally and absolutely
agree with any MS bashing. I am just using this as an example)
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
"arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> This is not really what I'm asking about. I'm not talking about the
> specific syntax etc, I'm referring to what the language acheives. For
> starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable. In Lisp is it
> possible to create a UI?
If you want an example of a executable with a GUI. I wrote a Windows
based running log program.
See http://www3.telus.net/public/whumeniu/runnerslog-140.exe
Manual at
http://www3.telus.net/public/whumeniu/Manual.html
It is written with Xanalys's LispWorks for Windows 4.1.20
Delivery level 5
Download and run it, you can check on many things,
the size of the executable, speed, gui capabilities.
Wade
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 08:04:49 +0930, arien
<·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
>For starters, Lisp is not compiled into an executable.
for some information on this you may want to check out
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/compiled-lisp.html
It has some material and examples from a previous thread on cll.
cheers!
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/
arien wrote:
> I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni, and I'm
> wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly simple terms), why
> (and how) lisp differs from standard programming languages such as C++.
> I think I sort of get the idea. Lisp is an AI language for starters, and
> it is based on logic, but after that I'm lost. I just need a bit more of
> an in depth (not TOO deep) explaination as to why this is so.
Hi Arien,
It's a good idea to compare a language to other languages in order to
quickly get an impression of the main concepts and features. It is
folklore that Lisp is an AI language, but it's not true. It is in fact a
general purpose language - it does have some nice features that make it
suitable for AI, but it's not at all focused only on this domain.
You might want to take a look at http://www.lisp.org/table/compare.htm
for some language comparisons that involve Lisp. I have also found
http://www.lisp.org/table/objects.htm to be very helpful in order to get
a quick overview of what Lisp is all about.
I think it's a great opportunity to be able to learn Lisp - that doesn't
happen so often nowadays. Lisp is a very exciting language. Have fun!
Pascal
--
Given any rule, however �fundamental� or �necessary� for science, there
are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the
rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni, and I'm
| wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly simple terms), why
| (and how) lisp differs from standard programming languages such as C++.
FYI: Common Lisp is a standard programming language.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no says...
> * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> | I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni, and I'm
> | wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly simple terms), why
> | (and how) lisp differs from standard programming languages such as C++.
>
> FYI: Common Lisp is a standard programming language.
>
>
Ah, you see this I didn't know. Since the only languages I know are Java
(and I've seen a little C++), I can't get my head around the difference.
I'm starting to get an idea, and thanks for everyone's input. What I
still find hard to grasp, is normally when you distribute a program, you
distribute the executables. So how would you distribute a program
created in Lisp?
Also, as I asked in another post above, can lisp create a UI? Or would
you use something like C++ for the UI, and then that runs the lisp code?
Lastly, I show some sample lisp code, that I had written, to a friend
and he responded that it looked like a Low Level Lanuage. Could someone
tell me 1) if this is true, and 2) The difference between High Level and
Low Level languages?
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no says...
> > * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> > | I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni, and I'm
> > | wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly simple terms), why
> > | (and how) lisp differs from standard programming languages such as C++.
> >
> > FYI: Common Lisp is a standard programming language.
> >
> >
>
> Ah, you see this I didn't know. Since the only languages I know are Java
> (and I've seen a little C++), I can't get my head around the difference.
> I'm starting to get an idea, and thanks for everyone's input. What I
> still find hard to grasp, is normally when you distribute a program, you
> distribute the executables. So how would you distribute a program
> created in Lisp?
As source. As an executable.
distributing the executables is done, but is not the only, or even
the most popular, method. This is more often a 'supply-side' issue
as the code writer often will establish the efficacy of the binary
on his/her favorite platform only and then release the src to the
wild for others to compile on their favorite platforms.
> Also, as I asked in another post above, can lisp create a UI? Or would
> you use something like C++ for the UI, and then that runs the lisp code?
You can do anything in Lisp you can do in Java or C/C++, or what have
you. It's a full language.
> Lastly, I show some sample lisp code, that I had written, to a friend
> and he responded that it looked like a Low Level Lanuage. Could someone
> tell me 1) if this is true, and 2) The difference between High Level and
> Low Level languages?
In my experience (admittedly grossly underwhelming when compared to
others here... =-) Lisp doesn't fit into those categories: older
Lisps, for example, were made to manipulate everything from
'lower-level' assembler instructions to very abstract 'higher-level'
stuff. I don't think that practice is as prevelant today because,
back then, the Lisps were implemented only on specific hardware with-
out a view to portability.
Peace,
Petr
In article <··············@blade-runner.mit.edu>, ····@blade-
runner.mit.edu says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> > In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no says...
> > > * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> > > | I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni, and I'm
> > > | wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly simple terms), why
> > > | (and how) lisp differs from standard programming languages such as C++.
> > >
> > > FYI: Common Lisp is a standard programming language.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Ah, you see this I didn't know. Since the only languages I know are Java
> > (and I've seen a little C++), I can't get my head around the difference.
> > I'm starting to get an idea, and thanks for everyone's input. What I
> > still find hard to grasp, is normally when you distribute a program, you
> > distribute the executables. So how would you distribute a program
> > created in Lisp?
>
> As source. As an executable.
>
> distributing the executables is done, but is not the only, or even
> the most popular, method. This is more often a 'supply-side' issue
> as the code writer often will establish the efficacy of the binary
> on his/her favorite platform only and then release the src to the
> wild for others to compile on their favorite platforms.
>
> > Also, as I asked in another post above, can lisp create a UI? Or would
> > you use something like C++ for the UI, and then that runs the lisp code?
>
> You can do anything in Lisp you can do in Java or C/C++, or what have
> you. It's a full language.
>
> > Lastly, I show some sample lisp code, that I had written, to a friend
> > and he responded that it looked like a Low Level Lanuage. Could someone
> > tell me 1) if this is true, and 2) The difference between High Level and
> > Low Level languages?
>
> In my experience (admittedly grossly underwhelming when compared to
> others here... =-) Lisp doesn't fit into those categories: older
> Lisps, for example, were made to manipulate everything from
> 'lower-level' assembler instructions to very abstract 'higher-level'
> stuff. I don't think that practice is as prevelant today because,
> back then, the Lisps were implemented only on specific hardware with-
> out a view to portability.
>
> Peace,
>
> Petr
>
>
hmmmm, I can see I still have a lot to learn.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> > Peace,
> >
> > Petr
> >
> >
>
> hmmmm, I can see I still have a lot to learn.
As do we all.
Peace,
Petr
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| What I still find hard to grasp, is normally when you distribute a
| program, you distribute the executables.
But executables do not live in a void. You cannot get an executable that
runs under Windows and Linux despite running on the same hardware once
booted with the appropriate system, or on the Wintendo platform and on
the Solaris platform despite being written in languages available on
both. There is a persistent myth about "standalone" executables that is
fairly strongly counter-indicated by incompatible operating systems, and
in the C++ world, you even need the exact same compiler to make things
work with distributed shared libraries. (One version of the semipopular
DeadRat Linux distribution actually used a very particular version of gcc
that did funny things so that you could not compile C++ programs on other
Linux systems and have them run on DeadRat systems.) So you cannot just
distribute executables. It is a myth. Better shed it now or hurt later.
| So how would you distribute a program created in Lisp?
You distribute something that will run in the environment your users have
already installed, possibly mere minutes prior to installing your program
in whatever form they may take. This is really a non-issue. If you ask
whether a Common Lisp program can run on the bare metal, the answer is
No. If you ask whether it can run with only "standard" libraries, you
have to compare that with other languages, and you will find that Common
Lisp is no different from any other language in this regard: No. To be
able to run with only operating-system-supplied shared libraries, your
program really has to be part of that operating system. Some Unix and
Windows programs have that function. It is not common to write "hello,
world" programs in Common Lisp like it is in C/C++ and Common Lisp
environments are therefore not optimized very heavily for this task.
| Also, as I asked in another post above, can lisp create a UI?
Well, we have not quite developed our artificial intelligence systems
that far, yet. You still need a programmer to create a user interface.
If the Common Lisp programmer is well versed in user interfaces, then he
would use Common Lisp to create the user interface, too. Please note
that several of the Common Lisp environments include interface builders
that alleviate some of the tedium of writing user interfaces. Those who
like that kind of thing will find them the kind of thing they like.
| Or would you use something like C++ for the UI, and then that runs the
| lisp code?
Java has positioned itself as very useful tool in this regard. People
have also found HTML and web pages to be a convenient vehicle.
| Lastly, I show some sample lisp code, that I had written, to a friend and
| he responded that it looked like a Low Level Lanuage. Could someone tell
| me 1) if this is true, and 2) The difference between High Level and Low
| Level languages?
I think you should ask yourself why you trust your friend's opinion and
ask him what he means by it. You could, for instance, have written very
low-level code and your friend may have been polite about who is to blame
for that. Some people here think that being polite is all the rage, but
I am not generally of that opinion as it tends to make people believe
they have not made serious mistakes even when the intended message is
that they have.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> Linux systems and have them run on DeadRat systems.) So you cannot just
> distribute executables. It is a myth. Better shed it now or hurt later.
I guess the closest the world has been to really "selfcontained
executables" were DOS games a few years ago. Probably MS won a lot
of market share because DOS was so bad (that game developers had to
and could create their own runtime environments running on the "bare
metal")...
> No. If you ask whether it can run with only "standard" libraries, you
> have to compare that with other languages, and you will find that Common
> Lisp is no different from any other language in this regard: No.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here.. When I produce executables for
Win* with lisp they are "standalone" modulo a standard Windows
install. No libraries needed except for those that come with Windows
(versions 98 to XP) out of the box. (The linux version of the same
program is a little more demanding, it requires a minimum libc version
and that Motif must be present. But that's about all, I think).
--
(espen)
From: Erik Winkels
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <871y6xw3rn.fsf@xs4all.nl>
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> wrote:
>
> I guess the closest the world has been to really "selfcontained
> executables" were DOS games a few years ago.
And the products of the demoscene in the late 80s, early 90s. The OS
(at least on the Atari ST) didn't even get a chance to start up once
our demos were finished :-)
But I can hardly image that there weren't any selfcontained
executables before that time, though my memory on the history of
computing is not good enough to recall any, or did this need really
arise because of homecomputers and their shoddy operating systems?
Erik
>>>>> "EW" == Erik Winkels <·······@xs4all.nl> writes:
EW> But I can hardly image that there weren't any selfcontained
EW> executables before that time, though my memory on the history
EW> of computing is not good enough to recall any, or did this
EW> need really arise because of homecomputers and their shoddy
EW> operating systems?
I recall Bank Street Writer as one example of serious software that
did that. When you wanted to run it, you rebooted your computer, and
when you were done, you turned the computer off.
I think it had more to do with the fact that the operating systems on
the 8-bit micros were almost universally extremely primitive -- but at
the same time, they were small enough that you could grasp the entire
system and understand how it all worked together well enough to
replace it.
Charlton
In article <··························@news.adl.ihug.com.au>, arien wrote:
> In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no says...
>> * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
>> | I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni,
>> | and I'm wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly
>> | simple terms), why (and how) lisp differs from standard
>> | programming languages such as C++.
>>
>> FYI: Common Lisp is a standard programming language.
>
<snip>
> Also, as I asked in another post above, can lisp create a UI?
> Or would you use something like C++ for the UI, and then that
> runs the lisp code?
Yes, Lisp can create a UI. More concretely, many Common Lisp
implementations have functions to talk to X servers and other
graphics engines. For example, in a recent (possibly still
active) thread in this newsgroup, they discussed a web browser
written in Lisp.
> Lastly, I show some sample lisp code, that I had written, to a
> friend and he responded that it looked like a Low Level
> Lanuage. Could someone tell me 1) if this is true,
Yes, you friend did indeed respond that it looked, to him, like a
low level language. ;)
More seriously: You can interpret "low level language" in more
than one way.
From the "target applications" point of view: Common Lisp, like
C, Java, and other languages, can do bit twiddling, interact
directly with hardware, and do other "system" or "O/S" level
operations. It can also, like those other languages, do
large-scale application-level (or larger :) tasks. One often
finds, however, when *not* using Lisp, that one ends up
re-inventing bits and pieces of it, often badly.[1] In this
respect, I consider Lisp at least a little higher level than C,
C++, or Java, and probably more than a little.
From the "amount of code to perform a specific task" point of
view: You *can* do lots of intricate list processing to, say,
create a list, and (sadly) many instructors will have you do just
that in the name of getting a feel for the language. You *can*
do that, but you don't *have* to. Lisp provides many tools to
build the language up to your task, so that eventually, if you've
designed well and don't fear a little refactoring, you find
yourself writing your application in a custom-built, Lisp-like
language. In this respect, I consider Common Lisp a *much*
higher level language than C, C++, or Java.
Other interpretations probably exist.
By the way, why would you ask someone that doesn't know Lisp
their opinion of it?
> and 2) The difference between High Level and Low Level
> languages?
See above.
-- Larry Clapp
[1] The Lisp community even has a name for this phenomenon:
Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming
(http://philip.greenspun.com/research/): Any sufficiently
complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-
specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.
In article <·············@rabbit.ddts.net>, ·····@rabbit.ddts.net
says...
> In article <··························@news.adl.ihug.com.au>, arien wrote:
> > In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no says...
> >> * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> >> | I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni,
> >> | and I'm wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly
> >> | simple terms), why (and how) lisp differs from standard
> >> | programming languages such as C++.
> >>
> >> FYI: Common Lisp is a standard programming language.
> >
> <snip>
> > Also, as I asked in another post above, can lisp create a UI?
> > Or would you use something like C++ for the UI, and then that
> > runs the lisp code?
>
> Yes, Lisp can create a UI. More concretely, many Common Lisp
> implementations have functions to talk to X servers and other
> graphics engines. For example, in a recent (possibly still
> active) thread in this newsgroup, they discussed a web browser
> written in Lisp.
>
> > Lastly, I show some sample lisp code, that I had written, to a
> > friend and he responded that it looked like a Low Level
> > Lanuage. Could someone tell me 1) if this is true,
>
> Yes, you friend did indeed respond that it looked, to him, like a
> low level language. ;)
>
> More seriously: You can interpret "low level language" in more
> than one way.
>
> From the "target applications" point of view: Common Lisp, like
> C, Java, and other languages, can do bit twiddling, interact
> directly with hardware, and do other "system" or "O/S" level
> operations. It can also, like those other languages, do
> large-scale application-level (or larger :) tasks. One often
> finds, however, when *not* using Lisp, that one ends up
> re-inventing bits and pieces of it, often badly.[1] In this
> respect, I consider Lisp at least a little higher level than C,
> C++, or Java, and probably more than a little.
>
> From the "amount of code to perform a specific task" point of
> view: You *can* do lots of intricate list processing to, say,
> create a list, and (sadly) many instructors will have you do just
> that in the name of getting a feel for the language. You *can*
> do that, but you don't *have* to. Lisp provides many tools to
> build the language up to your task, so that eventually, if you've
> designed well and don't fear a little refactoring, you find
> yourself writing your application in a custom-built, Lisp-like
> language. In this respect, I consider Common Lisp a *much*
> higher level language than C, C++, or Java.
>
> Other interpretations probably exist.
>
> By the way, why would you ask someone that doesn't know Lisp
> their opinion of it?
>
> > and 2) The difference between High Level and Low Level
> > languages?
>
> See above.
>
> -- Larry Clapp
>
>
> [1] The Lisp community even has a name for this phenomenon:
> Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming
> (http://philip.greenspun.com/research/): Any sufficiently
> complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-
> specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.
>
>
No one has yet explained what the difference is between a High or Low
level language? This is why I'm confused!
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
In article <··························@news.adl.ihug.com.au>, arien wrote:
> In article <·············@rabbit.ddts.net>, ·····@rabbit.ddts.net says...
>> More seriously: You can interpret "low level language" in more
>> than one way.
>>
<snip>
>>
>> > and 2) The difference between High Level and Low Level
>> > languages?
>>
>> See above.
<snip>
>
> No one has yet explained what the difference is between a High
> or Low level language? This is why I'm confused!
Because no hard-and-fast definition of either exists.
You must grasp the central concept of levels and layers of
abstraction before any of the rest of it makes sense. What
central concepts does the language allow/force you to think
about?
You could call assembly language "low level" because it takes
many lines of code to do anything significant. Or because one
usually uses assembler to manipulate hardware directly.
You could call Lisp "high level" because it often takes very few
lines of code to do some pretty amazing things, or because people
often use Lisp in ways that don't deal directly with integers and
characters and so forth.
So-called "low level" languages often deal with entities (bits,
bytes, characters) and data structures (pointers, arrays) that
have very close similarities to objects the cpu can deal with
directly. They do not provide much in the way of layers of
abstraction, and force the programmer to think like a computer.
So-called "high level" languages often deal with entities
(symbols, properties, classes) and data structures (knowledge
representation maps, neural networks) that, while created from
and built upon the "lower level" entities, abstract away those
details and let the programmer focus on manipulating the
knowledge or training the neurons, rather than twiddling specific
bits here and there. They *do* provide a great deal in the way
of layers of abstraction, and allow the programmer to think in a
way appropriate to the problem domain.
Once you get some more experience with Java and, say, assembler
or C, you'll have a more personal understanding of "high level"
vs. "low level", and if you stick with Lisp (for example), you'll
see that one "high level" language can be higher level than
another.
Put it another way: If I told you that my house took this many
nails, this many pieces of wood, so many pounds of concrete, etc,
you might call that a very low level description. If I told you
my house had two bedrooms, a den, two bathrooms, a living room,
and a kitchen, you might call that a very high level description.
On the other hand, if you had to actually *build* the house,
knowing how many nails wouldn't cut it -- not by a long shot.
You'd need to know exactly what kinds of nails, and where they
went, and what inspections they had to pass. You'd need to know
exactly what kind of concrete to buy, how to mix it, and what
inspections *it* had to pass. And so forth.
Or, I might just say I have a two-bedroom in Florida.
The judgement of the "level" of anything matters only in relation
to the desired task, and what you compare it to.
-- Larry
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <it09dosw.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Larry Clapp <·····@rabbit.ddts.net> writes:
> You could call assembly language "low level" because it takes
> many lines of code to do anything significant. Or because one
> usually uses assembler to manipulate hardware directly.
But if your assembly *is* Lisp, this distinction disappears.
"arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
>
> No one has yet explained what the difference is between a High or Low
> level language? This is why I'm confused!
See link, its the best explanation (that can fit within a decent time frame)
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci211502,00.html
Lisp is generally 3GL, but with its higher capabilities it can be used
to create 4GL languages that fit within the s-exp syntax. I do not
think the definition of 5GL is accurate in the link (I do not think anyone
knows what a 5GL actually should be).
Sorry, nothing of any consequence can be explained before its time.
Wade
Wade Humeniuk wrote:
>
> "arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
> ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> >
> > No one has yet explained what the difference is between a High or Low
> > level language? This is why I'm confused!
>
> See link, its the best explanation (that can fit within a decent time frame)
>
> http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci211502,00.html
>
> Lisp is generally 3GL, but with its higher capabilities it can be used
> to create 4GL languages that fit within the s-exp syntax. I do not
> think the definition of 5GL is accurate in the link (I do not think anyone
> knows what a 5GL actually should be).
By definition, Prolog is the 5th generation language. And maybe
things like Sisal, Val and Id.
Generations were originally used for hardware only; we got up to
4th generation (valves, transistors, ICs, VLIC, dataflow).
Then the Japanese announced their 5th generation
project, with Prolog to run on the hardware (Lisp was obviously
unacceptable because it's American) and then various soi-disant
gurus decided to classify languages by them. 4th generation
languages seemed to form a clearly defined group of languages
designed to replace COBOL.
> Wade
Le Hibou
--
Dalinian: Lisp. Java. Which one sounds sexier?
RevAaron: Definitely Lisp. Lisp conjures up images of hippy coders,
drugs,
sex, and rock & roll. Late nights at Berkeley, coding in Lisp fueled by
LSD.
Java evokes a vision of a stereotypical nerd, with no life or social
skills.
"arien" wrote:
> No one has yet explained what the difference is between a High or Low
> level language? This is why I'm confused!
Alan Perlis, author of many epigrams related to computing,
once said: A language is low-level if it requires attention
to the irrelevant.
*
So, for instance, C++ is low-level because when you're
programming in C++ you need to concern yourself with
memory management; any time you create an object, you
need to know whose responsibility disposing of it is.
Some programming languages, like Common Lisp, provide
automatic memory management: objects get disposed of
once no one is using them any more, and the programmer
doesn't have to think about that.
C++'s memory management, in turn, is more automatic
than C's, because of all the neat things you can do
with constructors and destructors. So, in C++, you
can create objects of class "string" and pass them
around freely without worrying "whose job is it to
destroy this thing?"; and you can make something similar
happen with your own classes. You have more work to do
than in Common Lisp, but considerably less than in C;
C can't do this sort of thing at all.
Another C++/Lisp comparison: in C++ you have to be
aware of the sizes of the integers you're working with,
because integers just silently overflow when they get
too big. In C or C++ on a 32-bit machine,
1000000*1000000 == -727379968
which is, um, wrong. In Common Lisp, integers can get
really big; much larger than your computer's word size.
*
This definition of "low-level" makes low-level-ness
a matter of degree; *all* programming languages require
attention to stuff you'd prefer to think of as irrelevant.
It's also a matter of context. If you're writing a program
whose job is to solve logic problems of the kind they publish
in some magazines ("There are five houses in a row. Each
one is inhabited by a husband and wife, who keep three pets
and have two favourite artists. [...] Which pets are owned
by the couple whose favourite artists are Kandinsky and Tintoretto?")
then Prolog is a high-level language, because you can pretty much
express the problem directly in it, and Common Lisp would be
low-level because it forces you to be explicit about how you
want to search for the solution. But if you're writing a program
to play chess, then Prolog is low-level and Common Lisp is
high-level because Prolog doesn't offer the sort of searching
facilities you need and you have to hack them together from
rather inappropriate raw materials.
In a wide range of contexts, Common Lisp is higher-level
than C++ by this criterion. But surely not all contexts.
(For instance, if the majority of a project is interfacing
to someone else's code that's written in C++ then Common Lisp
will feel low-level because the interfacing is harder there.
In the short term, any language you don't know is low-level
because you have to keep reminding yourself of its syntax,
the contents of its standard library, and so on. That might
be why your friend said a piece of Lisp code looked low-level.
But this sort of low-level-ness goes away once you actually
use the language for a while.
--
Gareth McCaughan ················@pobox.com
.sig under construc
arien wrote:
> No one has yet explained what the difference is between a High or Low
> level language? This is why I'm confused!
High level languages allow you to write code without bothering
about how it runs on the hardware. Low level languages allow
you to get closer to the hardware at the expense of you having
to worry about how to represent things. A rough ordering of
some languages not so randomly selected would be:
Prolog > Lisp > Java > C > Assembly language.
C frees you from having to think about register allocation,
Java frees you from having to think about memory allocation
and cleanup, Lisp frees you from having to represent symbols,
or write code which manipulates them, Prolog frees you
from having to write code which does pattern matching or
backtracking.
> Mel
Le Hibou
--
Dalinian: Lisp. Java. Which one sounds sexier?
RevAaron: Definitely Lisp. Lisp conjures up images of hippy coders,
drugs,
sex, and rock & roll. Late nights at Berkeley, coding in Lisp fueled by
LSD.
Java evokes a vision of a stereotypical nerd, with no life or social
skills.
>
> Prolog > Lisp > Java > C > Assembly language.
Thankyou. That helps heaps. This example helps me realise where Lisp is
compared to the others. Prolog too, we are learning a little of that at
uni aswell, but only on paper. We don't have to program in it.
Adding in a few others I assume it would be like this:
Html > Prolog > Lisp > Java > C++ > Assembly?
correct me if I'm wrong.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> >
> > Prolog > Lisp > Java > C > Assembly language.
>
> Thankyou. That helps heaps. This example helps me realise where Lisp is
> compared to the others. Prolog too, we are learning a little of that at
> uni aswell, but only on paper. We don't have to program in it.
>
> Adding in a few others I assume it would be like this:
>
> Html > Prolog > Lisp > Java > C++ > Assembly?
>
> correct me if I'm wrong.
Well, HTML isn't really a programming language (except to the extent
that you can embed programming languages like Javascript into HTML
pages via the <script> tag) so it probably doesn't belong on this
list.
-Peter
P.S. Regarding the flamewar that has errupted elsewhere in this thread
vis a vis parens and why Lisp syntax is the way it is, I might
suggest--though I'm hardly a Lisp expert--that you read up on
defmacro. Once you become one with The Macro Way, it may become quite
clear why Lispers are so attached to the minimalistic, paren-rich
syntax of Lisp. Check out _On Lisp: Advanced Techniques for Common
Lisp_ by Paul Graham. It's out of print, I think, but available for
free from the author's web site[1]. It has quite a bit of explanation
of the power of Lisp macros. Think about that and then try writing a
source-code generator in Java and you may well find that Lisp and it's
syntax comes out on top by a wide margin. Or take a look at Dylan, a
language which is either (depending whom you ask) derived from or a
dialect of Lisp that (among other things) got rid of the parens. I
know even less about Dylan than I do about Lisp, but if you look at
what else had to change as a consequence of their desire to adopt a
more Algol-like syntax, you might get some insight into why Lisp
syntax is the way *it* is.
P.P.S. I *am*, as it turns out, fairly expert in Java--that's how I
make my living, so don't think that's comparison above is uninformed
Java bashing. It's *well*-informed Java bashing. ;-)
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisp.html.
--
Peter Seibel
·····@javamonkey.com
In article <··············@localhost.localdomain>,
Peter Seibel <·····@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> P.S. Regarding the flamewar that has errupted elsewhere in this thread
> vis a vis parens and why Lisp syntax is the way it is, I might
> suggest--though I'm hardly a Lisp expert--that you read up on
> defmacro. Once you become one with The Macro Way, it may become quite
> clear why Lispers are so attached to the minimalistic, paren-rich
> syntax of Lisp. Check out _On Lisp: Advanced Techniques for Common
> Lisp_ by Paul Graham. It's out of print, I think, but available for
> free from the author's web site[1]. It has quite a bit of explanation
> of the power of Lisp macros. Think about that and then try writing a
> source-code generator in Java and you may well find that Lisp and it's
> syntax comes out on top by a wide margin. Or take a look at Dylan, a
> language which is either (depending whom you ask) derived from or a
> dialect of Lisp that (among other things) got rid of the parens. I
> know even less about Dylan than I do about Lisp, but if you look at
> what else had to change as a consequence of their desire to adopt a
> more Algol-like syntax, you might get some insight into why Lisp
> syntax is the way *it* is.
I've got _On Lisp_ and I've done a decent amount of macro programming in
Dylan. As far as I can tell without actually having done it yet [1],
nearly every macro in _On Lisp_ can be implemented relatively easily in
Dylan.
Some which can't:
(defanaph alist) P221: creates an anaphoric version of list
The problem here is that the macro does some string processing to remove
the "a" from "alist" to obtain the name of the base function "list".
Dylan macros don't allow this. You can, however, paste tokens together
so you could instead do:
defanaph(list);
Other that can't be done in Dylan are read macros and symbol macros.
Neither of those is a consequence of getting rid of the parens -- they
simply don't happen to have been specified or implemented (yet?).
The same applies to "defanaph", for that matter.
-- Bruce
[1] it is my intention to put up a web page of Dylan translations of
some (eventually all) of the macros from _On Lisp_.
Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> writes:
> I've got _On Lisp_ and I've done a decent amount of macro
> programming in Dylan. As far as I can tell without actually having
> done it yet [1], nearly every macro in _On Lisp_ can be implemented
> relatively easily in Dylan.
Oh well, shows what I know. I'll have to actually learn something
about Dylan myself to understand if I was totally dreaming to think
that Lisp's syntax made macros easier or not. Okay, a quick web search
and a few minutes reading about D-expressions and my (obviously hasty)
take is that Lisp's syntax may have made it easy and relatively
obvious how to develop a powerful macro system--i.e. since the code
and data are of the same form it's easy to write code to generate data
that happens to be code. Then, given the existence of such a powerful
system with it's obvious advantages, it then becomes possible to
figure out how to extract the true kernel of goodness and apply it to
a language like Dylan who's syntax wouldn't, perhaps, have otherwise
lead to the development of that kind of macro system. Is that a crazy
interpretation?
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel
·····@javamonkey.com
In article <··············@localhost.localdomain>,
Peter Seibel <·····@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> writes:
>
> > I've got _On Lisp_ and I've done a decent amount of macro
> > programming in Dylan. As far as I can tell without actually having
> > done it yet [1], nearly every macro in _On Lisp_ can be implemented
> > relatively easily in Dylan.
>
> Oh well, shows what I know. I'll have to actually learn something
> about Dylan myself to understand if I was totally dreaming to think
> that Lisp's syntax made macros easier or not. Okay, a quick web search
> and a few minutes reading about D-expressions and my (obviously hasty)
> take is that Lisp's syntax may have made it easy and relatively
> obvious how to develop a powerful macro system--i.e. since the code
> and data are of the same form it's easy to write code to generate data
> that happens to be code. Then, given the existence of such a powerful
> system with it's obvious advantages, it then becomes possible to
> figure out how to extract the true kernel of goodness and apply it to
> a language like Dylan who's syntax wouldn't, perhaps, have otherwise
> lead to the development of that kind of macro system. Is that a crazy
> interpretation?
I could probably go along with that.
S-expressions parsed into lists certainly make it easy to get started
with powerful macros. It seems to me, though, that more comples ones
pretty quickly start to get a bit harder with all the extra analysis
code needed and it would be good to have some standard library
functionality to help with that. See Baker's "Meta" paper [1] for
comments relevant to the closely related topic of parsing, showing how a
very small language can make recursive-descent parsing code a lot
clearer. I think Dylan's macro pattern matching sublanguage helps in
the same way. It dosn't make the trivial things any easier, and it
can't handle every possible thing you might want to do on the really
complex end, but for a large number of things of middling complexity it
makes the job easier. As does Meta. (We've got a Dylan implementation
of Meta, and I've been using it and tweaking it quite a bit lately)
Dylan is a bit harder to parse than CL, but perhaps not as *much* harder
as you think. Most of the syntax that you see is in fact just a bunch
of macros implemented in the standard library using the same facilities
available to end users. Instead of one type of delimiter, "(" and ")"
(and quotes for strings), Dylan has () and [] and {}, each of which must
be properly paired in any given code fragment. There are also three
syntaxes for macros:
define foo ... end // definition macro, only at top level
foo ... end // statement macro e.g. if, while
foo() // function macro
You do need to see the declaration for foo to classify it into one of
these three before you know how to find the end of that macro invocation
[2], but once you've seen it it's nearly as easy to do a rough parse as
in Lisp. Not *as* easy, but only maybe four or five times more code in
terms of volume and not that much more tricky. Cetainly *far* easier
than parsing C++ or the like.
-- Bruce
[1] http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/Prag-Parse.html
[2] this is the case mainly because of a (IMHO) silly decision on the
part of Dylan's designers to enclose the conditions in if/while/for in
(), as in C/C++/Java/Perl, rather than using a keyword such as "then" or
"do" to delimit that expression. This means you can't tell whether
"foo()" is a complete macro call unless you know whether foo is a
function macro or a statement macro.
Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> writes:
> In article <··············@localhost.localdomain>,
> Peter Seibel <·····@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> > Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> writes:
> >
> > > I've got _On Lisp_ and I've done a decent amount of macro
> > > programming in Dylan. As far as I can tell without actually having
> > > done it yet [1], nearly every macro in _On Lisp_ can be implemented
> > > relatively easily in Dylan.
> >
> > Oh well, shows what I know. I'll have to actually learn something
> > about Dylan myself to understand if I was totally dreaming to think
> > that Lisp's syntax made macros easier or not. Okay, a quick web search
> > and a few minutes reading about D-expressions and my (obviously hasty)
> > take is that Lisp's syntax may have made it easy and relatively
> > obvious how to develop a powerful macro system--i.e. since the code
> > and data are of the same form it's easy to write code to generate data
> > that happens to be code. Then, given the existence of such a powerful
> > system with it's obvious advantages, it then becomes possible to
> > figure out how to extract the true kernel of goodness and apply it to
> > a language like Dylan who's syntax wouldn't, perhaps, have otherwise
> > lead to the development of that kind of macro system. Is that a crazy
> > interpretation?
>
> I could probably go along with that.
>
> S-expressions parsed into lists certainly make it easy to get started
> with powerful macros. It seems to me, though, that more comples ones
> pretty quickly start to get a bit harder with all the extra analysis
> code needed and it would be good to have some standard library
> functionality to help with that. See Baker's "Meta" paper [1] for
> comments relevant to the closely related topic of parsing, showing how a
> very small language can make recursive-descent parsing code a lot
> clearer.
When CL is dealing with CL, parsing is not necessary. When CL is parsing
other languages, then a parser is required.
> I think Dylan's macro pattern matching sublanguage helps in
> the same way. It dosn't make the trivial things any easier, and it
> can't handle every possible thing you might want to do on the really
> complex end, but for a large number of things of middling complexity it
> makes the job easier. As does Meta. (We've got a Dylan implementation
> of Meta, and I've been using it and tweaking it quite a bit lately)
You can use or write your own parsing language in CL (CL is excellent for
writing other languages), but when doing CL in CL, there is no parsing
necessary. Parsing problems then become simply a matter of external
applications, just like building a CAD system or a phone switch (neither
of which either CL or Dylan have inherently).
In fact, the lack of a particular philosophy on parsing leaves
programmers free to define their own parsing algorithms, without
having to fight the built-in notions of parsing defined by and for
the language.
> Dylan is a bit harder to parse than CL, but perhaps not as *much* harder
> as you think. Most of the syntax that you see is in fact just a bunch
> of macros implemented in the standard library using the same facilities
> available to end users. Instead of one type of delimiter, "(" and ")"
> (and quotes for strings), Dylan has () and [] and {}, each of which must
> be properly paired in any given code fragment. There are also three
> syntaxes for macros:
>
> define foo ... end // definition macro, only at top level
> foo ... end // statement macro e.g. if, while
> foo() // function macro
>
> You do need to see the declaration for foo to classify it into one of
> these three before you know how to find the end of that macro invocation
> [2], but once you've seen it it's nearly as easy to do a rough parse as
> in Lisp. Not *as* easy, but only maybe four or five times more code in
> terms of volume and not that much more tricky. Cetainly *far* easier
> than parsing C++ or the like.
Three different syntaxes? Four or five times more code? And you call
this relatively easy in Dylan?
Oh, right - this thread is Lisp vs C++, and Dylan wins wrt C++. OK.
I'll stick with CL.
[I have always liked Dylan, and appreciate the many CL-like qualities
that it has. I can even forgive some of the Scheme-like qualities it
also carries. But the major thing that caused me to reject further work
and research on Dylan was its philosophy on syntax and macros; they
originally had had a lisp syntax and an algol-like syntax, and they
consciously removed the lisp syntax and rejected structural macros
for textual ones.]
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> writes:
> S-expressions parsed into lists certainly make it easy to get started
> with powerful macros. It seems to me, though, that more comples ones
> pretty quickly start to get a bit harder with all the extra analysis
> code needed and it would be good to have some standard library
Typically, analysis code is not needed. Lisp macros lack any built-in
pattern matching facility other than macro lambda lists and
DESTRUCTURING-BIND, but more analysis is only needed if the macro
implements complex syntax. Dylan macros need to support the language's
complex syntax, Lisp macros get away with a much simpler mechanism.
(A prominent exception is the extended LOOP macro, of course. Note that
Dylan's `for' macro is quite powerful, despite being just a
stripped-down version of LOOP with little more than FOR clauses. In my
view, it is more `Lisp-like' than LOOP. Missing features like the
COLLECT clause can be implemented separately without adding yet another
non-iteration feature to the iteration macro. `Keep It Simple Stupid'.)
[...]
> clearer. I think Dylan's macro pattern matching sublanguage helps in
> the same way. It dosn't make the trivial things any easier, and it
> can't handle every possible thing you might want to do on the really
> complex end, but for a large number of things of middling complexity it
A macro needs to do more than just destructuring the input tokens or
expressions. It has to transform them, and that is where Dylan macros,
being non-procedural, are hard to use.
The problem is not with patterns, which nicely solve the pattern
matching problem (I am all in agreement with you when it comes to the
utility of sub-languages, which are at the heart of Lisp's mindset), but
with templates, which just are not a sufficient replacement for code.
> makes the job easier. As does Meta. (We've got a Dylan implementation
> of Meta, and I've been using it and tweaking it quite a bit lately)
Meta is easier to implement in Lisp than in Dylan.
> Dylan is a bit harder to parse than CL, but perhaps not as *much* harder
> as you think. Most of the syntax that you see is in fact just a bunch
> of macros implemented in the standard library using the same facilities
> available to end users. Instead of one type of delimiter, "(" and ")"
> (and quotes for strings), Dylan has () and [] and {}, each of which must
> be properly paired in any given code fragment. There are also three
Note that something as basic as Dylan's `let' is a built-in feature,
because it cannot be implemented as a macro. (A Lisp-like LET could be
done as a Dylan macro, but Dylan designers chose to add a feature that
their macro system cannot handle. It looks like a workaround to me
anyway.)
Learning Lisp macros is non-trivial only in that it requires an
understanding of the basics of reader, compiler, and their interaction.
After learning these basics, I never had any trouble with Lisp macros.
By contrast, I have never bothered to understand Dylan macros,
`learning' by trial and error instead. Perhaps I will sit down and
(re-)read the DRM and Gwydion Dylan macro code at some point, and that
would be the only way to avoid future trouble with Dylan macros, but I
really do not know why I would _want_ to do that. For example, I have
not replied to your question in a recent check-in message yet, which
asks why I put parens around a certain pattern. The point is: Perhaps
it was needed, perhaps not. I have no idea.
In article <···············@vanilla.rz.fhtw-berlin.de>,
David Lichteblau <···········@lichteblau.com> wrote:
> Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> writes:
>
> > S-expressions parsed into lists certainly make it easy to get started
> > with powerful macros. It seems to me, though, that more comples ones
> > pretty quickly start to get a bit harder with all the extra analysis
> > code needed and it would be good to have some standard library
>
> Typically, analysis code is not needed. Lisp macros lack any built-in
> pattern matching facility other than macro lambda lists and
> DESTRUCTURING-BIND, but more analysis is only needed if the macro
> implements complex syntax. Dylan macros need to support the language's
> complex syntax, Lisp macros get away with a much simpler mechanism.
>
> (A prominent exception is the extended LOOP macro, of course.
And of course that is the example I was thinking of. The implementation
is no simpler than the implementation of Dylan's "for" macro.
> [...]
> > clearer. I think Dylan's macro pattern matching sublanguage helps in
> > the same way. It dosn't make the trivial things any easier, and it
> > can't handle every possible thing you might want to do on the really
> > complex end, but for a large number of things of middling complexity it
>
> A macro needs to do more than just destructuring the input tokens or
> expressions. It has to transform them, and that is where Dylan macros,
> being non-procedural, are hard to use.
I'm not at all convinced of what is supposd to be worse about
non-procedural. The hassles I've had with Dylan macros are primarily
cause by things that aren't there, but could easily be made to be there
without going to precedural code. More flexible token-pasting (and the
ability to convert tokens between strings and symbols) would be
extremely useful. The other big hassle is when you want to create more
than one substitution from a single input, in which case you need to use
a helper macro and pass the input to it as two different arguments.
Those things are eminently fixable, within the current system.
Personally, I find the little pattern templates, such as...
ands:
{ } => { #t }
{ ?meta, ... } => { begin ?meta & ... end }
ors:
{ } => { #f }
{ ?meta, ... } => { begin ?meta | ... end }
... to be much more readable than the corresponding mapcar code in a
lisp macro. (except, of course, that in this exact case mapcar isn't
needed because CL has multiple-argument "and" and "or"...)
> The problem is not with patterns, which nicely solve the pattern
> matching problem (I am all in agreement with you when it comes to the
> utility of sub-languages, which are at the heart of Lisp's mindset), but
> with templates, which just are not a sufficient replacement for code.
In what situations?
> > makes the job easier. As does Meta. (We've got a Dylan implementation
> > of Meta, and I've been using it and tweaking it quite a bit lately)
>
> Meta is easier to implement in Lisp than in Dylan.
I'm also not convinced that is necessarily true. Certainly, your
implementation is a lot longer than that given by Baker, but then it
also does more than the version in Baker's paper AND tries to unify
parsing streams and strings.
> > Dylan is a bit harder to parse than CL, but perhaps not as *much* harder
> > as you think. Most of the syntax that you see is in fact just a bunch
> > of macros implemented in the standard library using the same facilities
> > available to end users. Instead of one type of delimiter, "(" and ")"
> > (and quotes for strings), Dylan has () and [] and {}, each of which must
> > be properly paired in any given code fragment. There are also three
>
> Note that something as basic as Dylan's `let' is a built-in feature,
> because it cannot be implemented as a macro. (A Lisp-like LET could be
> done as a Dylan macro, but Dylan designers chose to add a feature that
> their macro system cannot handle. It looks like a workaround to me
> anyway.)
OK, I must be really confused. *Why* can't you implement "let" as a
macro? Really, it means implementing ?body as a macro, where a body
consists of a right-recursive sequence of things that are either a
statement or a let, and each let introduces a new scope.
Pseudocode:
define macro my-begin
{ my-begin ?statements:* my-end } => { ?statements }
statements:
{ } => { }
{ let ?:variable = ?:expression; ... } =>
{local method exp(?variable) ... end; exp(?expression)}
{ ?:name := ?:expression, ... } =>
{?name ## "-setter"(?expression); ...}
{ ?lhs:expression . ?:name := ?rhs:expression } =>
{?name ## "-setter" (?lhs, ?rhs); ...}
{ ?lhs:expression [ ?idx:expression ] := ?rhs:expression } =>
{element-setter(?lhs, ?idx, ?rhs); ...}
{ ?stuff:*; ... } => {?stuff; ...}
end macro;
I'm sure you get the idea.
> Learning Lisp macros is non-trivial only in that it requires an
> understanding of the basics of reader, compiler, and their interaction.
> After learning these basics, I never had any trouble with Lisp macros.
I think there's a trade-off here between upfront effort and effort spent
on each and every macro that you write (or read).
> By contrast, I have never bothered to understand Dylan macros,
> `learning' by trial and error instead. Perhaps I will sit down and
> (re-)read the DRM and Gwydion Dylan macro code at some point, and that
> would be the only way to avoid future trouble with Dylan macros, but I
> really do not know why I would _want_ to do that. For example, I have
> not replied to your question in a recent check-in message yet, which
> asks why I put parens around a certain pattern. The point is: Perhaps
> it was needed, perhaps not. I have no idea.
I find the DRM chapter on macros less than helpful :-( But the
facilities themselves, and how to use them, seem quite straightforward
once I get past that problem. More tutorial documentation would
certainly be helpful. As would a flag on d2c telling it to dump the
results of macro expansion. That's certainly a big advantage that CL's
interactive nature has over batch compilation.
Re the meta implementation: thanks for the above. I guess I should keep
it in mind while I'm wondering what I'm missing when I wonder why some
things are done in certain ways... :-) (such as all those local
functions instead of just passing their bodies through directly as code
fragments)
-- Bruce
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> > I'll have to actually learn something about Dylan myself to
> > understand if I was totally dreaming to think that Lisp's syntax
> > made macros easier or not.
>
> It's not your lack of understanding of Dylan that's at fault here;
> it's your lack of "On Lisp", which if you had had a copy of you
> would realize that the macros defined in that book are trivial. At
> least, when written in and for CL they're trivial.
Heh. That's not it--the reason Bruce mentioned _On Lisp_ was because I
recommended it to the OP as a good explanation of the power of macros.
I guess I never thought about whether the actual macros were trivial
or non-trivial--the book helped me understand the "point" of macros
better than anything else I had read before it.
Out of curiosity, what's an example of a non-trivial macro? Something
like LOOP?
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel
·····@javamonkey.com
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <uu1j9kvf0.fsf@poboxes.com>
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 05:35:11 GMT, Peter Seibel <·····@localhost.localdomain> said:
[...]
PS> Out of curiosity, what's an example of a non-trivial macro? Something
PS> like LOOP?
I won't undertake to define the threshold of non-triviality (is it
immediately above macros whose body is just a backquoted
expression, or is it higher?), and LOOP would certainly be
non-trivial by any reasonable definition (it being more a
mini-language than a `mere' macro), but I should think SETF and
DEFSTRUCT, and perhaps DO, among others, qualify as well.
(I am talking about macro definitions of those three it terms of
standard Common Lisp constructs, of course, not in terms of any
implementation-specific special forms.)
---Vassil.
--
For an M-person job assigned to an N-person team, only rarely M=N.
Peter Seibel <·····@localhost.localdomain> writes:
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>
> > > I'll have to actually learn something about Dylan myself to
> > > understand if I was totally dreaming to think that Lisp's syntax
> > > made macros easier or not.
> >
> > It's not your lack of understanding of Dylan that's at fault here;
> > it's your lack of "On Lisp", which if you had had a copy of you
> > would realize that the macros defined in that book are trivial. At
> > least, when written in and for CL they're trivial.
>
> Heh. That's not it--the reason Bruce mentioned _On Lisp_ was because I
> recommended it to the OP as a good explanation of the power of macros.
> I guess I never thought about whether the actual macros were trivial
> or non-trivial--the book helped me understand the "point" of macros
> better than anything else I had read before it.
OK, for some reason I had thought you had not read the book. And I am
not denigrating the tutorial quality of Grahm's book on some of the
power of macros, nor am I implying that any of those macros are
powerful.
> Out of curiosity, what's an example of a non-trivial macro? Something
> like LOOP?
Try, for example, any macro which has non-ignored usage of the &environment
clause in its lambda-list. (yes, LOOP is an example of this).
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> Peter Seibel <·····@localhost.localdomain> writes:
>
> > Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> >
> > > > I'll have to actually learn something about Dylan myself to
> > > > understand if I was totally dreaming to think that Lisp's syntax
> > > > made macros easier or not.
> > >
> > > It's not your lack of understanding of Dylan that's at fault here;
> > > it's your lack of "On Lisp", which if you had had a copy of you
> > > would realize that the macros defined in that book are trivial. At
> > > least, when written in and for CL they're trivial.
> >
> > Heh. That's not it--the reason Bruce mentioned _On Lisp_ was because I
> > recommended it to the OP as a good explanation of the power of macros.
> > I guess I never thought about whether the actual macros were trivial
> > or non-trivial--the book helped me understand the "point" of macros
> > better than anything else I had read before it.
>
> OK, for some reason I had thought you had not read the book. And I am
> not denigrating the tutorial quality of Grahm's book on some of the
> power of macros, nor am I implying that any of those macros are
> powerful.
Make that "that any of those macros are _not_ powerful".
That's what I get for trying to qualify using multiple negatives...
> > Out of curiosity, what's an example of a non-trivial macro? Something
> > like LOOP?
>
> Try, for example, any macro which has non-ignored usage of the &environment
> clause in its lambda-list. (yes, LOOP is an example of this).
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
In article <··························@news.adl.ihug.com.au>,
·············@getlost.invalid says...
>
> >
> > Prolog > Lisp > Java > C > Assembly language.
>
> Thankyou. That helps heaps. This example helps me realise where Lisp is
> compared to the others. Prolog too, we are learning a little of that at
> uni aswell, but only on paper. We don't have to program in it.
>
> Adding in a few others I assume it would be like this:
>
> Html > Prolog > Lisp > Java > C++ > Assembly?
>
> correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>
>
Actually, I missed one. That should be:
Html > Prolog > Lisp > Java > C++ > C > assembly?
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3elagc8bz.fsf@cley.com>
* spammers suck wrote:
> Actually, I missed one. That should be:
> Html > Prolog > Lisp > Java > C++ > C > assembly?
Well, no, for lots of reasons. One of which is that there isn't
really a single order to languages (which you probably know). But
even if we live with that fiction, HTML isn't a programming language
it's a data representation language - you can't write a conditional in
HTML for instance. And *then* we come to the real answer: HTML *is*
(obfuscated) Lisp as far as syntax is concerned!
The *ML (XML, SGML, or related) `languages' (really: markup languages,
or data representation languages) are `tagged bracket' languages. The
general bit of syntax they deal with is:
<name attributes>body</name>
Well, let's ignore the attributes bit for now (it's clear that you
could do this, by requiring attributes to be specified as some initial
element in the body, and you can also actually add the attributes to a
Lisp syntax if you want). So you get:
<name>body</name>
Let's further ignore the various hacks that SGML-based DTDs let you do
to sometimes omit the closing </name> when it can be inferred - these
are confusing, and XML does not allow them anyway.
If you type a lot of *ML without special editor support you will
rapidly become *very* fed up with having to remember the closing
</name> all the time - wouldn't it be easier just to have some single
`close delimiter' character, like programming languages do? In
particular, if you use an emacs-family editor (which likely includes
vi for these purposes) you will find that they can't, by default, do
automatic matching based on these complicated element names, they will
only match one character, so you need to use either a custom editor,
or some large package for emacs like psgml (which is actually
excellent). By omitting the closing tag name, you lose some redundancy
- errors become harder to spot and report - but it becomes much easier
to type. With decent editor support, the benefit *for people who
write a lot of this stuff* is pretty clearly in favour of doing this.
It hurts people who don't write a lot of *ML, but they can always use
the verbose syntax.
A possible syntax which omits closing tag names (this is no longer a
*ML syntax) is something like the following. (This syntax is due to
Erik Naggum, although I have probably bastardised it).
<name|body>
This translates as
<name>body></name>
Here's a more substantial example:
<table|
<tbody|
<tr|<td|text><td|more text>>>>
(In fact, in my implementation this can be `minimized' to:
<table
<tbody
<tr<td|text><td|more text>>>>
- you don't need the | characters unless the next thing is, or may be,
text rather than markup. We can also reintroduce attributes at this
stage:
<table
<tbody
<tr
<td :align "right"|text>
<td :align "left"|more text>>>>
)
The final example above translates to *ML as:
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align "right">text</td>
<td align "left">more text</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Now, looking at the final language above, which I'll call TML, for
Trivial Markup Language (though it should probably be called EML for
Extensible Markup Language) (both of these acronyms actually stand for
something else, you can probably work out what...). This is kind of
reminiscent of something you've seen before, isn't it? For instance:
(table
(tbody
(tr
(td "text")
(td "more text"))))
Hmm. So the syntax of *ML languages is isomorphic to that of Lisp.
And of course, lots of Lisp people have taken advantage of this.
There are many existing HTML-generating packages out there for Lisp,
my own one (which is not the best, it's just the one I understand)
works like this:
(with-html-output (out) ; OUT is the stream for HTML output
(:html
(:head
(:title "title of my web page"))
(:body
(:h1 "header")
(:p "parageaph")
...)))
It uses keywords (the :x symbols) not to obfuscate things, but so the
thing that generates HTML can distinguish between HTML and Lisp, so
you can embed Lisp in HTML and HTML in Lisp really easily:
(with-html-output (out)
((:table :width "100%") ; this is how attributes get done
(:tbody
(loop for i from 0 to 100 ; this is lisp code!
do (htm ; now back into html
(:tr
((:td :align "right") (fmt "~:R" i)) ; note Lisp fragment
((:td :align "left") "foo")))))))
Now, if you've read this far, here's the real point.
*ML and Lisp use a syntax which is essentially the same - there are
surface differences (which in my opinion make *ML systems a lot harder
to use than they need to be), but the underlying syntaxes both use a
`tagged bracket' notation, and are very easy to translate in either
direction.
AND THEY DO THIS FOR THE SAME REASON! Both *ML and Lisp want to allow
the *user* to define their own constructs. For *ML this means that
the user should be able to define their own `document types', like
HTML, which specify what elements are allowed where and so on. For
Lisp this means that the user should be able to define their own
programming language. In order to allow this flexibility, they've
adopted essentially identical solutions: they provide a syntax which
is `low commitment' but sufficient to allow the expression of the
constructs which the user is interested in. And that's why the
syntaxes are the way they are, and why they are both so different from
ordinary programming language syntax.
An ordinary programming language, like Java, or C++, provides you with
a fixed repertoire of things you can do - some looping constructs,
some conditionals, some grouping constructs, function call,
expressions, and so on. And they support these constructs pretty well
(well, perhaps they do, some may have issues with that). But if you
want to move outside that set then you can't - you have to write your
own language, from the ground up. This is a bit like a document
preparation system which allowed you to write letters and memos, but
that's it - there are fixed fields for address, recipient, subject,
and so on. These things are actually quite useful, but they're not
much good if you decide you want to write a novel, or a PhD thesis.
Lisp, instead, provides you with a repertoire of things you can do - a
rather larger repertoire than most languages, but that doesn't really
matter - and *also* a toolkit from which you can construct your own
things-you-can-do, which once you have constructed them have *exactly*
the same status as the things that the language provides. This might
seem impossibly obscure - who would want to do that? But look at the
code I gave above: what is this WITH-HTML-OUTPUT thing? Well, what it
is is a *new construct in the language* - the stuff in its body isn't
Lisp code any more, it's a representation of HTML with Lisp mingled in
pretty seamlessly (the only obvious seam is the HTM thing to get back
from Lisp to HTML). Try doing that in Java, and you can't, without
writing a huge preprocessor which takes some Java+JHTML file and
converts it to Java.
In order to support this sort of thing, the syntax of the language
needs to be `low commitment' - you can't have the syntax specifying
what sort of construct you are looking at, because when the language
is read you may just have no idea what sort of construct you are
reading. Indeed, the construct you are reading may not even exist in
the base language. And this is why Lisp uses this rather plain
labelled-bracket syntax: because it is extensible, unlike traditional
languages which are fixed. It's also why *ML uses essentially the same
syntax - they have the same problems to solve, and they've solved them
the same way, despite (as far as I'm aware - Erik can speak to this
far better than I) not having any real cross-pollenation. Lisp people
would argue that *ML would be a far better system if it *had* looked
harder at Lisp, but even so, it's remarkable that the two systems have
arrived at such a similar solution.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> wrote:
+---------------
| <name attributes>body</name>
|
| Well, let's ignore the attributes bit for now (it's clear that you
| could do this, by requiring attributes to be specified as some initial
| element in the body, and you can also actually add the attributes to a
| Lisp syntax if you want).
+---------------
That's one way to think of Lisp documentation strings and declarations,
actually, as attributes of the expression they're attached to!!
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock, PP-ASEL-IA <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://www.rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
In article <···············@cley.com>, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
<a really well-written answer to the question "Why all the silly
parentheses"? that newbies incessantly ask>
I think from now on we[1] should point to Tim's article whenever
anyone asks The Standard Clueless Newbie Question (TSCNQ).
Thanks, Tim, for crystalizing so well some vague intuitions I'd
absorbed from the Lisp books & work I've done so far.
-- Larry
[1] Okay, I mostly lurk here, so I suppose I should say "you". :)
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <3DB7E47F.8000802@web.de>
arien wrote:
>>Prolog > Lisp > Java > C > Assembly language.
>
>
> Thankyou. That helps heaps. This example helps me realise where Lisp is
> compared to the others. Prolog too, we are learning a little of that at
> uni aswell, but only on paper. We don't have to program in it.
>
> Adding in a few others I assume it would be like this:
>
> Html > Prolog > Lisp > Java > C++ > Assembly?
>
> correct me if I'm wrong.
This is an oversimplification. This comparison looks like there is only
one axis on which you can compare programming languages, but languages
actually differ in various dimensions.
For example, if you take Java and C++: In some regards, you can say
"Java > C++", in some other regards "C++ > Java".
C++ allows for template meta-programming that in turn allows you to
build abstractions that are closer to your mental model of a particular
solution. Java is generally ">" than a certain subset of C++, but on the
other hand forces you to express almost everything with classes and
objects. More often than not classes and objects don't provide the best
mental model for a particular solution.
I don't think you can compare Prolog to any other language on your list.
The same holds for HTML. You have forgotten (at least) Smalltalk,
Scheme, Dylan, ML, O'CAML, Haskell, Clean, beta, gbeta, Eiffel, Oberon,
Modula-2, Pascal, Python, Ruby, Perl, AspectJ, HyperJ, ... ;)
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
> You have forgotten (at least) Smalltalk,
> Scheme, Dylan, ML, O'CAML, Haskell, Clean, beta, gbeta, Eiffel, Oberon,
> Modula-2, Pascal, Python, Ruby, Perl, AspectJ, HyperJ, ... ;)
>
Nah, I didn't forget them. I just don't know anything about any of those
languages. So firstly there wasn't much point in including them in
regards to my understanding, and secondly, I wouldn't know where to put
them anyway :)
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <3DBD1ED2.4070305@web.de>
arien wrote:
>>You have forgotten (at least) Smalltalk,
>>Scheme, Dylan, ML, O'CAML, Haskell, Clean, beta, gbeta, Eiffel, Oberon,
>>Modula-2, Pascal, Python, Ruby, Perl, AspectJ, HyperJ, ... ;)
>
> Nah, I didn't forget them. I just don't know anything about any of those
> languages. So firstly there wasn't much point in including them in
> regards to my understanding, and secondly, I wouldn't know where to put
> them anyway :)
...but I hope you got my message: Things become much more complicated
when you start to look at more languages. ;)
However, that's what you should do. There are studies that show that
good programmers know several languages well. And prepare for having
your head turned around many times - that's actually a good thing! ;-)
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
In article <················@web.de>, ········@web.de says...
> arien wrote:
> >>You have forgotten (at least) Smalltalk,
> >>Scheme, Dylan, ML, O'CAML, Haskell, Clean, beta, gbeta, Eiffel, Oberon,
> >>Modula-2, Pascal, Python, Ruby, Perl, AspectJ, HyperJ, ... ;)
> >
> > Nah, I didn't forget them. I just don't know anything about any of those
> > languages. So firstly there wasn't much point in including them in
> > regards to my understanding, and secondly, I wouldn't know where to put
> > them anyway :)
>
> ...but I hope you got my message: Things become much more complicated
> when you start to look at more languages. ;)
>
> However, that's what you should do. There are studies that show that
> good programmers know several languages well. And prepare for having
> your head turned around many times - that's actually a good thing! ;-)
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
yeah, I see what you mean. I do intend on learning more languages. But
one at a time though :)
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> yeah, I see what you mean. I do intend on learning more languages. But
> one at a time though :)
Well, once you've got your head 'round Lisp, I suggest Smalltalk, then
you can *really* learn how bad Java is...
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
Hello!
Piers Cawley <········@bofh.org.uk> wrote:
>[...]
>Well, once you've got your head 'round Lisp, I suggest Smalltalk, then
>you can *really* learn how bad Java is...
In what particular way do you think that Smalltalk will be more
instructive for that than Lisp?
Kind regards,
Hannah.
······@schlund.de (Hannah Schroeter) writes:
> Hello!
>
> Piers Cawley <········@bofh.org.uk> wrote:
>>[...]
>
>>Well, once you've got your head 'round Lisp, I suggest Smalltalk,
>>then you can *really* learn how bad Java is...
>
> In what particular way do you think that Smalltalk will be more
> instructive for that than Lisp?
More for the Smalltalk environment and the heavily optimized for OO
syntax of message passing. Smalltalk, superficially at least, looks
more like Java than does CL, retaining infix notation, single
inheritance only and the like, but *still* manages to beat Java hands
down in terms of flexibility, power and expressiveness.
I would imagine (and I could well be wrong) that a Java programmer who
can't get her head 'round Lisp would be more likely to be able to get
it 'round Smalltalk, but that's probably just my own preconceptions
showing.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
In article <··············@despairon.bofh.org.uk>, ········@bofh.org.uk
says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> > yeah, I see what you mean. I do intend on learning more languages. But
> > one at a time though :)
>
> Well, once you've got your head 'round Lisp, I suggest Smalltalk, then
> you can *really* learn how bad Java is...
>
>
I have this feeling that everyone thinks that I think Java is a good
language. I don't, I just found it easy to program in (for the purposes
of my assignments at least). I have always had the feeling from what I
have heard, that Java isn't a fantastic language.
When it comes down to though, my opinion doesn't really count. I want to
learn as many languages as I can. If I happen to like lisp, and my boss
says to me "program this in Java", I'm not gonna complain.
I may take your advice though, and have a look at Smalltalk later on
down the track. However, I want to get a few languages under my belt.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3u1j2ajlc.fsf@cley.com>
* spammers suck wrote:
> I have this feeling that everyone thinks that I think Java is a good
> language. I don't, I just found it easy to program in (for the
> purposes of my assignments at least). I have always had the feeling
> from what I have heard, that Java isn't a fantastic language.
Oh, it is, but it's fantastic in an interesting way which a lot of
people (including some cll people I suspect) don't appreciate. It's
not `innovative' or `pure' or `clever' or even particularly pleasant
to use. What it is, though, is a fantastic piece of engineering. The
problem was to design a language which was good enough to use, easy
enough to learn (remembering that you are going to be teaching average
programmers), standard enough, has a big enough library, and finally
offers enough compelling advantages over the competition (which on the
one hand is C/C++, and the other is stuff like SmallTalk which was
(is?) widely used for business stuff, and on the third hand is COBOL
&c) that people will actually use it. Finally you need to avoid it
getting either bogged down in formal standardisation, or usurped by
something else - either an embrace-and-extend Java, or another
language trying to occupy the same space.
Well, Java is doing OK at this, so far. The main danger right now has
to be C#/.NET, which is an instance of the last of the issues above.
I think this is no mean feat.
--tim
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <k7jyn0gk.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> What it [Java] is, though, is a fantastic piece of engineering.
It's a fantastic piece of marketing.
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> > What it [Java] is, though, is a fantastic piece of engineering.
>
> It's a fantastic piece of marketing.
What puzzles me most, is that java wasn't blamed when the internet
bubble bursted (like lisp was associated with the "AI Winter"). I
guess it was pure luck for the java people that "dot.com companies"
weren't called "java companies" ;-)
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre wrote:
>
> What puzzles me most, is that java wasn't blamed when the internet
> bubble bursted (like lisp was associated with the "AI Winter"). I
> guess it was pure luck for the java people that "dot.com companies"
> weren't called "java companies" ;-)
>
If there's any justice in the world, a few years from now when the
Semantic Web fails to improve web searching (it's just a new, cruftier
syntax for ontologies that attempt to model the real world, and those
ontologies are just as fragile and intractible now as they were 20 years
ago), there will be an "XML Winter".
If we're *really* lucky, Java and C#/.NET will be dragged down along
with XML.
* Bob Bane <····@removeme.gst.com>
| If there's any justice in the world, a few years from now when the
| Semantic Web fails to improve web searching (it's just a new, cruftier
| syntax for ontologies that attempt to model the real world, and those
| ontologies are just as fragile and intractible now as they were 20 years
| ago), there will be an "XML Winter".
I predicted the SGML winter to occur within a decade in 1994. Then SGML
died and spawned a hell-child, instead. One of the best reasons to avoid
XML at all cost (which is an amusing way to put it since no technology
decision can save you more money than a decision not to use XML) is that
the information you store into XML form becomes even more fragile and
outdatable than whatever other format you could have used once you
started to think about your data formats. Since thinking about something
will always be better than not thinking about something, what gains XML
have in an organization that uses it comes from thinking about their data
formats, but like most people who become satisfied with, if not enamored
with, the first thing they meet that does not stink, XML is better than
utterly braindamaged crap. To many, this is so unusual that they think
XML must be good. Instead, it is only /less/ braindamaged crap, and the
little good it has is completely defeated by the rest of it.
| If we're *really* lucky, Java and C#/.NET will be dragged down along with
| XML.
Well, I think XML and Microsoft will go down together.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> | If we're *really* lucky, Java and C#/.NET will be dragged down along with
> | XML.
>
> Well, I think XML and Microsoft will go down together.
My nightmare is that they won't go down before they have implemented
Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" world-wide :-(
--
(espen)
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <wunxxtzp.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> Well, I think XML and Microsoft will go down together.
...and soon, too.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey31y66ac8o.fsf@cley.com>
* Joe Marshall wrote:
> It's a fantastic piece of marketing.
No, I really disagree. It *has* been well marketed of course, but I
think it is also a *good* language for the market for which it was
targetted. Sure, it's not CL, but neither is it C++. Java made GC
acceptable: that's a significant achievement in its own right and
should lead to *major* improvements in the safety of programs now
people don't have to do memory management all the time. You can
classify this as marketing, but I think getting something like that
widely deployed is a significant engineering feat.
--tim
And then there's all the JIT technology which was poached from Self.
GC, JVM, JIT, etc, all good stuff. Shame about the language itself. having
a few flaws such as lack of genericity, not everything an object, poor
implementation of reflection...
But then... what language is perfect? ;-)
--
Justin Johnson
"Tim Bradshaw" <···@cley.com> wrote in message
····················@cley.com...
> * Joe Marshall wrote:
>
> > It's a fantastic piece of marketing.
>
> No, I really disagree. It *has* been well marketed of course, but I
> think it is also a *good* language for the market for which it was
> targetted. Sure, it's not CL, but neither is it C++. Java made GC
> acceptable: that's a significant achievement in its own right and
> should lead to *major* improvements in the safety of programs now
> people don't have to do memory management all the time. You can
> classify this as marketing, but I think getting something like that
> widely deployed is a significant engineering feat.
>
> --tim
"Justin Johnson" <·······@mobiusent.com> writes:
> And then there's all the JIT technology which was poached from Self.
inherited, dude, inherited. david ungar is a distinguished engineer
at sun labs. he came from stanford in 1991. so far as i know, these
days he investigates new architectures to simplify the construction
of high performance jvms.
oz
--
critical can opener
there is something wrong with this poem. can you find it? -- richard brautigan
Ooops. I didn't mean it like that. No disrespect intended towards Mr
Ungar.
I often 'poach' code and ideas from my own past projects. Although 'poach'
sounds like stealing and you can't steal from yourself...
--
Justin Johnson
"ozan s yigit" <··@blue.cs.yorku.ca> wrote in message
····················@blue.cs.yorku.ca...
> "Justin Johnson" <·······@mobiusent.com> writes:
>
> > And then there's all the JIT technology which was poached from Self.
>
> inherited, dude, inherited. david ungar is a distinguished engineer
> at sun labs. he came from stanford in 1991. so far as i know, these
> days he investigates new architectures to simplify the construction
> of high performance jvms.
>
> oz
> --
> critical can opener
> there is something wrong with this poem. can you find it? -- richard
brautigan
* Tim Bradshaw
| What it [Java] is, though, is a fantastic piece of engineering.
* Joe Marshall
| It's a fantastic piece of marketing.
But unlike Microosft's fantastic marketing, what was marketed was not the
absence of a language so that nobody else would try to take the place of
their future product while they incompetently tried to make something
that would meet their wildly inflated expectations and forever promising
more so people would not want to change to something actually better lest
they miss out on the fantastic future of their crappy products, but an
actual language with significant technical support behind it. Instead of
rivaling L. Ron Hubbard and other religion-makers with 10% explanation
and 90% promises, Sun actually delivered a programming language and a
solid technology. Tim's assessment as a fantastic piece of engineering
is certainly how I regard Java, too.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
[on Java's marketing]
> But unlike Microosft's fantastic marketing, what was marketed was not the
> absence of a language so that nobody else would try to take the place of
> their future product while they incompetently tried to make something
> that would meet their wildly inflated expectations and forever promising
> more so people would not want to change to something actually better lest
> they miss out on the fantastic future of their crappy products, but an
> actual language with significant technical support behind it.
Wow. What a sentence. I am seriously impressed.
--
Juergen Nickelsen
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <3cqlz8nc.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
> * Tim Bradshaw
> | What it [Java] is, though, is a fantastic piece of engineering.
>
> * Joe Marshall
> | It's a fantastic piece of marketing.
>
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> Tim's assessment as a fantastic piece of engineering
> is certainly how I regard Java, too.
Call me jaded, but I can't get too worked up about a byte-code
engine.
Joe Marshall [on java]:
> Call me jaded, but I can't get too worked up about a byte-code
> engine.
but you do get so worked up about simple list processing... :)
oz
--
music is the space between the notes. -- claude debussy
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey34rb12x13.fsf@cley.com>
* Joe Marshall wrote:
> Call me jaded, but I can't get too worked up about a byte-code
> engine.
But that's not what it is. It happens to be byte-coded (though who
knows how much Java will actually be native-compiled in a few years),
but that's a tiny part of it. I think the most important thing is an
enormous and just-about-usable[1] standard library. It's kind of like
perl but the underlying language wasn't designed by a martian (so:
better than perl, I think).
--tim
Footnotes:
[1] That's usable compared to the other huge standard libraries...
In article <···············@cley.com>, Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com>
wrote:
> * Joe Marshall wrote:
>
> > Call me jaded, but I can't get too worked up about a byte-code
> > engine.
>
> But that's not what it is. It happens to be byte-coded (though who
> knows how much Java will actually be native-compiled in a few years),
> but that's a tiny part of it. I think the most important thing is an
> enormous and just-about-usable[1] standard library.
And then you get raw stupidity like the following, a bug I fixed
yesterday at work:
- tester reports that if you edit a record from a certain database table
the time in a particular date field gets set to midnight.
- the bug turns out to be because when you initialize an java.sql.Date
object with a date/time (millisecond resolution integer) it truncates
the time to midnight. The documentation states that SQL dates don't
contain times. Sun is so emphatic about this that if you call
getHours(), getMinutes() or getSeconds() on an SQL Date it throws an
invalidArgumentException. Well, perhaps Sun should check with Oracle,
because Oracle disagrees. That field is defined in the database as
defaulting to the current date, when the record is created initially
that field is left as null so Oracle will fill in the current date, and
that value ends up (as desired) containing the time as well as the date.
The only way to get a date/time from Java code through the Java database
interface and into Oracle appears to be to pass the date through the
Java interface as a string, not as a date. Which sucks.
-- Bruce
Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> wrote in message news:<···························@copper.ipg.tsnz.net>...
> In article <···············@cley.com>, Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com>
> wrote:
>
> > * Joe Marshall wrote:
> >
> > > Call me jaded, but I can't get too worked up about a byte-code
> > > engine.
> >
> > But that's not what it is. It happens to be byte-coded (though who
> > knows how much Java will actually be native-compiled in a few years),
> > but that's a tiny part of it. I think the most important thing is an
> > enormous and just-about-usable[1] standard library.
>
> And then you get raw stupidity like the following, a bug I fixed
> yesterday at work:
>
> - tester reports that if you edit a record from a certain database table
> the time in a particular date field gets set to midnight.
>
> - the bug turns out to be because when you initialize an java.sql.Date
> object with a date/time (millisecond resolution integer) it truncates
> the time to midnight. The documentation states that SQL dates don't
> contain times. Sun is so emphatic about this that if you call
> getHours(), getMinutes() or getSeconds() on an SQL Date it throws an
> invalidArgumentException. Well, perhaps Sun should check with Oracle,
> because Oracle disagrees. That field is defined in the database as
> defaulting to the current date, when the record is created initially
> that field is left as null so Oracle will fill in the current date, and
> that value ends up (as desired) containing the time as well as the date.
>
> The only way to get a date/time from Java code through the Java database
> interface and into Oracle appears to be to pass the date through the
> Java interface as a string, not as a date. Which sucks.
>
> -- Bruce
Nope. Use java.sql.Timestamp objects. A good reference for Oracle and
JDBC is Java Programming with Oracle JDBC by Donald Bales.
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
········@eskimo.com (Willy Heineman) wrote:
> > The only way to get a date/time from Java code through the Java database
> > interface and into Oracle appears to be to pass the date through the
> > Java interface as a string, not as a date. Which sucks.
> >
> > -- Bruce
>
> Nope. Use java.sql.Timestamp objects. A good reference for Oracle and
> JDBC is Java Programming with Oracle JDBC by Donald Bales.
Yes, I know about that, but that maps to a *different* field type in
Oracle and the product (using SQL dates, not timestamps) has already
been in production use in a number of telcos around the world for
several years. Changing that would be far too radical and expensive a
change to make to fix this bug, especially since it was one discovered
internally (while testing a minor update bound for a prepay cellphone
system in Europe) and not by a customer. Perhaps later, in new
development, or when a migration of the database is needed for other
reasons, but for the moment papering over it is the appropriate course.
*Especially* since Oracle handles the situation just fine once we use a
ruse to get it past the Java libraries...
-- Bruce
Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> wrote in message news:<···························@copper.ipg.tsnz.net>...
> In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
> ········@eskimo.com (Willy Heineman) wrote:
>
> > > The only way to get a date/time from Java code through the Java database
> > > interface and into Oracle appears to be to pass the date through the
> > > Java interface as a string, not as a date. Which sucks.
> > >
> > > -- Bruce
> >
> > Nope. Use java.sql.Timestamp objects. A good reference for Oracle and
> > JDBC is Java Programming with Oracle JDBC by Donald Bales.
>
> Yes, I know about that, but that maps to a *different* field type in
> Oracle and the product (using SQL dates, not timestamps) has already
> been in production use in a number of telcos around the world for
> several years. Changing that would be far too radical and expensive a
> change to make to fix this bug, especially since it was one discovered
> internally (while testing a minor update bound for a prepay cellphone
> system in Europe) and not by a customer. Perhaps later, in new
> development, or when a migration of the database is needed for other
> reasons, but for the moment papering over it is the appropriate course.
> *Especially* since Oracle handles the situation just fine once we use a
> ruse to get it past the Java libraries...
>
> -- Bruce
I see your predicament with regard to the legacy code but in fact we
use java.sql.Timestamp objects to get and set Oracle DATE fields. The
Oracle JDBC driver handles the conversion and retains the time
information without truncation. We had originally used conversion to
strings to do this before stumbling on this method. Ahhh, the
completeness of the Java documentation.
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
········@eskimo.com (Willy Heineman) wrote:
> Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> wrote in message
> news:<···························@copper.ipg.tsnz.net>...
> > In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
> > ········@eskimo.com (Willy Heineman) wrote:
> >
> > > > The only way to get a date/time from Java code through the Java
> > > > database
> > > > interface and into Oracle appears to be to pass the date through the
> > > > Java interface as a string, not as a date. Which sucks.
> > > >
> > > > -- Bruce
> > >
> > > Nope. Use java.sql.Timestamp objects. A good reference for Oracle and
> > > JDBC is Java Programming with Oracle JDBC by Donald Bales.
> >
> > Yes, I know about that, but that maps to a *different* field type in
> > Oracle and the product (using SQL dates, not timestamps) has already
> > been in production use in a number of telcos around the world for
> > several years. Changing that would be far too radical and expensive a
> > change to make to fix this bug, especially since it was one discovered
> > internally (while testing a minor update bound for a prepay cellphone
> > system in Europe) and not by a customer. Perhaps later, in new
> > development, or when a migration of the database is needed for other
> > reasons, but for the moment papering over it is the appropriate course.
> > *Especially* since Oracle handles the situation just fine once we use a
> > ruse to get it past the Java libraries...
> >
> > -- Bruce
>
> I see your predicament with regard to the legacy code but in fact we
> use java.sql.Timestamp objects to get and set Oracle DATE fields. The
> Oracle JDBC driver handles the conversion and retains the time
> information without truncation. We had originally used conversion to
> strings to do this before stumbling on this method.
You're right. I just got back from ten minutes in the office (on a
Sunday...) where I tried using a java.sql.Timestamp object to feed into
a Date column and indeed it appears to work fine. I was about to post a
correction to my earlier message but I see you got in first :-) (but
not before I tried it anyway) Thanks. On Monday I'll rip out the
(preexisting) code that *extracts* the Date as a string and manually
parses it. The fun part is that this code is actually in a program that
reads a specification of a database table and generates Java code to
automagically translate to/from a Java object. Which would be done
using macros in a real programming language :-(
> Ahhh, the completeness of the Java documentation.
The exact point of this subthread. "the enormous and
just-about-usable[1] standard library"
-- Bruce
"Bruce Hoult" <·····@hoult.org> wrote in message
································@copper.ipg.tsnz.net...
> In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
> ········@eskimo.com (Willy Heineman) wrote:
>
> > > The only way to get a date/time from Java code through the Java database
> > > interface and into Oracle appears to be to pass the date through the
> > > Java interface as a string, not as a date. Which sucks.
> > >
> > > -- Bruce
> >
> > Nope. Use java.sql.Timestamp objects. A good reference for Oracle and
> > JDBC is Java Programming with Oracle JDBC by Donald Bales.
>
> Yes, I know about that, but that maps to a *different* field type in
> Oracle and the product (using SQL dates, not timestamps) has already
> been in production use in a number of telcos around the world for
> several years. Changing that would be far too radical and expensive a
> change to make to fix this bug, especially since it was one discovered
> internally (while testing a minor update bound for a prepay cellphone
> system in Europe) and not by a customer. Perhaps later, in new
> development, or when a migration of the database is needed for other
> reasons, but for the moment papering over it is the appropriate course.
> *Especially* since Oracle handles the situation just fine once we use a
> ruse to get it past the Java libraries...
>
> -- Bruce
I'm not sure I follow you. The Java types java.sql.Date, java.sql.Time,
and java.sql.Timestamp are surrogates for the Standard SQL types
DATE, TIME, and TIMESTAMP, respectively. A SQL DATE value
is just a date, a TIME value is just a time, and a TIMESTAMP value
is a combination of date and time. Oracle, like most DBMS, doesn't
follow the Standard here and provides just one type, DATE, that
represents both date and time information. If you're passing a
Standard SQL TIMESTAMP value from Java to your database, e.g.,
by calling setTimestamp() on a PreparedStatement object, then the
corresponding Oracle DATE value will have its date and time info
properly set. However, if you're passing a Standard SQL DATE value
from Java, e.g., by calling setDate() on a PreparedStatement object,
then the corresponding Oracle DATE value can only have its date
info set from this object; its time part can't be directly provided by the
passed in Standard SQL DATE value, by defintion. So that the time
part of the Oracle DATE value is not undefined, JDBC will arrange
to set it to 0 or 12:00AM, a reasonable normalized value.
The functionality of JDBC is meant to be consistent with Standard SQL
and not any one DBMS. Barring a bug in your JDBC driver, I'm not
sure I understand what aspect of this behavior is not working or seems
bogus. My interest is not just academic as I tend to do a fair bit of
work using JDBC.
As a more general observation as an application developer, Java's
real value to me is in providing a rich set of de facto standard APIs
for n-tier application development. As a student of programming
languages, I don't find Java terribly interesting and certainly can't
be mentioned in the same breathe with Lisp regarding innovativeness.
Regards,
jag
In article <·······················@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
"John Gilson" <···@acm.org> wrote:
> I'm not sure I follow you. The Java types java.sql.Date, java.sql.Time,
> and java.sql.Timestamp are surrogates for the Standard SQL types
> DATE, TIME, and TIMESTAMP, respectively. A SQL DATE value
> is just a date, a TIME value is just a time, and a TIMESTAMP value
> is a combination of date and time. Oracle, like most DBMS, doesn't
> follow the Standard here and provides just one type, DATE, that
> represents both date and time information. If you're passing a
> Standard SQL TIMESTAMP value from Java to your database, e.g.,
> by calling setTimestamp() on a PreparedStatement object, then the
> corresponding Oracle DATE value will have its date and time info
> properly set. However, if you're passing a Standard SQL DATE value
> from Java, e.g., by calling setDate() on a PreparedStatement object,
> then the corresponding Oracle DATE value can only have its date
> info set from this object; its time part can't be directly provided by the
> passed in Standard SQL DATE value, by defintion. So that the time
> part of the Oracle DATE value is not undefined, JDBC will arrange
> to set it to 0 or 12:00AM, a reasonable normalized value.
>
> The functionality of JDBC is meant to be consistent with Standard SQL
> and not any one DBMS.
Yep, you're correct, as I just discovered for myself.
The *big* problem here is that the Java code for the editing screens is
being generated automatically from the database schema, so if the Oracle
schema doesn't differentiate between DATE (without time) and TIMESTAMP
then it's hard to make Java code generated from the Oracle schema
differentiate between them. Guess the easy choice is going to be to
interpret Oracle DATE as a java.sql.Timestamp everywhere. The Right
Thing might be to generate both the Java editing screens and the Oracle
schema from some other, more expressive, format.
In case anyone is wondering I started a new job last week and haven't
used Java for four years or Oracle for nearly twenty years (on a VAX
11/780!) [1]. Still, if the person who wrote this code in the first
place had known what they were doing then this problem wouldn't be there
-- and now *I* know...
-- Bruce
[1] I've used other SQL databases in between, e.g. DG/SQL, MySQL
Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> writes:
> > The functionality of JDBC is meant to be consistent with Standard SQL
> > and not any one DBMS.
>
> Yep, you're correct, as I just discovered for myself.
>
> The *big* problem here is that the Java code for the editing screens is
> being generated automatically from the database schema, so if the Oracle
Don't feel bad. My last tech job involved the use of code that
automatically generated SQL and Java code from some almost-XML thing.
We used PostgreSQL for development and they had decided to use Oracle
for production, and there were some incompatibilities between these 2
databases. Even in cases where there was a standards-compliant
fallback, though, Oracle-isms and PostgreSQL-isms were used
exclusively, and a compile-time flag was set depending on what backend
was to be used.
Then I had the joy of discovering that certain people (conveniently no
longer with the company) had bypassed this layer on top of JDBC and
sent raw SQL commands down the pipe, commands which were very nicely
not pre-compiled and which inserted raw user input into this SQL
string. (Of course, there were certain things which could not be done
with the nice abstraction thingy without a tremendous about of
circumlocutions. Or even, IIRC, without accessing its non-documented
APIs.)
> 11/780!) [1]. Still, if the person who wrote this code in the first
> place had known what they were doing then this problem wouldn't be there
> -- and now *I* know...
Well, at least the coders, for the most part, knew what they were
doing and did so intentionally. The expensive DBA we got liked to
tell war stories (and call me things like "son" to my face and other
things behind my back) and recommend Oracle/Solaris for any problem.
He was upset that we didn't use Oracle/Solaris for all of our
development.
The problem arose because he was so biased in favor of Oracle/Solaris
that all logic flew out the window. And then the war stories came
into effect: He had been on the committee that defined SQL (here he
gestured to the thick and somewhat dusty SQL reference manuals on his
shelf as proof) and Oracle was 100% SQL compliant. In fact, Oracle
was for all intents and purposes the reference implementation of SQL,
and anything that did it differently than Oracle (PostgreSQL, for
example) was noncompliant and Wrong.
The machine in his cubicle ran Red Hat, and he insisted on treating it
like a Solaris box. It seemed the only command he ran was "top". He
used top to determine exact memory usage statistics, and when
something looked strange, he ran crying to our IT guy that his machine
was "broken". He, in turn, asked me about it. IT guy and I then
spent a day trying to explain copy-on-write and memory allocation
overcommit, but he refused to accept that this was the case. I wrote
sample code that showcased this, and he still refused to accept it.
So we left him to his own devices.
This guy was one of the few left after they canned everyone.
--
vsync
http://quadium.net/
"If MS could only work this hard to make quality software. But they
never do. If they can't play dirty tricks they get bored and go out in
the corridor to play paint-ball."
-- http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=43916&cid=4576582
Choosing byte-code means easier cross platform coverage. That is, providing
the byte-code VM is written in a portable language.
I think this was an important part of their strategy enabling wide coverage
fast. Any conversion to machine code is done at the client end via JIT.
--
Justin Johnson
"Joe Marshall" <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote in message
·················@ccs.neu.edu...
> > * Tim Bradshaw
> > | What it [Java] is, though, is a fantastic piece of engineering.
> >
> > * Joe Marshall
> > | It's a fantastic piece of marketing.
> >
> > Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> > Tim's assessment as a fantastic piece of engineering
> > is certainly how I regard Java, too.
>
> Call me jaded, but I can't get too worked up about a byte-code
> engine.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <lm4dxs6o.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
"Justin Johnson" <·······@mobiusent.com> writes:
> Choosing byte-code means easier cross platform coverage. That is, providing
> the byte-code VM is written in a portable language.
> I think this was an important part of their strategy enabling wide coverage
> fast. Any conversion to machine code is done at the client end via JIT.
Yes, but byte-code is hardly an amazing (or even original) technical
achievement.
* Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu>
| Yes, but byte-code is hardly an amazing (or even original) technical
| achievement.
I wonder if you are intentionally blind here. Java is more than a
byte-code engine. It is a /deployed/ byte-code engine for starters.
Engineering is not only design and having some neat idea. Engineering is
actually getting something done with the available resources.
If you look at things only as "inventions" and criticize some invention
for not being terribly smart, another and better invention may very well
replace it at no relevant cost. If, however, you look at the cost of
deployment of any invention, you realize that /engineering/ is indeed
capable of producing feats with inventions that are not earth-shattering
on their own. Like, electricity is no big deal. Giving a billion people
stable electricity is a major feat of engineering. Like, heavier-than-air
flight is no big deal. Building up an global network of airports and
airways and allowing people to cross vast oceans in a manner of hours and
only have to work a week to afford it, is a major feat of engineering as
well as business. Building a Common Lisp environment is no big deal,
either. But doing it for pay and staying in business for 20 years and
giving 50 people a decent livelihood with the profits, is an admirable
feat of both engineering and business.
Sometimes, technological advances pale in comparison to deployment.
And before anyone brings up how great Microsoft is, I think massacring
several million people because of some political idea before anyone stops
you is also an admirable feat of political leadership.
One must be able to admire only aspects of something without having to be
dragged into debates over other qualities. This belongs in the "thinking
before feeling" discussion.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu>
> | Yes, but byte-code is hardly an amazing (or even original) technical
> | achievement.
>
> I wonder if you are intentionally blind here. Java is more than a
> byte-code engine. It is a /deployed/ byte-code engine for starters.
> Engineering is not only design and having some neat idea. Engineering is
> actually getting something done with the available resources.
>
> If you look at things only as "inventions" and criticize some invention
> for not being terribly smart, another and better invention may very well
> replace it at no relevant cost. If, however, you look at the cost of
> deployment of any invention, you realize that /engineering/ is indeed
> capable of producing feats with inventions that are not earth-shattering
> on their own.
No doubt. Actually using Java often drives me nuts, because of the
unnecessary complexity of the APIs, but I do use it, precisely because
it's so successful engineering-wise. All in all, it's a reasonable
thing to say, "that functionality is in this JAR", and expect people
to be able to run it. Hell, I can even stick these up on a web
server, and expect people to be able to run the program I wrote. Yes,
there are some deployment problems (I'm currently trying to figure out
why an applet that works just fine on Mac OS X, OS 9, and Solaris
won't work on Windows) ... but my other options are ... nothing. Java
is the only language to actually succeed in what it did.
> Like, electricity is no big deal. Giving a billion people
> stable electricity is a major feat of engineering.
Tell me about it ... no blackouts this year, yet!
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <lk8z0dysgg.fsf@cartan.de>
···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
>
> > Like, electricity is no big deal. Giving a billion people
> > stable electricity is a major feat of engineering.
>
> Tell me about it ... no blackouts this year, yet!
That was a political problem, not an engineering problem as far as I
remember.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
> > Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> >
> > > Like, electricity is no big deal. Giving a billion people
> > > stable electricity is a major feat of engineering.
> >
> > Tell me about it ... no blackouts this year, yet!
>
> That was a political problem, not an engineering problem as far as I
> remember.
A little of both. California really doesn't have the capacity to
provide enough electricity for itself.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
In article <···············@whirlwind.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>,
···@whirlwind.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) wrote:
>Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
>
>> ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>>
>> > Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
>> >
>> > > Like, electricity is no big deal. Giving a billion people
>> > > stable electricity is a major feat of engineering.
>> >
>> > Tell me about it ... no blackouts this year, yet!
>>
>> That was a political problem, not an engineering problem as far as I
>> remember.
>
>A little of both. California really doesn't have the capacity to
>provide enough electricity for itself.
Albeit when power companies file false statements about the amount of
power they're generating and delivering, and take local facilities
offline in favor of out-of-state ones, the notion of "capacity" becomes
a little fuzzy...
paul
Paul Wallich <··@panix.com> writes:
> >A little of both. California really doesn't have the capacity to
> >provide enough electricity for itself.
>
> Albeit when power companies file false statements about the amount of
> power they're generating and delivering, and take local facilities
> offline in favor of out-of-state ones, the notion of "capacity" becomes
> a little fuzzy...
I live in Hayden, Colorado with my girlfriend. Her dad lives in
Craig, about 20mi down the highway. The main industries in this area
seem to be agriculture and power generation.
Both Craig and Hayden have coal power plants, and I'm frequently
subjected to my girlfriend's grandmother's rants about people who
don't like coal, the drop in the value of coal, and the dangers of
anything nuclear, including microwave ovens. My girlfriend's dad
works in the Hayden power plant. It's definitely a different culture
from what I'm used to; I for some reason had the subconscious
assumption that coal had been pretty much phased out.
Anyway, one of the things I've learned is that none of this power
seems to be used locally. IIRC, the Craig plant supplies California
and part of Oregon, while the Hayden plant supplies most of the other
western states. Northwest Colorado, meanwhile, gets its power from
"somewhere else".
This doesn't seem very efficient to me. Is there any way to prove or
disprove this information, or to find out where a certain region gets
its power from?
--
vsync
http://quadium.net/
"If MS could only work this hard to make quality software. But they
never do. If they can't play dirty tricks they get bored and go out in
the corridor to play paint-ball."
-- http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=43916&cid=4576582
vsync wrote:
> Paul Wallich <··@panix.com> writes:
...
> > Albeit when power companies file false statements about the amount of
> > power they're generating and delivering, and take local facilities
> > offline in favor of out-of-state ones, the notion of "capacity" becomes
> > a little fuzzy...
>
> I live in Hayden, Colorado with my girlfriend. Her dad lives in
> Craig, about 20mi down the highway. The main industries in this area
> seem to be agriculture and power generation.
>
> Both Craig and Hayden have coal power plants, and I'm frequently
> subjected to my girlfriend's grandmother's rants about people who
> don't like coal, the drop in the value of coal, and the dangers of
> anything nuclear, including microwave ovens. My girlfriend's dad
> works in the Hayden power plant. It's definitely a different culture
> from what I'm used to; I for some reason had the subconscious
> assumption that coal had been pretty much phased out.
>
> Anyway, one of the things I've learned is that none of this power
> seems to be used locally. IIRC, the Craig plant supplies California
> and part of Oregon, while the Hayden plant supplies most of the other
> western states. Northwest Colorado, meanwhile, gets its power from
> "somewhere else".
>
> This doesn't seem very efficient to me. Is there any way to prove or
> disprove this information, or to find out where a certain region gets
> its power from?
...
(I hope I got Mr Wallich's attribution right.)
The utilities and plants might be willing to tell you. A couple years
ago, my dad dropped in at the Navajo Generating Station (Page, AZ)
visitor center just after closing time, and ran into an enginering-type
guy who was just leaving. The guy was nice enough to answer some
questions, and unlock the office doors to go back inside and get my dad
a brochure. (Times are changing, though.)
Reality, though, as David Chassin pointed out, is that plants drop power
onto the grid, and utilities draw from it. Last I heard, probably 15-20
years ago, the big grids do *not* behave well, and it's really hard to
figure out the net flow in any particular transmission line, and where
the power from any one plant ends up.
You can find some stuff about Craig and Hayden from the Salt River
Project's web pages, www.srp.com. SRP serves about half of metro
Phoenix, plus some surrounding areas. SRP owns 29% of Craig Units 1 &
2, and 50% of Hayden Unit 2.
Years ago I read that SRP traded power from the Hayden plant to the
Bureau of Reclamation for power from Glen Canyon Dam. Phoenix really,
really likes peaking capacity, and hydroelectric is good at it.
[Trivia: A few years ago, on a summer afternoon, one of the two big
electric utilities here in Phoenix saw a sudden increase in load, and
had to scramble to buy on the spot (?) market. The baseball park had,
without warning, turned on 17MW of air conditioners. The baseball park
promised not to do it again without prior arrangement.]
-- Kevin
PS - Question: A year ago, in the middle of nowhere in Nevada or Utah,
I saw what looked like a transmission line with two conductors instead
of the usual three. Anybody know what this was? Balanced "two-phase",
like what runs into typical houses?
From: Eduardo Muñoz
Subject: Re: What happens to power (was: Difference between LISP and C++)
Date:
Message-ID: <uof8d8q0g.fsf@jet.es>
Kevin Strietzel <········@mail.mc.maricopa.edu> writes:
> PS - Question: A year ago, in the middle of nowhere in Nevada or Utah,
> I saw what looked like a transmission line with two conductors instead
> of the usual three. Anybody know what this was? Balanced "two-phase",
> like what runs into typical houses?
I never saw a tower with two conductors. Usual
configurations are six conductor in three levels
or three conductors in three alternate levels or
horizontal (called delta configuration around
here). Some big towers have two ground wires
(these go at the top) with a good distance betwen
them. We have made a number of tower like this (75
meters high) for a transmission line in Mexico.
See: http://www.eucomsa.es/imagenes/div_estruc/foto5g.jpg
or http://www.eucomsa.es/imagenes/div_estruc/foto11g.jpg
--
Eduardo Mu�oz
From: John Wilson
Subject: Re: What happens to power (was: Difference between LISP and C++)
Date:
Message-ID: <3DE2DB7E.5090801@attbi.com>
Eduardo Mu�oz wrote:
> Kevin Strietzel <········@mail.mc.maricopa.edu> writes:
>
>
>>PS - Question: A year ago, in the middle of nowhere in Nevada or Utah,
>>I saw what looked like a transmission line with two conductors instead
>>of the usual three. Anybody know what this was? Balanced "two-phase",
>>like what runs into typical houses?
>>
>
> I never saw a tower with two conductors. Usual
> configurations are six conductor in three levels
> or three conductors in three alternate levels or
> horizontal (called delta configuration around
> here). Some big towers have two ground wires
> (these go at the top) with a good distance betwen
> them. We have made a number of tower like this (75
> meters high) for a transmission line in Mexico.
>
> See: http://www.eucomsa.es/imagenes/div_estruc/foto5g.jpg
> or http://www.eucomsa.es/imagenes/div_estruc/foto11g.jpg
>
>
>
Two conductors is the tipoff to a dc line. These are used in a few
places for long-haul transmission, which they do cheaper than ac lines
because they only have two conductors and the structures and
rights-of-way are smaller. The economics only work for long hauls
because the terminal equipment to convert ac to dc and vice versa is
much more expensive than the circuit breaker you need at each end of an
ac line. DC lines are also used to transmit power between systems that
are not in synchronism, and for submarine cables.
73,
JohnW
John Wilson wrote:
>
>
> Eduardo Mu�oz wrote:
>
> > Kevin Strietzel writes:
> >
> >
> >> PS - Question: A year ago, in the middle of nowhere in Nevada or Utah,
> >> I saw what looked like a transmission line with two conductors instead
> >> of the usual three. Anybody know what this was? Balanced "two-phase",
> >> like what runs into typical houses?
> >>
> >
> > I never saw a tower with two conductors. Usual
> > configurations are six conductor in three levels
> > or three conductors in three alternate levels or
> > horizontal (called delta configuration around
> > here). Some big towers have two ground wires
> > (these go at the top) with a good distance betwen
> > them. We have made a number of tower like this (75
> > meters high) for a transmission line in Mexico.
> >
> > See: http://www.eucomsa.es/imagenes/div_estruc/foto5g.jpg
> > or http://www.eucomsa.es/imagenes/div_estruc/foto11g.jpg
> >
> >
> >
>
> Two conductors is the tipoff to a dc line. These are used in a few
> places for long-haul transmission, which they do cheaper than ac lines
> because they only have two conductors and the structures and
> rights-of-way are smaller. The economics only work for long hauls
> because the terminal equipment to convert ac to dc and vice versa is
> much more expensive than the circuit breaker you need at each end of an
> ac line. DC lines are also used to transmit power between systems that
> are not in synchronism, and for submarine cables.
>
> 73,
> JohnW
>
DC is not good for long runs of wire. The loss of power is greater for
dc over a long distance than it is for AC. That is why most commercial
power lines are AC.
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: What happens to power (was: Difference between LISP and C++)
Date:
Message-ID: <3DE2F8A9.9080902@dls.net>
booker wrote:
> DC is not good for long runs of wire. The loss of power is greater for
> dc over a long distance than it is for AC. That is why most commercial
> power lines are AC.
You have this backwards: DC is more efficient for long distances than
AC, for a given conductor mass budget. Most commercial lines use
AC because it's much easier to change the voltage of AC (using transformers).
Paul
From: John Wilson
Subject: Re: What happens to power (was: Difference between LISP and C++)
Date:
Message-ID: <3DE3AB77.8080102@attbi.com>
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> booker wrote:
>
>> DC is not good for long runs of wire. The loss of power is greater for
>> dc over a long distance than it is for AC. That is why most commercial
>> power lines are AC.
>
>
> You have this backwards: DC is more efficient for long distances than
> AC, for a given conductor mass budget. Most commercial lines use
> AC because it's much easier to change the voltage of AC (using
> transformers).
>
> Paul
>
Much easier? That's a major understatement. There is no apparatus that
interconnects dc systems of different voltages at power-transmission
levels without converting to ac.
73,
JohnW
From: Tim Daly, Jr.
Subject: Re: What happens to power (was: Difference between LISP and C++)
Date:
Message-ID: <wkvg2l55hh.fsf@tenkan.org>
booker <········@hsnp.com> writes:
> DC is not good for long runs of wire. The loss of power is greater for
> dc over a long distance than it is for AC. That is why most commercial
> power lines are AC.
Why would that be? I would think that the increased capacitance of
the long wires would cause impedance losses, reducing transmission
efficiency of AC compared to DC. I always thought that DC was a
common choice for long haul lines for just that reason (and to avoid
phase problems). Of course, I know about as much about power
transmission as I do about shearing sheep.
-Tim
From: John Wilson
Subject: Re: What happens to power (was: Difference between LISP and C++)
Date:
Message-ID: <3DE3AAEF.8000503@attbi.com>
Tim Daly, Jr. wrote:
> booker <········@hsnp.com> writes:
>
>
>>DC is not good for long runs of wire. The loss of power is greater for
>>dc over a long distance than it is for AC. That is why most commercial
>>power lines are AC.
>>
>
> Why would that be? I would think that the increased capacitance of
> the long wires would cause impedance losses, reducing transmission
> efficiency of AC compared to DC. ...
Capacitance current, referred to in the power world as charging current,
is the limitation on the length of ac cables with solid or liquid
dielectrics. At a couple hundred kV, a cable can be only a few dozen
miles long before the charging current at the sending end exceeds the
cable's ampacity. In English, so much current is shunted through the
cable's capacitance that the capacitance current uses up all the cable's
capacity, leaving none for power transmission. This is why dc is used
for submarine links, such as at least one between France and England
under the English Channel, and one between mainland Canada and Vancouver
Island. The big power loss from charging current comes from the i^2r
loss in the conductors supplying it. At 60Hz, dielectric losses are not
a big deal even at high voltage.
The inductance of an ac transmission line imposes the limit on the
amount of power the line can transmit over a given distance, or to put
it another way, a limit on the distance a line can send a given amount
of power. You can fudge this a bit with things like series capacitor
banks, but even with such hardware, there's still a limit.
The bad effect of capacitance of an overhead ac line is to raise the
system voltage when the line is lightly loaded. Shunt reactors
(inductors) are used to compensate for this on long lines.
DC transmission gets around both of these problems.
> I always thought that DC was a
> common choice for long haul lines for just that reason (and to avoid
> phase problems).
Not exactly a common choice, but a handy option for long lines, cable
circuits, or interconnecting systems with different phases or frequencies.
73,
JohnW
From: Johan Kullstam
Subject: Re: What happens to power (was: Difference between LISP and C++)
Date:
Message-ID: <87of8cv16x.fsf@sysengr.res.ray.com>
booker <········@hsnp.com> writes:
> John Wilson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Eduardo Mu�oz wrote:
> >
> > > Kevin Strietzel writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >> PS - Question: A year ago, in the middle of nowhere in Nevada or Utah,
> > >> I saw what looked like a transmission line with two conductors instead
> > >> of the usual three. Anybody know what this was? Balanced "two-phase",
> > >> like what runs into typical houses?
> > >>
> > >
> > > I never saw a tower with two conductors. Usual
> > > configurations are six conductor in three levels
> > > or three conductors in three alternate levels or
> > > horizontal (called delta configuration around
> > > here). Some big towers have two ground wires
> > > (these go at the top) with a good distance betwen
> > > them. We have made a number of tower like this (75
> > > meters high) for a transmission line in Mexico.
> > >
> > > See: http://www.eucomsa.es/imagenes/div_estruc/foto5g.jpg
> > > or http://www.eucomsa.es/imagenes/div_estruc/foto11g.jpg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Two conductors is the tipoff to a dc line. These are used in a few
> > places for long-haul transmission, which they do cheaper than ac lines
> > because they only have two conductors and the structures and
> > rights-of-way are smaller. The economics only work for long hauls
> > because the terminal equipment to convert ac to dc and vice versa is
> > much more expensive than the circuit breaker you need at each end of an
> > ac line. DC lines are also used to transmit power between systems that
> > are not in synchronism, and for submarine cables.
> >
> > 73,
> > JohnW
> >
> DC is not good for long runs of wire. The loss of power is greater for
> dc over a long distance than it is for AC. That is why most commercial
> power lines are AC.
No, _high voltage_ is more efficient. AC is easy to transform up to
high voltage. DC at 1MV and such is harder to work with (voltage
transformation is done via a giant switching type power supply and
even circuit breakers are more difficult). DC at the same voltage as
AC has less loss since inductive and capacitive effects cannot create
extra current (hence more resistive loss) and bleed-over creating a
weak short. On very long haul transmissions, the cost of high voltage
DC conversions is offset by efficiency gains.
--
Johan KULLSTAM <··········@attbi.com> sysengr
From: John Wilson
Subject: Re: What happens to power (was: Difference between LISP and C++)
Date:
Message-ID: <3DE3ACF3.9030208@attbi.com>
Johan Kullstam wrote:
> booker <········@hsnp.com> writes:
>
>
>>John Wilson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Eduardo Mu�oz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kevin Strietzel writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>PS - Question: A year ago, in the middle of nowhere in Nevada or Utah,
>>>>>I saw what looked like a transmission line with two conductors instead
>>>>>of the usual three. Anybody know what this was? Balanced "two-phase",
>>>>>like what runs into typical houses?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I never saw a tower with two conductors. Usual
>>>>configurations are six conductor in three levels
>>>>or three conductors in three alternate levels or
>>>>horizontal (called delta configuration around
>>>>here). Some big towers have two ground wires
>>>>(these go at the top) with a good distance betwen
>>>>them. We have made a number of tower like this (75
>>>>meters high) for a transmission line in Mexico.
>>>>
>>>>See: http://www.eucomsa.es/imagenes/div_estruc/foto5g.jpg
>>>>or http://www.eucomsa.es/imagenes/div_estruc/foto11g.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Two conductors is the tipoff to a dc line. These are used in a few
>>>places for long-haul transmission, which they do cheaper than ac lines
>>>because they only have two conductors and the structures and
>>>rights-of-way are smaller. The economics only work for long hauls
>>>because the terminal equipment to convert ac to dc and vice versa is
>>>much more expensive than the circuit breaker you need at each end of an
>>>ac line. DC lines are also used to transmit power between systems that
>>>are not in synchronism, and for submarine cables.
>>>
>>>73,
>>>JohnW
>>>
>>>
>>DC is not good for long runs of wire. The loss of power is greater for
>>dc over a long distance than it is for AC. That is why most commercial
>>power lines are AC.
>>
>
> No, _high voltage_ is more efficient. AC is easy to transform up to
> high voltage. DC at 1MV and such is harder to work with (voltage
> transformation is done via a giant switching type power supply and
> even circuit breakers are more difficult).
Voltage transformation is not done at all in dc power transmission. The
converter stations are full-wave scr bridges, which run as inverters or
rectifiers depending on how you control the scrs. A couple of companies
offer dc circuit breakers for HVDC transmission systems, but none of
these devices has ever been used in an actual transmission scheme. You
interrupt a fault on a dc line by stopping triggering of the scrs.
> DC at the same voltage as
> AC has less loss since inductive and capacitive effects cannot create
> extra current (hence more resistive loss) and bleed-over creating a
> weak short. On very long haul transmissions, the cost of high voltage
> DC conversions is offset by efficiency gains.
And much more so by the fact that the transmission line itself is
cheaper per mile.
73,
JohnW
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:18:44 GMT, John Wilson <··········@attbi.com>
wrote:
>
>
>Johan Kullstam wrote:
>
Gentlemen:
You are both right and wrong. The structures and the conductors for DC
transmission are less expensive than comparable AC because of reduced
electrical losses. The terminal equipment is more expensive to make
the AC to DC and DC to AC conversions. Depending on the length of the
line, the DC is probably in most cases more expensive. The main
advantage, however, is that a DC link in an AC system is an
asynchronous connection. This means that power flow can be precisely
controlled over a DC tie and there are significant system stability
improvement consequences that result. Most bulk power transmission
system flows in the US are not limited by thermal line considerations
but by upset stability factors (1965 Blackout).
Regards,
John Phillips
Eduardo Mu�oz wrote:
>
> Kevin Strietzel <········@mail.mc.maricopa.edu> writes:
>
> > PS - Question: A year ago, in the middle of nowhere in Nevada or Utah,
> > I saw what looked like a transmission line with two conductors instead
> > of the usual three. Anybody know what this was? Balanced "two-phase",
> > like what runs into typical houses?
>
> I never saw a tower with two conductors. Usual
> configurations are six conductor in three levels
> or three conductors in three alternate levels or
> horizontal (called delta configuration around
> here). Some big towers have two ground wires
> (these go at the top) with a good distance betwen
> them. We have made a number of tower like this (75
> meters high) for a transmission line in Mexico.
>
> See: http://www.eucomsa.es/imagenes/div_estruc/foto5g.jpg
> or http://www.eucomsa.es/imagenes/div_estruc/foto11g.jpg
...
This is the only set of two-conductor towers I've seen. They were more
or less typical open-frame towers, but with only two conductors, and no
place to hang a third. I don't remember if they had lightning wires.
The whole thing looked "lighter weight" than some of the transmission
lines I've seen, but I didn't get to study it for long.
I like the DC explanation put forward by John Wilson (and another in
e-mail).
Thanks!
--Kevin
From: Chris Torek
Subject: Re: What happens to power (was: Difference between LISP and C++)
Date:
Message-ID: <arvb3u$9r5$1@elf.eng.bsdi.com>
In article <·················@mail.mc.maricopa.edu>
Kevin Strietzel <········@mail.mc.maricopa.edu> writes:
>I like the DC explanation put forward by John Wilson (and another in
>e-mail).
You mentioned "middle of nowhere" and "Nevada or Utah". If it was
in western Nevada, near US 395, it was almost certainly the Pacific
DC Intertie.
(I am not aware of any DC lines here in Utah, but then, there is no
particular reason I should be. :-) )
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems (BSD engineering)
Salt Lake City, UT, USA Domain: ·····@bsdi.com
http://67.40.109.61/torek/ (for the moment)
(you probably cannot email me -- spam has effectively killed email)
From: John Wilson
Subject: Re: What happens to power (was: Difference between LISP and C++)
Date:
Message-ID: <3DE3ADAF.8000602@attbi.com>
Chris Torek wrote:
> In article <·················@mail.mc.maricopa.edu>
> Kevin Strietzel <········@mail.mc.maricopa.edu> writes:
>
>>I like the DC explanation put forward by John Wilson (and another in
>>e-mail).
>>
>
> You mentioned "middle of nowhere" and "Nevada or Utah". If it was
> in western Nevada, near US 395, it was almost certainly the Pacific
> DC Intertie.
>
> (I am not aware of any DC lines here in Utah, but then, there is no
> particular reason I should be. :-) )
>
There's one from the Salt Lake City area to the Los Angeles area.
73,
JohnW
Chris Torek wrote:
> In article <·················@mail.mc.maricopa.edu>
> Kevin Strietzel <········@mail.mc.maricopa.edu> writes:
> >I like the DC explanation put forward by John Wilson (and another in
> >e-mail).
>
> You mentioned "middle of nowhere" and "Nevada or Utah". If it was
> in western Nevada, near US 395, it was almost certainly the Pacific
> DC Intertie.
I don't know exactly where I was, because I was on a train, and because
it was a year ago and I've forgotten. But I was going nominally east or
west, so the lines were going nominally north and south. [Studying
maps....] Okay, a great circle route from The Dalles to Los Angeles
might run east of Reno, and the train went through Reno. Somehow I'd
never expected the Pacific Intertie to run through Nevada.
Hard to believe, though, that the puny transmission line I saw could
handle 3100MW.
Pursuant to other parts of the AC vs. DC discussion, a few years ago I
read about the converters at the ends of the line, and it was pretty
impressive.
...
--Kevin
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3d6pp107f.fsf@cley.com>
* Thomas F Burdick wrote:
> A little of both. California really doesn't have the capacity to
> provide enough electricity for itself.
Well, building powerstations is a solved engineering problem, and I
understand California is quite large enough to fit a few new ones in.
Except for the NIMBYs that is...
--tim
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <lkznstxbyl.fsf@cartan.de>
···@whirlwind.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
>
> > ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> >
> > > Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> > >
> > > > Like, electricity is no big deal. Giving a billion people
> > > > stable electricity is a major feat of engineering.
> > >
> > > Tell me about it ... no blackouts this year, yet!
> >
> > That was a political problem, not an engineering problem as far as I
> > remember.
>
> A little of both. California really doesn't have the capacity to
> provide enough electricity for itself.
And the reason for that, IIRC, was that California's democrat
government used to keep electricity prices artificially low, wasn't
it? Resulting in a shortage of electricity, just as rent-control
always causes a shortage of apartments everywhere it has been
introduced, like, for instance, in all of Germany in the eighties, or
in the city of Berkeley, too, as I read in some essay by David
Horowitz and Peter Collier about Berkeley.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <k7jx3wrp.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu>
> | Yes, but byte-code is hardly an amazing (or even original) technical
> | achievement.
>
> I wonder if you are intentionally blind here.
Although I often do that for rhetorical purposes, I'm not in this case.
> Java is more than a byte-code engine. It is a /deployed/
> byte-code engine for starters. Engineering is not only design and
> having some neat idea. Engineering is actually getting something
> done with the available resources.
I'm not downplaying the effort involved in developing the language and
the library. I just don't see an impressive technical achievement.
> If you look at things only as "inventions" and criticize some invention
> for not being terribly smart, another and better invention may very well
> replace it at no relevant cost. If, however, you look at the cost of
> deployment of any invention, you realize that /engineering/ is indeed
> capable of producing feats with inventions that are not earth-shattering
> on their own. Like, electricity is no big deal. Giving a billion people
> stable electricity is a major feat of engineering. Like, heavier-than-air
> flight is no big deal. Building up an global network of airports and
> airways and allowing people to cross vast oceans in a manner of hours and
> only have to work a week to afford it, is a major feat of engineering as
> well as business. Building a Common Lisp environment is no big deal,
> either. But doing it for pay and staying in business for 20 years and
> giving 50 people a decent livelihood with the profits, is an admirable
> feat of both engineering and business.
If there were some sort of infrastructure that required maintenance to
keep several million Java installations running, then I would agree.
Simply allowing millions of people to download the product is a
very minor form of deployment that has been done time and time again.
There are *thousands* of deployed software applications with as large
or larger a client base than Java. It is somewhat amazing that this
is the case, but Java is simply one out of many in that regard.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3hef110ml.fsf@cley.com>
* Joe Marshall wrote:
> There are *thousands* of deployed software applications with as large
> or larger a client base than Java. It is somewhat amazing that this
> is the case, but Java is simply one out of many in that regard.
However not many of those are programming languages & libraries, and
almost none of the ones that are didn't exist 10 years ago.
--tim
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3vg3hvebb.fsf@cley.com>
* Erik Naggum wrote:
> But unlike Microosft's fantastic marketing, [...] Sun actually
> delivered a programming language and a solid technology.
I think one could go further than this. *Windows* is a deeply amazing
piece of marketing. Either Windows 2000 or Windows XP might be a
product that sort of works acceptably well within its constraints
(user interface designed for apes, sends all your personal details to
Bill Gates &c &c). But before that we had to put up with well over 5
years of stuff that either didn't work at all (windows 9x) or was just
deficient at supporting any HW you might want to use (NT). During
this time they achieved *complete dominance* of the desktop, by
selling people software that would eat itself every few months and
required continual handholding. That's really astonishing.
--tim
Well, I'm using XP. IMHO, the first version of Windows that is actually any
good. User interface designed for apes? Seems to look a bit more like a
Mac to me. I like Linux though and I'd like to get the chance to use it
except we need VC for development and I don't think I could engineer the
deep shifts needed within our company.
From a marketting point of view, sell something knackered if you can. Once
accepted, any new fix updates will seem as though they are enhancing the
product rather than trying to make it work like it should have done from day
1. Microsoft have always done this. I don't know if it's luck or extremely
clever planning.
--
Justin Johnson
"Tim Bradshaw" <···@cley.com> wrote in message
····················@cley.com...
> * Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> > But unlike Microosft's fantastic marketing, [...] Sun actually
> > delivered a programming language and a solid technology.
>
> I think one could go further than this. *Windows* is a deeply amazing
> piece of marketing. Either Windows 2000 or Windows XP might be a
> product that sort of works acceptably well within its constraints
> (user interface designed for apes, sends all your personal details to
> Bill Gates &c &c). But before that we had to put up with well over 5
> years of stuff that either didn't work at all (windows 9x) or was just
> deficient at supporting any HW you might want to use (NT). During
> this time they achieved *complete dominance* of the desktop, by
> selling people software that would eat itself every few months and
> required continual handholding. That's really astonishing.
>
> --tim
>
>
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3d6ppv93l.fsf@cley.com>
* Justin Johnson wrote:
> User interface designed for apes? Seems to look a bit more like a
> Mac to me.
True. It's hard to get non-simian-optimized user interfaces any more.
The mac is probably the cause. They don't even have a *single* button
on their mice any more, do they - it was too hard to hit reliably I
suppose. Now you just kind of hammer away at the top of the mouse
until something happens.
--tim
"Justin Johnson" <·······@mobiusent.com> writes:
> IMHO, the first version of Windows that is actually any
> good.
it's not so bad - for a Windows at least - but it's also the first
version of Windows that you *really* should avoid using, because of
the unbelievable "additional license agreement" of SP1. Lispers should
especially note that they try to make you agree to not publishing any
performance tests of .NET without prior written permission! Add
Palladium to that, and you'll get nightmares as scary as LSD bad
trips. This company is so shameless and ruthless that I really wonder
why the US company has to look abroad to find any "axis of evil".
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> why the US company has to look abroad to find any "axis of evil".
^^^^^^^
ouch.
government (of course)
--
(espen)
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> wrote in message news:<···············@cley.com>...
>
> Oh, it is, but it's fantastic in an interesting way which a lot of
> people (including some cll people I suspect) don't appreciate. It's
> not `innovative' or `pure' or `clever' or even particularly pleasant
> to use. What it is, though, is a fantastic piece of engineering. The
> problem was to design a language which was good enough to use, easy
> enough to learn (remembering that you are going to be teaching average
> programmers), standard enough, has a big enough library, and finally
> offers enough compelling advantages over the competition (which on the
> one hand is C/C++, and the other is stuff like SmallTalk which was
> (is?) widely used for business stuff, and on the third hand is COBOL
> &c) that people will actually use it. Finally you need to avoid it
> getting either bogged down in formal standardisation, or usurped by
> something else - either an embrace-and-extend Java, or another
> language trying to occupy the same space.
I've always thought one of Java's main advantages was that it allowed
several not-necessarily-brilliant programmers to work simultaneously
on one large piece of code, and provided mechanisms (e.g. interfaces,
'final' classes, etc) whereby code joins could be made reasonably
watertight. Sure, you sacrifice some power and expressiveness to
achieve this, but if your primary concern is to minimise the ways in
which programmer A can break programmer B's code, that doesn't matter
as much.
Is there another language that does this better? (Eiffel, perhaps? I
don't know enough about it to say).
martin
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3of96n6ae.fsf@cley.com>
* Martin DeMello wrote:
> I've always thought one of Java's main advantages was that it allowed
> several not-necessarily-brilliant programmers to work simultaneously
> on one large piece of code, and provided mechanisms (e.g. interfaces,
> 'final' classes, etc) whereby code joins could be made reasonably
> watertight.
Right! The design of Java recognises that most programmers are not
that good, but that programs need to get written anyway by these
people, and it seems to be succeeding. That's why it's an interesting
bit of engineering. Lisp is hardly mediocre-programmer-friendly
because you need to understand hard ideas to use it well, and neither
is C++ because you have to be amazingly good just to stop it falling
in a heap all the time.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Martin DeMello wrote:
> > I've always thought one of Java's main advantages was that it allowed
> > several not-necessarily-brilliant programmers to work simultaneously
> > on one large piece of code, and provided mechanisms (e.g. interfaces,
> > 'final' classes, etc) whereby code joins could be made reasonably
> > watertight.
>
> Right! The design of Java recognises that most programmers are not
> that good, but that programs need to get written anyway by these
> people, and it seems to be succeeding. That's why it's an interesting
> bit of engineering. Lisp is hardly mediocre-programmer-friendly
> because you need to understand hard ideas to use it well, and neither
> is C++ because you have to be amazingly good just to stop it falling
> in a heap all the time.
This property of Java has a somewhat surprising benefit for those of
us who are capable of understanding difficult concepts, and writing
systems that use them. Just because we can, doesn't mean we always
want to. Personally, I'm not great at Java, and I have no desire to
be. But I can still accomplish quite a lot, because the language
doesn't expect you to be all that great at it to use it. It's even
reasonable productive for a semi-ignorant -- less so than Smalltalk,
but better than most anything else I've seen[*].
[*] There's a point at which CL gets really easy to use, when you can
find anything you need very quickly via APROPOS and the HyperSpec, but
that point is at a higher level of comfort with that language than I'm
talking about here. Before that, it was fairly confusing to learn how
to do new things.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
arien wrote:
> What I
> still find hard to grasp, is normally when you distribute a program, you
> distribute the executables. So how would you distribute a program
> created in Lisp?
This depends on the Lisp environment you use. You can expect most
commercial implementations to be able to create distributable
executables (but watch out for licensing issues), and I guess also some
of the free implementations.
If you develop open source software, it seems to be quite usual to just
make the sources available.
> Also, as I asked in another post above, can lisp create a UI? Or would
> you use something like C++ for the UI, and then that runs the lisp code?
Again, some of the Lisp implementations provide libraries that allow you
to access the GUI of your operating system. There's also a platform
independent GUI library called CLIM that is supported by some Lisps.
Note that it's hard in these regards to compare Lisp to Java. Java is a
language + environment that is controlled by Sun - so actually you have
mainly one reference implementation of Java that is ported to several
operating systems, and all other implementation try to stay as close as
possible to the Java implementation provided by Sun.
Common Lisp has an exceptionally precise specification that is respected
by all conforming implementations, but things like GUI and deployment,
among other things, are largely left to the implementors. Since Common
Lisp is not controlled by a single company, there is much more diversity
in Common Lisp implementations than is the case for Java. Some people
consider this as an advantage.
> Lastly, I show some sample lisp code, that I had written, to a friend
> and he responded that it looked like a Low Level Lanuage. Could someone
> tell me 1) if this is true, and 2) The difference between High Level and
> Low Level languages?
I don't think these terms have precise definitions, but I think that
most people have the following notion: A low level language stays close
to the computer operational model, whereas a high level language is
closer to the mental model(s) of people.
All programming language look kind of low level when you use them for
simple toy examples. The low level / high level distinction becomes more
important when you start to write sufficiently large programs, and is
therefore hard to recognize for a beginner.
According to this notion, for example C is a very low level language.
C++ is a hybrid of very low level elements (the C heritage) and very
high level elements (for example templates). Java is a strange creature
that is somewhere in between - it has some low level elements in that it
stays close to the data types as provided by the hardware, but is also
kind of high level in that it encourages object-oriented programming
(but with some limitations). And then, Java incorporates also some
elements of Lisp, like garbage collection.
C++ is a language for experts who want to stay close to the machine
level by default, but it allows high level abstractions if they are
wanted. So for example, C++ doesn't provide garbage collection, and the
type system has many opportunities to shoot yourself in the foot
accidentally. Common Lisp is a language for experts who want to stay
close to their own mental model by default, but it allows low level
manipulations if they are needed.
I hope this helps.
Pascal
--
Given any rule, however �fundamental� or �necessary� for science, there
are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the
rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message news:<··························@news.adl.ihug.com.au>...
>
> Ah, you see this I didn't know. Since the only languages I know are Java
> (and I've seen a little C++), I can't get my head around the difference.
> I'm starting to get an idea, and thanks for everyone's input. What I
> still find hard to grasp, is normally when you distribute a program, you
> distribute the executables. So how would you distribute a program
> created in Lisp?
>
> Also, as I asked in another post above, can lisp create a UI? Or would
> you use something like C++ for the UI, and then that runs the lisp code?
We ship executables. Actually, what we now ship is an executable and
a number of module files which (may) get loaded when the executable
starts - we do this so that the system can be customized by the user
(users can (or could, if there was enough documentation) write their
own modules based on the core weld system).
We have a (rudimentary) GUI. It's rudimentary because we haven't got
around to making it not so yet, not because of limitations in the
system. It runs on Windows and Linux/Unix from identical code (I
think there is a couple of lines of hackery with choosing fonts, but
that's it).
The system runs mostly on Linux. Originally we thought it would run
mostly on Windows, and a very substantial amount of code was written
on Windows, at which time we didn't even have a Linux box (we had
Solaris boxes but no testing was done on them as we didn't have the
development environment). When things changed, we got a Linux box,
and moved it there. It compiled and ran on Linux first time, with
*no* changes to the source (we did later find a couple of small bugs I
think). I now develop about 50/50 on the two platforms - Windows
because it runs on my laptop, Linux because the machine has a big
screen.
Things like making executables and GUIS are not defined by the
standard, but decent implementations do a good job of it. In fact, of
course, the rather few language standards define most of this stuff -
I'm fairly sure that C++/C doesn't for instance. Java probably does
though. Many single-implementation languages like Perl probably do too
but this is not different than a single Lisp implementation doing so
except that there is more than one Lisp implementation.
--tim
arien wrote:
> Since the only languages I know are Java
> (and I've seen a little C++), I can't get my head around the difference.
> I'm starting to get an idea, and thanks for everyone's input. What I
> still find hard to grasp, is normally when you distribute a program, you
> distribute the executables. So how would you distribute a program
> created in Lisp?
While some implementations have ways to produce C -style stand-alone
executables, or .dll files, the "native" style in Lisp would be to
install the Lisp runtime system, and then load the compiled files into
it; if you have a single application, that may be delivered as already
loaded into the runtime system (i.e. load the application into a clean
Lisp, and dump the memory image). This is actually rather close to the
way Java does it, except that there is no virtual machine between the
program and the hardware.
- At least, what Java stuff I've done, we always delivered the Java
runtime environment (JRE) with the application, to make sure the
customer ran a compatible version.
> Also, as I asked in another post above, can lisp create a UI? Or would
> you use something like C++ for the UI, and then that runs the lisp code?
Presumably you are talking about a GUI, here. The Common Lisp standard
doesn't define a GUI system, so most commercial CL implementations have
their proprietary GUI tools. Additionally there are some non-proprietary
GUI systems of varying applicability. Another way would be to do the GUI
in another language, and communicate with the Lisp side some way
(sockets, CORBA, through a foreign function call mechanism etc).
--
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> ...What I still find hard to grasp, is normally when you distribute
> a program, you distribute the executables. So how would you
> distribute a program created in Lisp?
If the program is big enough[1], you dump a Lisp image. You also dump
a Lisp image when you want to add packages to your basic Lisp
environment so that the features in those packages will be available
when you start up. I now have three Lisp images that I run on a
regular basis. One is the `bare' Lisp, containing only the packages
that come with CMU Lisp. It has no GUI. Actually that's a little
misleading, since it has CLX, which is the Lisp version of XLIB.
Another is a Garnet image, which contains the Garnet GUI toolkit, and
another is a CLIM image, which contains FreeCLIM. CLIM is a
more-or-less standardized cross-platform GUI toolkit. FreeCLIM is an
open source version that is not yet complete, but which some people
are working on.
Here are the sizes of the images:
25489408 clim.x86f
19111936 garnet.x86f
14712832 lisp.core
There's also Maxima, a symbolic algebra program, which gets dumped as
a Lisp image. Here is the size of Maxima:
28405760 maxima.core
There's also CL-HTTP, a Lisp-based web server:
25341952 cl-http.core
These are just a few images I happen to have around at the present.
The way all these work under CMU Lisp is that you have a Lisp `image
loader' which maps the image into memory, runs a few initialization
things and then hands control to Lisp. So a Lisp binary distribution
would consist of the image loader, the image or core file, and perhaps
a script to start things up, telling the image loader the name and
location of the image and what function to run to start things going.
This is the size of the image loader (which is the actual `executable'
from the Unix or DOS perspective):
353116 lisp
So to run the Maxima application, I'd have a script that would invoke
it as follows:
/usr/local/lib/cmucl/bin/lisp -eval "(user::run)" -core /usr/local/lib/maxima/5.9.0rc1/binary-cmucl/maxima.core
Maxima 5.9.0rc1 http://maxima.sourceforge.net
Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING.
Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter.
This is a development version of Maxima. The function bug_report()
provides bug reporting information.
(C1)
Other versions of Lisp will have distribution mechanisms similar to
this, though not exactly the same. Some will merge the image and the
loader into the same file.
-----
[1] `Big enough' has, ironically, taken on smaller values over time as
disk space has increased. That is, it used to be unpleasant to have a
bunch of 20-30 meg images lying around on one's disk, so one would
load the program from fasls (Lisp object code) instead of dumping an
image of that size. Now people think nothing of keeping around
multiple images that size. This is one aspect of the way that
hardware has `caught up' with Lisp, making it much more pleasant to
run Lisp than it was even ten years ago.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
The density of a textbook must be inversely proportional to the
density of the students using it. --- Dave Stringer-Calvert
"arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no says...
> > * arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
> > | I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni, and I'm
> > | wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly simple terms), why
> > | (and how) lisp differs from standard programming languages such as
C++.
> >
> > FYI: Common Lisp is a standard programming language.
>
> Ah, you see this I didn't know. Since the only languages I know are Java
> (and I've seen a little C++), I can't get my head around the difference.
> I'm starting to get an idea, and thanks for everyone's input. What I
> still find hard to grasp, is normally when you distribute a program, you
> distribute the executables. So how would you distribute a program
> created in Lisp?
Most implementations can compile to an executable.
> Also, as I asked in another post above, can lisp create a UI? Or would
> you use something like C++ for the UI, and then that runs the lisp code?
Lisp can create GUI's (I think you mean GUI - note that the listener *is* a
UI) though it is common to use Java or C++ to construct the GUI and have
the application logic run in Lisp.
> Lastly, I show some sample lisp code, that I had written, to a friend
> and he responded that it looked like a Low Level Lanuage. Could someone
> tell me 1) if this is true, and 2) The difference between High Level and
> Low Level languages?
Lisp is a High Level Language, more so than C++. It separates the
programmer much more from the nuts and bolts of pointers and memory
management for example. I don't think that is disputable by anyone with
knowledge of languages and no personal agenda. Low level languages like C
force you to think on the computer's terms, memory addresses, data
representations etc.
As for your initial question about Lisp and AI, I think Lisp is well suited
for AI for a number of reasons:
- symbols as a data type
- code can be recompiled incrementally for rapid development
- general flexibility as mention in other posts
- interactive environment for easy testing and prototyping
- dynamic typing
- optional and keyword arguments to functions
- macros
It seems that you have a number of all-to-common misconceptions about lisp
and would benefit greatly from a trip to www.lisp.org You will find there a
lot of basic info including tutorials and references.
Enjoy!
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
> It seems that you have a number of all-to-common misconceptions about lisp
> and would benefit greatly from a trip to www.lisp.org You will find there a
> lot of basic info including tutorials and references.
This is why I'm here. I don't understand and I'm looking for more
information :-)
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
>
>> It seems that you have a number of all-to-common misconceptions about
>> lisp and would benefit greatly from a trip to www.lisp.org You will find
>> there a lot of basic info including tutorials and references.
>
> This is why I'm here. I don't understand and I'm looking for more
> information :-)
>
Please have a look at:
http://www.cs.uni-bonn.de/~costanza/lisp/guide.html
http://www.apl.jhu.edu/~hall/lisp.html
I think they are good places to start. I hope this helps.
--
Jacek Podkanski
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ofa1doz4.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> Lastly, I show some sample lisp code, that I had written, to a friend
> and he responded that it looked like a Low Level Lanuage. Could someone
> tell me 1) if this is true, and 2) The difference between High Level and
> Low Level languages?
I don't know. I have written interrupt handlers, garbage collectors,
and virtual memory systems in Lisp and in general have found it to be
much easier than writing them in C or in assembly.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> FYI: Common Lisp is a standard programming language.
Yes, and there is even a Portable Standard Lisp (that is not officialy
standardized) :-)
'Andreas
--
Wherever I lay my .emacs, there�s my $HOME.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
>
> I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni, and I'm
> wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly simple terms), why
> (and how) lisp differs from standard programming languages such as C++.
> I think I sort of get the idea. Lisp is an AI language for starters, and
> it is based on logic, but after that I'm lost. I just need a bit more of
> an in depth (not TOO deep) explaination as to why this is so.
Well, there are lots of answers to this particular question. With no
particular claim to completeness, here are some of my takes on this:
In Lisp, everything is an expression and returns a value. That is why
Lisp only needs one IF form, whereas C++ needs both "if ... then
... else ..." and "... ? ... : ...). That is because in Lisp IF returns
a value and can be used anywhere.
This also leads to a programming style that is more apt to use nested
function calls (since everything is a function, there aren't really
"procedures"), even though you could nest C++ function calls.
Lisp has a much more uniform syntax, represented in a form that is a
native data structure in the language. This allows for easy source code
transformations and allows complicated source code transformations to be
encoded in Lisp macros without the need for additional tools like
parsers, lexers or preprocessors. For a (relatively) simple example,
you could try the exercise of writing a CASE macro that has the same
syntax and behaves like the built-in case statement in Lisp. It isn't
really all that difficult once you know Lisp. It would be rather
daunting to consider writing a control structure like "switch" in C++.
I suspect that you couldn't do it with a C++ macro.
Then there is the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS). It is organized in
a very different way than the C++ object system. In CLOS, classes
encapsulate just the data representation (i.e., the slots or instance
variables). Methods do not belong to classes. Methods belong to
generic functions, which are invoked in exactly the same way as any
other function. This lack of special syntax provides a couple of
benefits, among them the aesthetic one of having all function call look
the same, the practical one of allowing a change from function to
generic function without having to change callers, and MOST CRUCIALLY
the ability to have Multi-methods, namely methods that dynamically
dispatch on the types of any combination of the arguments.
Another benefit of having methods divorced from classes, and in fact, of
the ability to add additional methods to generic functions at all times
is an increased reusability of code. That is because you don't need
access to a class' source code in order to be able to write new methods
for it. If the objects encapsulate code + function theory were
operating in the real world, one would presumably not be able to use a
screwdriver to pry up the lid of a paint can because the "pry" method
was not forseen by the designer of the screwdriver object. Likewise,
one could not use a hammer to hold a towel down on a windy day, since
such a method (use) was not forseen by the designer.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute ···@isi.edu
Since many have already given you comprehensive answers, I will
just present my personal opinion: Lisp is a magnificent language, with a
wide applicability range. C++ is a piece of crap, combining the
shortcomings of a that high level assembler that is C, together with many
of the delusions of an object oriented approach.
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:40:58 -0700, arien wrote:
> I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni, and I'm
> wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly simple terms), why
> (and how) lisp differs from standard programming languages such as C++.
> I think I sort of get the idea. Lisp is an AI language for starters, and
> it is based on logic, but after that I'm lost. I just need a bit more of
> an in depth (not TOO deep) explaination as to why this is so.
>
> TIA
Lovecraftesque <··············@yahoo.com> writes:
> Since many have already given you comprehensive answers, I will
> just present my personal opinion: Lisp is a magnificent language, with a
> wide applicability range. C++ is a piece of crap, combining the
> shortcomings of a that high level assembler that is C, together with many
> of the delusions of an object oriented approach.
An object-oriented assembler, perhaps?
--
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/
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:24:33 -0700, Lovecraftesque
<··············@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Since many have already given you comprehensive answers, I will
>just present my personal opinion: Lisp is a magnificent language, with a
>wide applicability range. C++ is a piece of crap, combining the
>shortcomings of a that high level assembler that is C, together with many
>of the delusions of an object oriented approach.
>
C++ is the language that everybody is using, Lisp is the language
that nobody is using. You can find a job to program in C++, you
cannot find a job to program in Lisp. You can write a long program
in C++ that is human readable, you an write short program in Lisp
that is not human readable. You can access many third party
libraries from C++ (such as ILOG CPLEX), you cannot access these
libraries from Lisp. You can freely post to comp.lang.c++ not being
afraid that they will tell you that you are dumb, you cannot post
to comp.lang.list without triggering nasty responses.
A.L.
Andrzej Lewandowski wrote:
> C++ is the language that everybody is using, Lisp is the language
> that nobody is using.
Wrong.
> You can find a job to program in C++, you
> cannot find a job to program in Lisp.
Wrong.
> You can write a long program
> in C++ that is human readable, you an write short program in Lisp
> that is not human readable.
And vice versa.
> You can access many third party
> libraries from C++ (such as ILOG CPLEX), you cannot access these
> libraries from Lisp.
Never heard of a foreign function interface, have you?
Paul
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <1y69nvzp.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Andrzej Lewandowski <·············@attglobal.net> writes:
> C++ is the language that everybody is using, Lisp is the language
> that nobody is using.
C++ is popular.
> You can find a job to program in C++, you cannot find a job to
> program in Lisp.
I have been a professional lisp programmer for about 18 years.
> You can write a long program in C++ that is human readable, you can
> write short program in Lisp that is not human readable.
And vice-versa.
> You can access many third party libraries from C++ (such as ILOG
> CPLEX), you cannot access these libraries from Lisp.
News to me. I do this frequently.
> You can freely post to comp.lang.c++ not being afraid that they will
> tell you that you are dumb, you cannot post to comp.lang.list
> without triggering nasty responses.
I'm not afraid that people here will tell me I am dumb. (It happens
often enough and has caused no permanent injury.) I rarely get nasty
responses, and when I do, I ignore them. (Again, no permanent
injuries.)
Joe Marshall wrote:
> Andrzej Lewandowski <·······@attglobal.net> writes:
>>You can freely post to comp.lang.c++ not being afraid that they will
>>tell you that you are dumb,
> I'm not afraid that people here will tell me I am dumb.
Yes. Absolutely. This is *why* I want to post to c.l.l. because
*if*[1] I find myself talking arse then I *know* I will be told.
:)w
[1] ...make that *when*...
Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> wrote in news:apm7km$7pb$1
@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
>> Andrzej Lewandowski <·······@attglobal.net> writes:
>>>You can freely post to comp.lang.c++ not being afraid that they will
>>>tell you that you are dumb,
>> I'm not afraid that people here will tell me I am dumb.
> Yes. Absolutely. This is *why* I want to post to c.l.l. because
> *if*[1] I find myself talking arse then I *know* I will be told.
>
>:)w
>
> [1] ...make that *when*...
>
>
I have to agree, that is wonderfully true here.
marc
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
·············@attglobal.net says...
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:24:33 -0700, Lovecraftesque
> <··············@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Since many have already given you comprehensive answers, I will
> >just present my personal opinion: Lisp is a magnificent language, with a
> >wide applicability range. C++ is a piece of crap, combining the
> >shortcomings of a that high level assembler that is C, together with many
> >of the delusions of an object oriented approach.
> >
>
> C++ is the language that everybody is using, Lisp is the language
> that nobody is using. You can find a job to program in C++, you
> cannot find a job to program in Lisp. You can write a long program
> in C++ that is human readable, you an write short program in Lisp
> that is not human readable. You can access many third party
> libraries from C++ (such as ILOG CPLEX), you cannot access these
> libraries from Lisp. You can freely post to comp.lang.c++ not being
> afraid that they will tell you that you are dumb, you cannot post
> to comp.lang.list without triggering nasty responses.
>
>
> A.L.
>
That is interesting :)
Says something about the people here, doesn't it.
I have always believed, that if someone has to defend themselves, then
they mustn't be particularly confident about themselves or their
position....
So why is it that the people here have to defend lisp so vehemently? It
sounds to me like Lisp is in a precarious position if lispers must
attack anyone who so much as accidently suggests that there is something
wrong as lisp.
Some of my posts should even have been taken light-heartedly, but yet
lispers can't seem to do that.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
> In article <··································@4ax.com>,
> ·············@attglobal.net says...
>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:24:33 -0700, Lovecraftesque
>> <··············@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Since many have already given you comprehensive answers, I will
>> >just present my personal opinion: Lisp is a magnificent language,
>> >with a wide applicability range. C++ is a piece of crap, combining
>> >the shortcomings of a that high level assembler that is C, together
>> >with many of the delusions of an object oriented approach.
>> >
>>
>> C++ is the language that everybody is using, Lisp is the language
>> that nobody is using. You can find a job to program in C++, you
>> cannot find a job to program in Lisp. You can write a long program
>> in C++ that is human readable, you an write short program in Lisp
>> that is not human readable. You can access many third party
>> libraries from C++ (such as ILOG CPLEX), you cannot access these
>> libraries from Lisp. You can freely post to comp.lang.c++ not being
>> afraid that they will tell you that you are dumb, you cannot post
>> to comp.lang.list without triggering nasty responses.
>>
>>
>> A.L.
>>
>
> That is interesting :)
> Says something about the people here, doesn't it.
>
> I have always believed, that if someone has to defend themselves, then
> they mustn't be particularly confident about themselves or their
> position....
>
So why do you defend your position so doggedly?????
marc
In article <···································@167.206.3.2>, mspitze1
@optonline.net says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
> ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
>
> > In article <··································@4ax.com>,
> > ·············@attglobal.net says...
> >> On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:24:33 -0700, Lovecraftesque
> >> <··············@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Since many have already given you comprehensive answers, I will
> >> >just present my personal opinion: Lisp is a magnificent language,
> >> >with a wide applicability range. C++ is a piece of crap, combining
> >> >the shortcomings of a that high level assembler that is C, together
> >> >with many of the delusions of an object oriented approach.
> >> >
> >>
> >> C++ is the language that everybody is using, Lisp is the language
> >> that nobody is using. You can find a job to program in C++, you
> >> cannot find a job to program in Lisp. You can write a long program
> >> in C++ that is human readable, you an write short program in Lisp
> >> that is not human readable. You can access many third party
> >> libraries from C++ (such as ILOG CPLEX), you cannot access these
> >> libraries from Lisp. You can freely post to comp.lang.c++ not being
> >> afraid that they will tell you that you are dumb, you cannot post
> >> to comp.lang.list without triggering nasty responses.
> >>
> >>
> >> A.L.
> >>
> >
> > That is interesting :)
> > Says something about the people here, doesn't it.
> >
> > I have always believed, that if someone has to defend themselves, then
> > they mustn't be particularly confident about themselves or their
> > position....
> >
>
> So why do you defend your position so doggedly?????
>
well, what am I actually defending? I agree, I'm not confident about
something that I'm defending, since I don't actually know what it is I'm
defending. I've been attacked for some reason, I still don't know why.
I've supposedly done something wrong which I should apologise for.
The attitude of the some of the people here is disgraceful, and that
makes me angry. I don't know why I persist, I should just walk away and
leave you all in your snooty world.
Anyway, I've answered, now why don't you answer the question?
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
> I agree, I'm not confident about
> something that I'm defending, since I don't actually know what it is I'm
> defending. I've been attacked for some reason, I still don't know why.
> I've supposedly done something wrong which I should apologise for.
Therein lies the problem. You don't know what you're defending, and you
don't know why you seem to think you were attacked. Based on this lack
of knowledge, what should you do?
In a previous post, you said: "...the more this thread goes on, the more
I realise I am right." How can you realize that you are right, when you
don't even know why people are claiming that you're not? Is it possible
that when you finally learn the reason why people respond to your posts
the way they do, that you will realize that you are not right?
arien wrote:
>
> I have always believed, that if someone has to defend themselves, then
> they mustn't be particularly confident about themselves or their
> position....
Funny, that's exactly what you do: "... but I'm just a NEWBIE!" "... I
have only *just* started learning lisp..." "... I simply don't
understand..." You try and defend yourself quite a lot in this
newsgroup. Why is that?
> > C++ is the language that everybody is using, Lisp is the language
> > that nobody is using. You can find a job to program in C++, you
> > cannot find a job to program in Lisp. You can write a long program
> > in C++ that is human readable, you an write short program in Lisp
> > that is not human readable. You can access many third party
> > libraries from C++ (such as ILOG CPLEX), you cannot access these
> > libraries from Lisp. You can freely post to comp.lang.c++ not being
> > afraid that they will tell you that you are dumb, you cannot post
> > to comp.lang.list without triggering nasty responses.
Ridiculous. Not everybody is using C++ (although a lot are), you can get a
job programming LISP, you can write C++ code that is unreadable and hard to
maintain. In fact unless you are incredibly disciplined with it, you can
get into a catastrophic mess.
> So why is it that the people here have to defend lisp so vehemently? It
> sounds to me like Lisp is in a precarious position if lispers must
> attack anyone who so much as accidently suggests that there is something
> wrong as lisp.
Because they care about it. The LISP family represents a masterstroke in
computer language evolution. It must gall lispers to see languages like
Java and C++ doing so well because, in many ways, these are deeply flawed
langauges that have made good progress because of politics, ignorance and
the power of $.
The problem is that most computer languages that people initially come
across are Algol based languages. LISP occupies a different branch on the
evolutionary tree so comparing to to Algol languages is like comparing a car
to a plane. It's natural, but not too helpful, to compare LISP with other
languages that you might have learnt. And that tends to get peoples goat in
this group. You are comparing LISP to languages that they believe are
inferior.
--
Justin Johnson
"arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> In article <··································@4ax.com>,
> ·············@attglobal.net says...
> > On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:24:33 -0700, Lovecraftesque
> > <··············@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Since many have already given you comprehensive answers, I will
> > >just present my personal opinion: Lisp is a magnificent language, with
a
> > >wide applicability range. C++ is a piece of crap, combining the
> > >shortcomings of a that high level assembler that is C, together with
many
> > >of the delusions of an object oriented approach.
> > >
> >
> > C++ is the language that everybody is using, Lisp is the language
> > that nobody is using. You can find a job to program in C++, you
> > cannot find a job to program in Lisp. You can write a long program
> > in C++ that is human readable, you an write short program in Lisp
> > that is not human readable. You can access many third party
> > libraries from C++ (such as ILOG CPLEX), you cannot access these
> > libraries from Lisp. You can freely post to comp.lang.c++ not being
> > afraid that they will tell you that you are dumb, you cannot post
> > to comp.lang.list without triggering nasty responses.
> >
> >
> > A.L.
> >
>
> That is interesting :)
> Says something about the people here, doesn't it.
>
> I have always believed, that if someone has to defend themselves, then
> they mustn't be particularly confident about themselves or their
> position....
>
> So why is it that the people here have to defend lisp so vehemently? It
> sounds to me like Lisp is in a precarious position if lispers must
> attack anyone who so much as accidently suggests that there is something
> wrong as lisp.
>
> Some of my posts should even have been taken light-heartedly, but yet
> lispers can't seem to do that.
>
> --
> Mel
>
> Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| I have always believed, that if someone has to defend themselves, then
| they mustn't be particularly confident about themselves or their
| position....
Yet you keep arguing that you had to defend yourself when you thought I
implied that you were "dumb" and that you had no choice, and you go on
"defending" yourself long after you (claim to) have put the offender in
your kill-file. This must mean -- tada! -- that you really are dumb and
feel you must fight tooth and nail to keep anyone from realizing it,
which it would take /several/ miracles to avoid at this point.
| So why is it that the people here have to defend lisp so vehemently? It
| sounds to me like Lisp is in a precarious position if lispers must attack
| anyone who so much as accidently suggests that there is something wrong
| as lisp.
Now you are just being dumb, again.
| Some of my posts should even have been taken light-heartedly, but yet
| lispers can't seem to do that.
Yet you publicly admit to not getting at least one joke, and the number
of humorous references that fly by you like migratory birds is enormous,
a clear indication that your mental capacity is also heading south.
I am amazed by the resilience of the very unintelligent. One must wonder
what such energy could have produced had it been offered in conjunction
with a healthy mind, but premature certainty is a byproduct of not getting
the message. The more you understand, the better your capacity to realize
that the world is more complex than one's understanding of it. I have
come to wonder just how much information a self-aware system needs before
it realizes that what is has become aware of from its surroundings is not
the whole story. Some believe that self-awareness simply happens when a
sufficiently large number of connections is made in something like the
brain. But what needs to take place before the self-aware system realizes
that the information it has collected and the conclusions it has reached
/may not be sufficient/ and that new data could /surprise/ the system by
offering unexpected data that /could/ alter its conclusions?
The research into human stupidity is looking for a definition of what it
actually is that makes people stupid (not the same as unintelligent). I
think I have a definition: Stupidity is the premise that the information
gathered and the conclusions reached so far are /sufficient/ and that no
further information-gathering or thinking needs to take place before you
act on a "mental model" of the world. The switch from observing reality
and letting it have the last say if you think differently to judging it
to be /wrong/ if it differs from your "mental model", that is the precise
moment of stupidity. /Thinking/ conversely occurs when the input from
the world around you takes precedence over your "mental model".
The one thing that stupid people (people who habitually act as if they
know reality better than reality) do not do is consider the possibility
that they could be wrong, that something out there needs attention and
even scrutiny because it looks out of place. The failure to pay attention
is a major part of the problem, but not all. Even if they noticed that
something was amiss, the stupid person would claim that the world is
unknowable, anyway, and this goes to prove it. Should /people/ fail to
do exactly as they predict, they will act in such a manner as to encourage
them to act the way they have predicted instead of listening to what they
actually do. In the terminology of behaviorists, stupid people reinforce
only what they expect and ignore everything else, and if this does not
yield the expected responses, either, the stupid person acts even more
stupidly in order to fulfill their predictions.
The stupid person is the person who responds to a large number of signals
that could be interpreted many ways with "I told you so!" because he has
ignored the unexpected, whereas the thinking person is the person who
looks at exactly the same signals and responds with "hm... that's odd..."
because he has ignored the expected. The stupid person is the person who
looks at something he does not understand and "knows what it will do" and
does not even try it out because that is a waste of his time, while the
thinking person is the person who looks at exactly the same thing with
exactly the same understanding and goes "I wonder what this does?"
Can a stupid person be made to think? I have long believed that if I give
unthinking people with something contrary to their expectations, they
might wake up and think -- and it works surprisingly often, but it is not
the kind of thing that happens in public view. Thinking is a private
activity, perhaps the most private activity there is. To the habitually
non-thinking (a stupid person), that spark of thought is nigh invisible
precisely because it is the unexpected. To the habitually thinking (a
smart person), that spark of thought is precisely what they enjoy. The
capacity to be surprised is therefore connected to your ability to deal
with a world that is /not/ entirely expected. The smart person regards
the unexpected as intriguing, the stupid person regards it as confusing.
It is hard to notice all the unexpected things and I suspect that it is
so hard that it requires a lot more intelligence and brain capacity than
we humans are equipped with from the start, which means that it will be
impossible for us to ever get rid of lapses of sufficient thought, errare
humanum est, because the volume of information we need to process in
order to make the smart decision exceeds our capacity. This is how I
would connect "intelligent" and "smart": Intelligence is the capacity,
while smart or dumb is the degree of utilization. A person of low
capacity utilized at its fullest is in some ways indistinguishable from a
person of high capacity utilized minimally. Therefore, a person of
modest intellectual means is considered "stupid" because of the visible
failure to gather information and reach conclusions with the requried
speed, but the smart/stupid axis really is fundamentally different from
the intelligence axis.
In recent (real-world) news here in Norway, a moderately retarded mother
was denied the right to care for her own children and the government
wanted to take them away from her and the psychotic, drug-addicted and
violent father. She had been IQ-tested on the WAIS scale and scored 53.
There was, for some reason I cannot possibly relate to, a public outcry.
Old teachers and "friends" and a sundry corral of ludicrous people spoke
up in the media, admitting that "she sure is slow, but", while the social
services office in the community got hate mail and death threats from
other retarded people who obviously had no concern for the children.
Now, the crux of the argument was that she had previously tested 74 on an
IQ test. What could have accounted for the incredible drop? The really
amazing thing, and which made me laugh out loud, was that those who
wanted to reunite the innocent children with these clearly unfit parents
tried to argue that this retarded woman had been under a lot of pressure
and had her sick child with her to the IQ test, thinking that this should
have been ameliorating or at least mitigating, instead /proved/ that her
IQ dropped 20 points when she had to perform tasks of mild to moderate
intellectual complexity while tending to her children. The tester was
"surprised" to see that the test was given such weight in the outcome of
the decision, but if /anything/ could show that a person would be an unfit
mother, it is the inability to deal with many tasks simulataneously. It
is in fact not uncommon for the IQ of mothers to /increase/ dramatically
after giving birth precisely because mothering is such a tremendously
difficult task and requires so much more of the woman than ordinary daily
life. Some estimate the natural increase for someone around the IQ=100
norm to be as much as 15 IQ points, or one standard deviation. If, under
such a situation, the IQ instead dropped by 20 points, the retarded unfit
mother's IQ dropped 35 points under stress and simulataneous intellectual
stimuli. If there ever were a good reason to take children away from
their parents, the very people who tried to defend her provided the best
evidence there could be! Such is the life of unintelligent and stupid
people. If it were not for the poor chidren involved in this squabble and
the chance that they could be returned to these idiot parents, this would
be a tremendously funny story.
Back in our pig-pen, we have some people whose intelligence also drops a
standard deviation or more when they are under intense pressure to prove
that they were not stupid by showing us how well they function when they
are not thinking, but occasionally people grow a clue real quick and show
themselves to be a credit to the human race. Invariably, and I mean this
in the most specific sense, they get on with what they came here for. The
first and probably best sign of a thinking mind under pressure is that it
focuses on its actual purposes and applies concentration to understand
what went on. Absent whining, absent victimization, absent insults, they
turn to do exactly what they said they would to begin with. Momentarily
derailed if at all, they get back on track entirely on their own and apply
themselves to accomplish something useful to themselves. Many in this
category of great people write me personally and thank me for specific
advice or for helping them or for /listening/ to them, which is one of
the rarest activities you find anywhere today.
Some people have posted here about how they have been encouraged in their
continued attacks directed at me by other retarded lunatics and claim they
fight something they consider worthy because stupid people feel hurt and
instead of encouraging them to think, feel they should validate stupidity.
My reward for the work I actually do for people here is that I have caused
people to /think/ about something they had not otherwise thought about
and people give me very valuable ideas and suggestions in return. To the
credit of the people who "side" with me, I have /never/ been encouraged in
any fight against human stupidity. This is no doubt incomprehensible to
the people who need encouragement to be as evil as they have been, but
there is one point of crucial difference: I fight /for/ the ability and the
freedom to think, while these lunatics who gang up on me fight /against/
the freedom to speak up against stupidity. (They could perhaps fight for
the right to be stupid, but I kind of doubt that anyone would actually
admit that.) I do consider stupidity to the worst of all possible human
flaws and the root cause of evil. I see the lack of pressure to think in
schools, or in society in general, to be the most dangerous development in
modern society, and I believe that those who "learn" to habitually avoid
thinking turn to braindead violence and destruction, instead. We see
enough of that on this newsgroup, too.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
"arien" <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> In article <··································@4ax.com>,
> ·············@attglobal.net says...
> > On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:24:33 -0700, Lovecraftesque
> > <··············@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Since many have already given you comprehensive answers, I will
> > >just present my personal opinion: Lisp is a magnificent language, with
a
> > >wide applicability range. C++ is a piece of crap, combining the
> > >shortcomings of a that high level assembler that is C, together with
many
> > >of the delusions of an object oriented approach.
> > >
> >
> > C++ is the language that everybody is using, Lisp is the language
> > that nobody is using. You can find a job to program in C++, you
> > cannot find a job to program in Lisp. You can write a long program
> > in C++ that is human readable, you an write short program in Lisp
> > that is not human readable. You can access many third party
> > libraries from C++ (such as ILOG CPLEX), you cannot access these
> > libraries from Lisp. You can freely post to comp.lang.c++ not being
> > afraid that they will tell you that you are dumb, you cannot post
> > to comp.lang.list without triggering nasty responses.
> >
> >
> > A.L.
> >
>
> That is interesting :)
> Says something about the people here, doesn't it.
That is not interesting. It is an incredibly low-life and transparent
troll. It will only say something about anyone who actually swallows it and
anyone who takes very seriously the bait it offers.
> I have always believed, that if someone has to defend themselves, then
> they mustn't be particularly confident about themselves or their
> position....
Indeed...
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
In article <····································@yahoo.com>,
··············@yahoo.com says...
> Since many have already given you comprehensive answers, I will
> just present my personal opinion: Lisp is a magnificent language, with a
> wide applicability range. C++ is a piece of crap, combining the
> shortcomings of a that high level assembler that is C, together with many
> of the delusions of an object oriented approach.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:40:58 -0700, arien wrote:
>
> > I've only just started studying lisp this semester at uni, and I'm
> > wondering if someone can explain to me (in fairly simple terms), why
> > (and how) lisp differs from standard programming languages such as C++.
> > I think I sort of get the idea. Lisp is an AI language for starters, and
> > it is based on logic, but after that I'm lost. I just need a bit more of
> > an in depth (not TOO deep) explaination as to why this is so.
> >
> > TIA
>
By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object oriented
before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
>
> By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object oriented
> before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. Visit
http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", then click on
"object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
·····@invalid.dom says...
> arien wrote:
> >
> > By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object oriented
> > before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
>
> You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. Visit
> http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", then click on
> "object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
>
Sorry if I'm asking too many newbie questions.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
·····@invalid.dom says...
> arien wrote:
> >
> > By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object oriented
> > before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
>
> You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. Visit
> http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", then click on
> "object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
>
Sometimes I am just looking for a simple answer. Much of what is on
lisp.org goes straight over the top of my head. Remember, I have only
*just* started learning lisp, and I simly don't understand the indepth
analysis that is on lisp.org.
In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could have
answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it in one
word - "yes" or "no".
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
> In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> ·····@invalid.dom says...
>> arien wrote:
>> >
>> > By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object
>> > oriented before, so I don't understand how a procedural language
>> > works.
>>
>> You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. Visit
>> http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", then click on
>> "object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
>>
>
> Sometimes I am just looking for a simple answer. Much of what is on
> lisp.org goes straight over the top of my head. Remember, I have only
> *just* started learning lisp, and I simly don't understand the indepth
> analysis that is on lisp.org.
>
> In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could have
> answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it in one
> word - "yes" or "no".
>
You seem to have the very odd notion firmly wedged in your mind that people
owe you something. You are wrong. This is a discussion group not your
personal lisp tech support hotline. Someone posts something we talk about
it or not. Helping the orignal poster in the way they are willing to
accept has absolutly not one dam thing to do with this system.
marc
In article <····································@167.206.3.2>, mspitze1
@optonline.net says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
> ·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
>
> > In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> > ·····@invalid.dom says...
> >> arien wrote:
> >> >
> >> > By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object
> >> > oriented before, so I don't understand how a procedural language
> >> > works.
> >>
> >> You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. Visit
> >> http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", then click on
> >> "object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
> >>
> >
> > Sometimes I am just looking for a simple answer. Much of what is on
> > lisp.org goes straight over the top of my head. Remember, I have only
> > *just* started learning lisp, and I simly don't understand the indepth
> > analysis that is on lisp.org.
> >
> > In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could have
> > answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it in one
> > word - "yes" or "no".
> >
>
> You seem to have the very odd notion firmly wedged in your mind that people
> owe you something. You are wrong. This is a discussion group not your
> personal lisp tech support hotline. Someone posts something we talk about
> it or not. Helping the orignal poster in the way they are willing to
> accept has absolutly not one dam thing to do with this system.
>
> marc
>
You see to have the very odd problem of making assumptions about people
that are not true. This is usenet, and I believe I am free to ask
whatever lisp question I like.
You chose not to answer it, but yet someone else chose to. If you didn't
like the question, and you found it too trivial, then why didn't you
simply ignore it instead of your harsh reply?
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
>>
>
> You see to have the very odd problem of making assumptions about
> people that are not true. This is usenet, and I believe I am free to
> ask whatever lisp question I like.
You are free to ask it, my comment was that noone was requied to answer it.
That does not mean that noone will answere it. It just means that you have
no right to expect help not that you will not get some.
>
> You chose not to answer it, but yet someone else chose to. If you
> didn't like the question, and you found it too trivial, then why
> didn't you simply ignore it instead of your harsh reply?
>
Again I was not commenting on the question but explaining the process.
The answer is www.alu.org, www.cons.org, the handy dandy hyperspec and you
doing some of your own work.
marc
arien wrote:
> In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> ·····@invalid.dom says...
> > arien wrote:
> > >
> > > By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object oriented
> > > before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
> >
> > You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. Visit
> > http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", then click on
> > "object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
>
> Sometimes I am just looking for a simple answer. Much of what is on
> lisp.org goes straight over the top of my head. Remember, I have only
> *just* started learning lisp, and I simly don't understand the indepth
> analysis that is on lisp.org.
In-depth analysis? Maybe I'll recap what you would find had you
followed my advice:
There is no one true programming methodology:
- Object Oriented programming [...]
- Functional programming [...]
- Procedural languages [...]
Common lisp provides integrated support for all these methodologies
If that's above your head, then you really shouldn't be in university.
> In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could have
> answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it in one
> word - "yes" or "no".
Or I could have told you to fuck off. Do you think everybody here is
your personal slave to help you the way you want to be helped? Do you
tell your professors, "Look, instead of describing the theory so that
I'll understand the principles behind it, how about just giving me the
answer? It took you an entire semester just to write out e=mc^2! What
a colossal waste of bandwidth!!!"
In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
·····@invalid.dom says...
> arien wrote:
> > In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> > ·····@invalid.dom says...
> > > arien wrote:
> > > >
> > > > By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object oriented
> > > > before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
> > >
> > > You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. Visit
> > > http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", then click on
> > > "object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
> >
> > Sometimes I am just looking for a simple answer. Much of what is on
> > lisp.org goes straight over the top of my head. Remember, I have only
> > *just* started learning lisp, and I simly don't understand the indepth
> > analysis that is on lisp.org.
>
> In-depth analysis? Maybe I'll recap what you would find had you
> followed my advice:
>
> There is no one true programming methodology:
>
> - Object Oriented programming [...]
> - Functional programming [...]
> - Procedural languages [...]
>
> Common lisp provides integrated support for all these methodologies
>
> If that's above your head,
No it's not above my head, however I have never heard of Functional
Programming.
> then you really shouldn't be in university.
You have no right to suggest that I shouldn't be in university.
Everybody has a right to an education, and nobody has *any* right to
prevent *anyone* from going to university.
>
> > In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could have
> > answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it in one
> > word - "yes" or "no".
>
> Or I could have told you to fuck off.
Or you could have just said nothing.
> Do you think everybody here is
> your personal slave to help you the way you want to be helped?
Did I suggest that? Please post where I suggested that.
> Do you
> tell your professors, "Look, instead of describing the theory so that
> I'll understand the principles behind it, how about just giving me the
> answer? It took you an entire semester just to write out e=mc^2! What
> a colossal waste of bandwidth!!!"
That's just ridiculous. If this was the case I wouldn't be here, I would
just be copying the code off of a friend (like I have seen others doing
in my class). No, I'm trying to actually learn it cuz I want to. That is
why I am here.
>
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
>
> > > > > By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object oriented
> > > > > before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
> > > >
> > > > You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. Visit
> > > > http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", then click on
> > > > "object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
> > >
> > > Sometimes I am just looking for a simple answer. Much of what is on
> > > lisp.org goes straight over the top of my head. Remember, I have only
> > > *just* started learning lisp, and I simly don't understand the indepth
> > > analysis that is on lisp.org.
> >
> > In-depth analysis? Maybe I'll recap what you would find had you
> > followed my advice:
> >
> > There is no one true programming methodology:
> >
> > - Object Oriented programming [...]
> > - Functional programming [...]
> > - Procedural languages [...]
> >
> > Common lisp provides integrated support for all these methodologies
> >
> > If that's above your head,
>
> No it's not above my head, however I have never heard of Functional
> Programming.
The page I suggested you read would have told you exactly what
functional programming is. It also would have told you explicitly
whether or not Lisp is object oriented and also why it is object
oriented.
> > [If that's above your head,] then you really shouldn't be in university.
>
> You have no right to suggest that I shouldn't be in university.
> Everybody has a right to an education, and nobody has *any* right to
> prevent *anyone* from going to university.
I added the context in square brackets. The page I suggested you read
tells you exactly what you wished to know. Only you apparently refuse
to read it, claiming that "much of what is on lisp.org goes straight
over the top of my head". Why are you unwilling to make the effort to
learn and, if you are stuck on any one point, to ask more?
The reason you're taking so much flak on this group is because of this.
An expected exchange of questions and answers might look like this:
Arien: "Is lisp object oriented?"
Brian: "Take a look at this web site..."
Arien: "Oh, I see, the site you provided explains that Common Lisp has
the most complete and advanced object oriented system of any programming
language. Thank you for providing this link as it answers my question in
depth. However, there is a point that I don't quite understand..."
Brian: "That point can be better explained by..."
Do you see the difference?
> > > In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could have
> > > answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it in one
> > > word - "yes" or "no".
> >
> > Or I could have told you to fuck off.
>
> Or you could have just said nothing.
I volunteered an answer in order to help you. You then had the nerve to
complain that you didn't like my answer. It is YOU who should have
simply said nothing if you didn't like it. Insulting and complaining to
a person who has offered assistance is just plain RUDE!
It's the online equivalent of visiting a foreign city and asking a local
for directions to a particular restaurant. The local shows you where
you currently are on a map, and the path you must take to get to your
destination as well as other points of interest. You then complain to
the local that he could have simply pointed the direction and told you
it was two blocks that way. What's the local going to say? "Fine!
Next time you need help go find it yourself, you ungrateful leech!"
> > Do you think everybody here is your personal slave to help you
> > the way you want to be helped?
>
> Did I suggest that? Please post where I suggested that.
This quote of yours suggests this attitude:
"EXPLAIN IT TO ME FOR FUCKS SAKE!"
Also, I didn't say that you actually do consider everybody here your
personal slave. I merely asked whether or not this was the case. You
could have simply answered "yes" or "no".
> > Do you
> > tell your professors, "Look, instead of describing the theory so that
> > I'll understand the principles behind it, how about just giving me the
> > answer? It took you an entire semester just to write out e=mc^2! What
> > a colossal waste of bandwidth!!!"
>
> That's just ridiculous. If this was the case I wouldn't be here, I would
> just be copying the code off of a friend (like I have seen others doing
> in my class). No, I'm trying to actually learn it cuz I want to. That is
> why I am here.
How is what I described above with e=mc^2 any different from pointing
you to a website where you can learn whether or not lisp is object
oriented? You seemed to want a yes or no answer to that question, so
what's ridiculous about assuming that you would simply want to know the
formula e=mc^2 rather than the theory behind it?
In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
·····@invalid.dom says...
> arien wrote:
> >
> > > > > > By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object oriented
> > > > > > before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
> > > > >
> > > > > You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. Visit
> > > > > http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", then click on
> > > > > "object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes I am just looking for a simple answer. Much of what is on
> > > > lisp.org goes straight over the top of my head. Remember, I have only
> > > > *just* started learning lisp, and I simly don't understand the indepth
> > > > analysis that is on lisp.org.
> > >
> > > In-depth analysis? Maybe I'll recap what you would find had you
> > > followed my advice:
> > >
> > > There is no one true programming methodology:
> > >
> > > - Object Oriented programming [...]
> > > - Functional programming [...]
> > > - Procedural languages [...]
> > >
> > > Common lisp provides integrated support for all these methodologies
> > >
> > > If that's above your head,
> >
> > No it's not above my head, however I have never heard of Functional
> > Programming.
>
> The page I suggested you read would have told you exactly what
> functional programming is. It also would have told you explicitly
> whether or not Lisp is object oriented and also why it is object
> oriented.
This I do apologise for. I have been given several links which I have
bookmarked, and I aim to get around to reading *all* of them. However,
there is a lot of reading to get through, and I don't have *that* much
time on my hands :)
>
> > > [If that's above your head,] then you really shouldn't be in university.
> >
> > You have no right to suggest that I shouldn't be in university.
> > Everybody has a right to an education, and nobody has *any* right to
> > prevent *anyone* from going to university.
>
> I added the context in square brackets. The page I suggested you read
> tells you exactly what you wished to know. Only you apparently refuse
> to read it, claiming that "much of what is on lisp.org goes straight
> over the top of my head". Why are you unwilling to make the effort to
> learn and, if you are stuck on any one point, to ask more?
>
> The reason you're taking so much flak on this group is because of this.
> An expected exchange of questions and answers might look like this:
>
> Arien: "Is lisp object oriented?"
>
> Brian: "Take a look at this web site..."
>
> Arien: "Oh, I see, the site you provided explains that Common Lisp has
> the most complete and advanced object oriented system of any programming
> language. Thank you for providing this link as it answers my question in
> depth. However, there is a point that I don't quite understand..."
>
> Brian: "That point can be better explained by..."
>
> Do you see the difference?
As I said above.
>
> > > > In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could have
> > > > answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it in one
> > > > word - "yes" or "no".
> > >
> > > Or I could have told you to fuck off.
> >
> > Or you could have just said nothing.
>
> I volunteered an answer in order to help you. You then had the nerve to
> complain that you didn't like my answer. It is YOU who should have
> simply said nothing if you didn't like it. Insulting and complaining to
> a person who has offered assistance is just plain RUDE!
And your answer was rude. So we were both rude. But I ask, who was rude
first?
>
> It's the online equivalent of visiting a foreign city and asking a local
> for directions to a particular restaurant. The local shows you where
> you currently are on a map,
and what if the map is in German?
> and the path you must take to get to your
> destination as well as other points of interest.
I have worked in a place where I also used to provide tourist
information. This is *NOT* how you provide help. If I was asked a
specific question such as "Where is the nearest toilet?" The correct way
to help this person, would be to give explicit directions where the
toilet is. Sometimes it is useful to draw a hand drawn map with specific
features to help the person find the toilets. This is called "helping
others". By your argument, there is no point in putting signs up when
there is an event, cuz according to you they could just use a map and
find it themselves?
> You then complain to
> the local that he could have simply pointed the direction and told you
> it was two blocks that way. What's the local going to say? "Fine!
> Next time you need help go find it yourself, you ungrateful leech!"
No, because your argument is not valid. Your way of helping the person
is rude and not particularly helpful in the first place. If I helped
someone the way you suggested, I would have been sacked.
>
> > > Do you think everybody here is your personal slave to help you
> > > the way you want to be helped?
> >
> > Did I suggest that? Please post where I suggested that.
>
> This quote of yours suggests this attitude:
>
> "EXPLAIN IT TO ME FOR FUCKS SAKE!"
Keep it in context. When read with the rest of the post, it is obvious
that I meant "Explain to me rather than abuse me, otherwise ignore me".
>
> Also, I didn't say that you actually do consider everybody here your
> personal slave. I merely asked whether or not this was the case. You
> could have simply answered "yes" or "no".
Ok, no.
>
> > > Do you
> > > tell your professors, "Look, instead of describing the theory so that
> > > I'll understand the principles behind it, how about just giving me the
> > > answer? It took you an entire semester just to write out e=mc^2! What
> > > a colossal waste of bandwidth!!!"
> >
> > That's just ridiculous. If this was the case I wouldn't be here, I would
> > just be copying the code off of a friend (like I have seen others doing
> > in my class). No, I'm trying to actually learn it cuz I want to. That is
> > why I am here.
>
> How is what I described above with e=mc^2 any different from pointing
> you to a website where you can learn whether or not lisp is object
> oriented? You seemed to want a yes or no answer to that question, so
> what's ridiculous about assuming that you would simply want to know the
> formula e=mc^2 rather than the theory behind it?
As I said above, I'm getting through the websites slowly.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object oriented
> > > > > > > before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. Visit
> > > > > > http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", then click on
> > > > > > "object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sometimes I am just looking for a simple answer. Much of what is on
> > > > > lisp.org goes straight over the top of my head. Remember, I have only
> > > > > *just* started learning lisp, and I simly don't understand the indepth
> > > > > analysis that is on lisp.org.
> > > >
> > > > In-depth analysis? Maybe I'll recap what you would find had you
> > > > followed my advice:
> > > >
> > > > There is no one true programming methodology:
> > > >
> > > > - Object Oriented programming [...]
> > > > - Functional programming [...]
> > > > - Procedural languages [...]
> > > >
> > > > Common lisp provides integrated support for all these methodologies
> > > >
> > > > If that's above your head,
> > >
> > > No it's not above my head, however I have never heard of Functional
> > > Programming.
> >
> > The page I suggested you read would have told you exactly what
> > functional programming is. It also would have told you explicitly
> > whether or not Lisp is object oriented and also why it is object
> > oriented.
>
> This I do apologise for. I have been given several links which I have
> bookmarked, and I aim to get around to reading *all* of them. However,
> there is a lot of reading to get through, and I don't have *that* much
> time on my hands :)
Fair enough.
> > > > > In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could have
> > > > > answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it in one
> > > > > word - "yes" or "no".
> > > >
> > > > Or I could have told you to fuck off.
> > >
> > > Or you could have just said nothing.
> >
> > I volunteered an answer in order to help you. You then had the nerve to
> > complain that you didn't like my answer. It is YOU who should have
> > simply said nothing if you didn't like it. Insulting and complaining to
> > a person who has offered assistance is just plain RUDE!
>
> And your answer was rude. So we were both rude. But I ask, who was rude
> first?
I stated facts and you whined about taking up three lines to do it. Now
you've got this persecution complex in that you think everyone's trying
to gang up on you (c.l.l vs Mel) and perform corporal punishment on you.
> > It's the online equivalent of visiting a foreign city and asking a local
> > for directions to a particular restaurant. The local shows you where
> > you currently are on a map,
>
> and what if the map is in German?
It's an analogy. You have the habit of taking these things too far.
"And what if it's at night and very dark, and the power has gone out and
I can't see, and there are muggers everywhere, and it's after a nuclear
explosion?"
> > and the path you must take to get to your
> > destination as well as other points of interest.
>
> I have worked in a place where I also used to provide tourist
> information. This is *NOT* how you provide help. If I was asked a
> specific question such as "Where is the nearest toilet?" The correct way
> to help this person, would be to give explicit directions where the
> toilet is. Sometimes it is useful to draw a hand drawn map with specific
> features to help the person find the toilets. This is called "helping
> others".
And how would you react if the person crumpled up your hand drawn map
with specific features and said, "In the three minutes it took you to
draw that map, you could have answered my question. In fact, you could
have answered it in a single sentence - 'half a block that way'."?
> By your argument, there is no point in putting signs up when
> there is an event, cuz according to you they could just use a map and
> find it themselves?
You missed my point entirely. It's really not about maps at all, now is
it?
> > You then complain to
> > the local that he could have simply pointed the direction and told you
> > it was two blocks that way. What's the local going to say? "Fine!
> > Next time you need help go find it yourself, you ungrateful leech!"
>
> No, because your argument is not valid. Your way of helping the person
> is rude and not particularly helpful in the first place. If I helped
> someone the way you suggested, I would have been sacked.
Let me get this straight: it's rude for a citizen of a foreign country
who just happened to be walking along the street to stop for you,
respond to your question by showing you on your map where your
destination is, and also point out stops of interest along the way that
you might wish to consider? This is rudeness to you? You would say the
non-rude way would be for this stranger to point in the direction and
gruffly say "two blocks over there"?
Is this another reading comprehension error on your part, or is social
interaction in Australia as backwards as a toilet flush?
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> ·····@invalid.dom says...
>> arien wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt
>> > > > > > object oriented before, so I don't understand how a
>> > > > > > procedural language works.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you.
>> > > > > Visit http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?",
>> > > > > then click on "object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
>> > > >
>> > > > Sometimes I am just looking for a simple answer. Much of what
>> > > > is on lisp.org goes straight over the top of my
>> > > > head. Remember, I have only *just* started learning lisp, and
>> > > > I simly don't understand the indepth analysis that is on
>> > > > lisp.org.
>> > >
>> > > In-depth analysis? Maybe I'll recap what you would find had you
>> > > followed my advice:
>> > >
>> > > There is no one true programming methodology:
>> > >
>> > > - Object Oriented programming [...]
>> > > - Functional programming [...]
>> > > - Procedural languages [...]
>> > >
>> > > Common lisp provides integrated support for all these methodologies
>> > >
>> > > If that's above your head,
>> >
>> > No it's not above my head, however I have never heard of Functional
>> > Programming.
>>
>> The page I suggested you read would have told you exactly what
>> functional programming is. It also would have told you explicitly
>> whether or not Lisp is object oriented and also why it is object
>> oriented.
>
> This I do apologise for. I have been given several links which I have
> bookmarked, and I aim to get around to reading *all* of them. However,
> there is a lot of reading to get through, and I don't have *that* much
> time on my hands :)
As others have said, you'd get more from your time if you spent it
reading the pointers that Brian gave you than red misting on
here. Please. Go. Read. Take some deep breaths and then come back with
questions that demonstrate that you are actually learning from the
material provided. You'll find that people become *much* nicer that
way. There are people here who are genuinely trying to help you, Brian
among them.
>> > > > In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could have
>> > > > answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it in one
>> > > > word - "yes" or "no".
>> > >
>> > > Or I could have told you to fuck off.
>> >
>> > Or you could have just said nothing.
>>
>> I volunteered an answer in order to help you. You then had the nerve to
>> complain that you didn't like my answer. It is YOU who should have
>> simply said nothing if you didn't like it. Insulting and complaining to
>> a person who has offered assistance is just plain RUDE!
>
> And your answer was rude. So we were both rude. But I ask, who was rude
> first?
No, Brian's answer was *not* rude. You chose to be offended by
it. Brian read your question and chose to answer it with a resource
that could actually help you achieve some *understanding*, which is a
damn sight more useful than the mere information you thought you were
asking for. Now, he *could* have taken the time to write out an essay,
duplicating the information provided at www.lisp.org, but that would
take time, and what would be the point; the work's already been done.
>> It's the online equivalent of visiting a foreign city and asking a
>> local for directions to a particular restaurant. The local shows
>> you where you currently are on a map,
>
> and what if the map is in German?
>
>> and the path you must take to get to your destination as well as
>> other points of interest.
>
> I have worked in a place where I also used to provide tourist
> information. This is *NOT* how you provide help. If I was asked a
> specific question such as "Where is the nearest toilet?" The correct
> way to help this person, would be to give explicit directions where
> the toilet is. Sometimes it is useful to draw a hand drawn map with
> specific features to help the person find the toilets. This is
> called "helping others". By your argument, there is no point in
> putting signs up when there is an event, cuz according to you they
> could just use a map and find it themselves?
Ah. Here is your fundamental misunderstanding I think. In your analogy
the people giving out the information are being *paid* to do so, and
those asking the questions are outsiders and will always remain
so.
That *really* doesn't reflect what's happening in here. comp.lang.lisp
is a community, when a newcomer shows up asking a question that's been
asked a thousand times before, backed up with a bunch of insulting
preconceptions about that community (whether the newcomer is aware
they are insulting or not), then the members of the community will
respond.
For me, the most valuable response (in this community and in other
USENET communities of which I'm a member) is something along the lines
of Brian's response, in which the newcomer is pointed to a source of
information that will help said newcomer achieve some understanding;
the first step on a road to becoming a member of the community.
There are other responses.
>> You then complain to the local that he could have simply pointed
>> the direction and told you it was two blocks that way. What's the
>> local going to say? "Fine! Next time you need help go find it
>> yourself, you ungrateful leech!"
>
> No, because your argument is not valid. Your way of helping the
> person is rude and not particularly helpful in the first place. If I
> helped someone the way you suggested, I would have been sacked.
But it is part of an age old and, one assumes, still valid teaching
model. Go watch a few Martial Arts films, where the young wannabe goes
in search of his Sensei. Hell, even the The Karate Kid will do for
this particular illustration. Compare the teaching styles of Mr Miyagi
and the sensei at the local Dojo. Under Miyagi Daniel does much of the
work himself, he's not handed premade solutions and he doesn't
necessarily understand why he's being taught what he is as he's being
taught it. Hell, he often doesn't even realise that he *is* being
taught. Meanwhile, over at the Dojo, the Sensei drills his pupils with
cookie cutter moves; sure they can do the moves, but there's no real
understanding underlying that ability.
I suggest reconsidering your experiences in this newsgroup. Be
charitable. Instead of assuming that you're being attacked, try to see
that the vast majority of responses you have received (at least to
your initial questions) were offered, honestly, as paths to
enlightenment. Yes, even Erik's responses, though he was a good deal
more brusque than most.
>> > > Do you think everybody here is your personal slave to help you
>> > > the way you want to be helped?
>> >
>> > Did I suggest that? Please post where I suggested that.
>>
>> This quote of yours suggests this attitude:
>>
>> "EXPLAIN IT TO ME FOR FUCKS SAKE!"
>
> Keep it in context. When read with the rest of the post, it is
> obvious that I meant "Explain to me rather than abuse me, otherwise
> ignore me".
But he already *did* explain it to you when he pointed you at a
website where it *was* explained. Neither he, nor anyone else, has a
duty to give you the answers you seek. Especially when you're asking
for a 'yes/no' answer to the kind of question that's best answered
with another question. It wouldn't do for you to go away with the
wrong impression because you interpreted a yes/no answer in the light
of your current, limited (not meant as an insult) understanding.
>> > > Do you tell your professors, "Look, instead of describing the
>> > > theory so that I'll understand the principles behind it, how
>> > > about just giving me the answer? It took you an entire
>> > > semester just to write out e=mc^2! What a colossal waste of
>> > > bandwidth!!!"
>> >
>> > That's just ridiculous. If this was the case I wouldn't be here,
>> > I would just be copying the code off of a friend (like I have
>> > seen others doing in my class). No, I'm trying to actually learn
>> > it cuz I want to. That is why I am here.
>>
>> How is what I described above with e=mc^2 any different from
>> pointing you to a website where you can learn whether or not lisp
>> is object oriented? You seemed to want a yes or no answer to that
>> question, so what's ridiculous about assuming that you would simply
>> want to know the formula e=mc^2 rather than the theory behind it?
>
> As I said above, I'm getting through the websites slowly.
That's good to hear; getting through them quickly would probably mean
you weren't reading them carefully enough.
--
Piers
Do not wrestle with pigs. You only get muddy, and the pig enjoys it.
Hi arien,
>> > No it's not above my head, however I have never heard of Functional
>> > Programming.
>>
>> The page I suggested you read would have told you exactly what
>> functional programming is. It also would have told you explicitly
>> whether or not Lisp is object oriented and also why it is object
>> oriented.
>
> This I do apologise for. I have been given several links which I have
> bookmarked, and I aim to get around to reading *all* of them. However,
> there is a lot of reading to get through, and I don't have *that* much
> time on my hands :)
You are finding it hard to find time because you are posting far more
messages than anyone else in this forum.
In the time it took you to tell everyone that you have never heard of
functional programming--and now the extra time it is taking you to justify
your ignorance--you could have performed a quick Google search, done some
reading and learned something.
Try it. Please.
Regards,
Adam
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
> In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> ·····@invalid.dom says...
>> arien wrote:
>> In-depth analysis? Maybe I'll recap what you would find had you
>> followed my advice:
>>
>> There is no one true programming methodology:
>>
>> - Object Oriented programming [...]
>> - Functional programming [...]
>> - Procedural languages [...]
>>
>> Common lisp provides integrated support for all these
>> methodologies
>>
>> If that's above your head,
>
> No it's not above my head, however I have never heard of Functional
> Programming.
>
>> then you really shouldn't be in university.
>
> You have no right to suggest that I shouldn't be in university.
> Everybody has a right to an education, and nobody has *any* right to
> prevent *anyone* from going to university.
Would you please define what you consider an education?
And lets look at CUNY(City Univ of NY), it used to be a privilage to
attend. You needed good grades to get in, but once you got in there was
no tuition. It was the Harvard of the working class, from what I was
told. Currently CUNY has open enrolement, anyone can enrole and it is no
longer the univ it was. A Degree from CUNY is not well respected
currently and you pay tuition. CUNY was set up so a labors son could be
a Doctor, if he had the grades to get in.
>
>>
>> > In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could
>> > have answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it
>> > in one word - "yes" or "no".
>>
>> Or I could have told you to fuck off.
>
> Or you could have just said nothing.
I vote for fuck off.
>
>> Do you think everybody here is
>> your personal slave to help you the way you want to be helped?
>
> Did I suggest that? Please post where I suggested that.
>
You demanded it in your posts. A common theme of yours is bend yourself
to my will, you call this "nice". And boy do you bitch when you feel
that people who have attempted to help you are not "nice" enough for you.
>> Do you
>> tell your professors, "Look, instead of describing the theory so that
>> I'll understand the principles behind it, how about just giving me
>> the answer? It took you an entire semester just to write out e=mc^2!
>> What a colossal waste of bandwidth!!!"
>
> That's just ridiculous. If this was the case I wouldn't be here, I
> would just be copying the code off of a friend (like I have seen
> others doing in my class). No, I'm trying to actually learn it cuz I
> want to. That is why I am here.
>
That statement does not agree with the observed universe of your posts
here.
marc
>
> Would you please define what you consider an education?
>
> And lets look at CUNY(City Univ of NY), it used to be a privilage to
> attend. You needed good grades to get in, but once you got in there was
> no tuition. It was the Harvard of the working class, from what I was
> told. Currently CUNY has open enrolement, anyone can enrole and it is no
> longer the univ it was. A Degree from CUNY is not well respected
> currently and you pay tuition. CUNY was set up so a labors son could be
> a Doctor, if he had the grades to get in.
Yes, you need good grades to get in, but everyone has a right to that. I
got the excellent grades I needed to get in, and NO ONE can suggest that
I don't deserve that.
> >> > In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could
> >> > have answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it
> >> > in one word - "yes" or "no".
> >>
> >> Or I could have told you to fuck off.
> >
> > Or you could have just said nothing.
>
> I vote for fuck off.
That shows what sort of person you are.
> >> Do you think everybody here is
> >> your personal slave to help you the way you want to be helped?
> >
> > Did I suggest that? Please post where I suggested that.
> >
>
> You demanded it in your posts. A common theme of yours is bend yourself
> to my will, you call this "nice". And boy do you bitch when you feel
> that people who have attempted to help you are not "nice" enough for you.
I demanded nothing. I suggested that if you can't be helpful, then don't
say anything at all.
>
>
> >> Do you
> >> tell your professors, "Look, instead of describing the theory so that
> >> I'll understand the principles behind it, how about just giving me
> >> the answer? It took you an entire semester just to write out e=mc^2!
> >> What a colossal waste of bandwidth!!!"
> >
> > That's just ridiculous. If this was the case I wouldn't be here, I
> > would just be copying the code off of a friend (like I have seen
> > others doing in my class). No, I'm trying to actually learn it cuz I
> > want to. That is why I am here.
> >
>
> That statement does not agree with the observed universe of your posts
> here.
Nope. You obviously have only observed the posts where I was under
attack. Try reading some other threads where some have been helpful.
>
> marc
>
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
>
>>
>> Would you please define what you consider an education?
>>
>> And lets look at CUNY(City Univ of NY), it used to be a privilage to
>> attend. You needed good grades to get in, but once you got in there
>> was no tuition. It was the Harvard of the working class, from what I
>> was told. Currently CUNY has open enrolement, anyone can enrole and
>> it is no longer the univ it was. A Degree from CUNY is not well
>> respected currently and you pay tuition. CUNY was set up so a labors
>> son could be a Doctor, if he had the grades to get in.
>
> Yes, you need good grades to get in, but everyone has a right to that.
So if everyone has a right to good grade then everyone gets into univ.
Now since everyone had a right to an education and had good grades they
all graduate, so that is how you got into a univ and how you will
graduate. Is not logic fun.
> I got the excellent grades I needed to get in, and NO ONE can suggest
> that I don't deserve that.
>
>> >> > In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could
>> >> > have answered my question. In fact you could even have answered
>> >> > it in one word - "yes" or "no".
>> >>
>> >> Or I could have told you to fuck off.
>> >
>> > Or you could have just said nothing.
>>
>> I vote for fuck off.
>
> That shows what sort of person you are.
>
Yes I am a person who want you to go away, because you are a nagging pain
in the ass.
>
>> >> Do you think everybody here is
>> >> your personal slave to help you the way you want to be helped?
>> >
>> > Did I suggest that? Please post where I suggested that.
>> >
>>
>> You demanded it in your posts. A common theme of yours is bend
>> yourself to my will, you call this "nice". And boy do you bitch when
>> you feel that people who have attempted to help you are not "nice"
>> enough for you.
>
> I demanded nothing. I suggested that if you can't be helpful, then
> don't say anything at all.
Bull shit. Since you have claimed the right to post whatever you like
why can not I do the same? One set of rules for everybody does not apply
where you are concerned.
>
>>
>>
>> >> Do you
>> >> tell your professors, "Look, instead of describing the theory so
>> >> that I'll understand the principles behind it, how about just
>> >> giving me the answer? It took you an entire semester just to
>> >> write out e=mc^2!
>> >> What a colossal waste of bandwidth!!!"
>> >
>> > That's just ridiculous. If this was the case I wouldn't be here, I
>> > would just be copying the code off of a friend (like I have seen
>> > others doing in my class). No, I'm trying to actually learn it cuz
>> > I want to. That is why I am here.
>> >
>>
>> That statement does not agree with the observed universe of your
>> posts here.
>
> Nope. You obviously have only observed the posts where I was under
> attack. Try reading some other threads where some have been helpful.
I have read lots of posts where people helped you and you called it an
attack because you did not like the way they did it. They gave you real
answers to your problems and you were an insufferable prick about it.
Go somewhere where people care
marc
>
>>
>> marc
>>
>
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <pttqn12c.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> ... however I have never heard of Functional Programming.
Run, don't walk, to the bursar's office and demand your money back.
Functional programming is one of the cornerstones of computer science.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
> In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> ·····@invalid.dom says...
> > arien wrote:
> > > By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object oriented
> > > before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
> > You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. Visit
> > http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", then click on
> > "object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
> Sometimes I am just looking for a simple answer. Much of what is on
> lisp.org goes straight over the top of my head. Remember, I have only
> *just* started learning lisp, and I simly don't understand the indepth
> analysis that is on lisp.org.
Start trying. By the end of a decent university level introduction to
computer science course, you should be able to read and understand at
least 80% of the page brian referenced, certainly enough to answer your
question.
> In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could have
> answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it in one
> word - "yes" or "no".
Would answering "yes" really have helped much? It certainly wouldn't
have cleared up any of your obvious misconceptions.
I think you need to understand something important about this newsgroup.
It consists largely of *professional* developers and scientists who
use/like lisp. Lots of them have PhDs in CS. One of the folks who
posts here was a CS prof of mine 12 years ago. I've seen reference to
at least a half dozen other contributors here as professors of CS.
There are many contributors here who've written well regarded books on
programming or CS, who've written major pieces of important software, or
made important intellectual advances. For every relative dilettante
like me, there is a famous lisp expert like Kent Pitman. If there were
a major standards effort for common lisp, a number of the high-powered
folks who would write any new standard are posters here, and a fair
amount of discussion about it would take place on this newsgroup.
Don't let the off-topic flights of fancy engaged in by many regulars
fool you -- this is a professional forum. The ability to read and ask
questions here is like being invited to a faculty lounge full of
visiting experts when your university is hosting a major conference.
Consider what you've said here in that light, and you might appreciate
the impression you've made. I doubt you would talk to your professors
the way you have responded to people here, even if they were very harsh.
Yet many, or even most of the posters here deserve a similar level of
professional repect.
Further, nobody here has teaching you or any other participant as part
of their job. Any teaching here is done because it is fun for the
teacher, or because it it pleases them to be helpful or increase the
general level of competence in the world.
Michael
> I think you need to understand something important about this newsgroup.
> It consists largely of *professional* developers and scientists who
> use/like lisp. Lots of them have PhDs in CS.
This explains the stuck up attitude of many that have posted. Nobody
should think themselves *above* anyone.
> One of the folks who
> posts here was a CS prof of mine 12 years ago. I've seen reference to
> at least a half dozen other contributors here as professors of CS.
> There are many contributors here who've written well regarded books on
> programming or CS, who've written major pieces of important software, or
> made important intellectual advances. For every relative dilettante
> like me, there is a famous lisp expert like Kent Pitman. If there were
> a major standards effort for common lisp, a number of the high-powered
> folks who would write any new standard are posters here, and a fair
> amount of discussion about it would take place on this newsgroup.
>
> Don't let the off-topic flights of fancy engaged in by many regulars
> fool you -- this is a professional forum. The ability to read and ask
> questions here is like being invited to a faculty lounge full of
> visiting experts when your university is hosting a major conference.
This is wrong. This is usenet, and there is no membership to join.
>
> Consider what you've said here in that light, and you might appreciate
> the impression you've made. I doubt you would talk to your professors
> the way you have responded to people here,
I would have no problems saying any of these to my lecturer. I have said
to him how annoying those parentheses are, and in fact, I even sent him
that Star Wars joke (he'd already seen it). I would not tell him to
"fuck off" however, since it would never be necessary (see next
comment).
> even if they were very harsh.
The lecturers and professors at university are never....repeat.......
NEVER ......... harsh. It has been proven that negative reinforcement
never works. Our professor almost certainly DOES NOT call us dumb.
> Yet many, or even most of the posters here deserve a similar level of
> professional repect.
They only deserve as much respect as they give. The amount of respect
that someone deserves is based on their own behaviour, NOT how many
PHD's that they have.
>
> Further, nobody here has teaching you or any other participant as part
> of their job. Any teaching here is done because it is fun for the
> teacher, or because it it pleases them to be helpful or increase the
> general level of competence in the world.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
In article <··························@news.adl.ihug.com.au>, arien wrote:
<snip>
>> Yet many, or even most of the posters here deserve a similar level of
>> professional repect.
>
> They only deserve as much respect as they give. The amount of respect that
> someone deserves is based on their own behaviour, NOT how many PHD's that
> they have.
As an aside, people here display their respect by replying to you at all.
Some of them may not respect you, or your actions, but they respect your
/ability to change/ enough to spend time responding to your posts.[1]
Also, in hopes of pouring some oil on some of these troubled waters, let us
pretend for the moment that you have not /in any way/ deserved any of the
flamage sent your way, and that /everyone in this thread/ owes you an apology.
/Even in that case/, I would suggest the following course of action: end /all/
discourse in this particular thread, start/continue your next homework
assignment, try your best, and then post specific questions about the
problem(s) you've had with it, with sample code.
-- Larry
[1] Note that, by that, I don't mean to suggest, expect, or require that you
/enjoy/ the flamage you've received. :)
In article <·············@rabbit.ddts.net>, ·····@theclapp.org says...
> In article <··························@news.adl.ihug.com.au>, arien wrote:
> <snip>
> >> Yet many, or even most of the posters here deserve a similar level of
> >> professional repect.
> >
> > They only deserve as much respect as they give. The amount of respect that
> > someone deserves is based on their own behaviour, NOT how many PHD's that
> > they have.
>
> As an aside, people here display their respect by replying to you at all.
> Some of them may not respect you, or your actions, but they respect your
> /ability to change/ enough to spend time responding to your posts.[1]
This is a very interesting perspective. For you to be able to see
positive even in the negative is a very good trait :)
> Also, in hopes of pouring some oil on some of these troubled waters, let us
> pretend for the moment that you have not /in any way/ deserved any of the
> flamage sent your way, and that /everyone in this thread/ owes you an apology.
> /Even in that case/, I would suggest the following course of action: end /all/
> discourse in this particular thread, start/continue your next homework
> assignment, try your best, and then post specific questions about the
> problem(s) you've had with it, with sample code.
You are right, my next assignment is waiting on my heels after all :)
>
> -- Larry
>
>
> [1] Note that, by that, I don't mean to suggest, expect, or require that you
> /enjoy/ the flamage you've received. :)
>
>
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in
·······························@news.adl.ihug.com.au:
>
>> I think you need to understand something important about this
>> newsgroup. It consists largely of *professional* developers and
>> scientists who use/like lisp. Lots of them have PhDs in CS.
>
> This explains the stuck up attitude of many that have posted. Nobody
> should think themselves *above* anyone.
Yea, *you* are expected to behave like an adult and have respect for
others. *You* are expected to *learn* and *pay attention*.
> This is wrong. This is usenet, and there is no membership to join.
Again you are *wrong*, there is a group here. The people in this group
have helped you, some have bent over backwards to help you, and you have
spurned their help and insulted them by bitching about how they were not
nice enough.
>
>>
>> Consider what you've said here in that light, and you might
>> appreciate the impression you've made. I doubt you would talk to
>> your professors the way you have responded to people here,
>
> I would have no problems saying any of these to my lecturer. I have
> said to him how annoying those parentheses are, and in fact, I even
> sent him that Star Wars joke (he'd already seen it). I would not tell
> him to "fuck off" however, since it would never be necessary (see next
> comment).
You bitch in class that he is not nice enough??
>
>> even if they were very harsh.
>
> The lecturers and professors at university are never....repeat.......
> NEVER ......... harsh. It has been proven that negative reinforcement
> never works. Our professor almost certainly DOES NOT call us dumb.
>
Well you must have a lot of stupid people in your courses, when you call
intelligent people stupid they will generaly do one of two things, assume
you are talking about something they did and look into it or just say no
I am not.
>> Yet many, or even most of the posters here deserve a similar level of
>> professional repect.
>
> They only deserve as much respect as they give. The amount of respect
> that someone deserves is based on their own behaviour, NOT how many
> PHD's that they have.
Wrong again, people should be respected for their deeds. Kippling has a
poem about it, here it is( I had to put something worth reading in this
thread):
TOMLINSON
Now Tomlinson gave up the ghost in his house in Berkeley Square,
And a Spirit came to his bedside and gripped him by the hair --
A Spirit gripped him by the hair and carried him far away,
Till he heard as the roar of a rain-fed ford the roar of the Milky Way:
Till he heard the roar of the Milky Way die down and drone and cease,
And they came to the Gate within the Wall where Peter holds the keys.
"Stand up, stand up now, Tomlinson, and answer loud and high
The good that ye did for the sake of men or ever ye came to die --
The good that ye did for the sake of men in little earth so lone!"
And the naked soul of Tomlinson grew white as a rain-washed bone.
"O I have a friend on earth," he said, "that was my priest and guide,
And well would he answer all for me if he were by my side."
-- "For that ye strove in neighbour-love it shall be written fair,
But now ye wait at Heaven's Gate and not in Berkeley Square:
Though we called your friend from his bed this night,
he could not speak for you,
For the race is run by one and one and never by two and two."
Then Tomlinson looked up and down, and little gain was there,
For the naked stars grinned overhead, and he saw that his soul was bare:
The Wind that blows between the worlds, it cut him like a knife,
And Tomlinson took up his tale and spoke of his good in life.
"This I have read in a book," he said, "and that was told to me,
And this I have thought that another man thought of a Prince in Muscovy."
The good souls flocked like homing doves and bade him clear the path,
And Peter twirled the jangling keys in weariness and wrath.
"Ye have read, ye have heard, ye have thought," he said,
"and the tale is yet to run:
By the worth of the body that once ye had, give answer -- what ha' ye
done?"
Then Tomlinson looked back and forth, and little good it bore,
For the Darkness stayed at his shoulder-blade and Heaven's Gate before:
--
"O this I have felt, and this I have guessed, and this I have heard men
say,
And this they wrote that another man wrote of a carl in Norroway."
-- "Ye have read, ye have felt, ye have guessed, good lack!
Ye have hampered Heaven's Gate;
There's little room between the stars in idleness to prate!
O none may reach by hired speech of neighbour, priest, and kin
Through borrowed deed to God's good meed that lies so fair within;
Get hence, get hence to the Lord of Wrong, for doom has yet to run,
And. . .the faith that ye share with Berkeley Square uphold you,
Tomlinson!"
. . . . .
The Spirit gripped him by the hair, and sun by sun they fell
Till they came to the belt of Naughty Stars that rim the mouth of Hell:
The first are red with pride and wrath, the next are white with pain,
But the third are black with clinkered sin that cannot burn again:
They may hold their path, they may leave their path,
with never a soul to mark,
They may burn or freeze, but they must not cease
in the Scorn of the Outer Dark.
The Wind that blows between the worlds, it nipped him to the bone,
And he yearned to the flare of Hell-Gate
there as the light of his own hearth-stone.
The Devil he sat behind the bars, where the desperate legions drew,
But he caught the hasting Tomlinson and would not let him through.
"Wot ye the price of good pit-coal that I must pay?" said he,
"That ye rank yoursel' so fit for Hell and ask no leave of me?
I am all o'er-sib to Adam's breed that ye should give me scorn,
For I strove with God for your First Father the day that he was born.
Sit down, sit down upon the slag, and answer loud and high
The harm that ye did to the Sons of Men or ever you came to die."
And Tomlinson looked up and up, and saw against the night
The belly of a tortured star blood-red in Hell-Mouth light;
And Tomlinson looked down and down, and saw beneath his feet
The frontlet of a tortured star milk-white in Hell-Mouth heat.
"O I had a love on earth," said he, "that kissed me to my fall,
And if ye would call my love to me I know she would answer all."
-- "All that ye did in love forbid it shall be written fair,
But now ye wait at Hell-Mouth Gate and not in Berkeley Square:
Though we whistled your love from her bed to-night, I trow she would not
run,
For the sin ye do by two and two ye must pay for one by one!"
The Wind that blows between the worlds, it cut him like a knife,
And Tomlinson took up the tale and spoke of his sin in life: --
"Once I ha' laughed at the power of Love and twice at the grip of the
Grave,
And thrice I ha' patted my God on the head that men might call me brave."
The Devil he blew on a brandered soul and set it aside to cool: --
"Do ye think I would waste my good pit-coal on the hide of a brain-sick
fool?
I see no worth in the hobnailed mirth or the jolthead jest ye did
That I should waken my gentlemen that are sleeping three on a grid."
Then Tomlinson looked back and forth, and there was little grace,
For Hell-Gate filled the houseless Soul with the Fear of Naked Space.
"Nay, this I ha' heard," quo' Tomlinson, "and this was noised abroad,
And this I ha' got from a Belgian book on the word of a dead French
lord."
-- "Ye ha' heard, ye ha' read, ye ha' got, good lack!
and the tale begins afresh --
Have ye sinned one sin for the pride o' the eye
or the sinful lust of the flesh?"
Then Tomlinson he gripped the bars and yammered, "Let me in --
For I mind that I borrowed my neighbour's wife to sin the deadly sin."
The Devil he grinned behind the bars, and banked the fires high:
"Did ye read of that sin in a book?" said he; and Tomlinson said, "Ay!"
The Devil he blew upon his nails, and the little devils ran,
And he said: "Go husk this whimpering thief that comes in the guise of a
man:
Winnow him out 'twixt star and star, and sieve his proper worth:
There's sore decline in Adam's line if this be spawn of earth."
Empusa's crew, so naked-new they may not face the fire,
But weep that they bin too small to sin to the height of their desire,
Over the coal they chased the Soul, and racked it all abroad,
As children rifle a caddis-case or the raven's foolish hoard.
And back they came with the tattered Thing, as children after play,
And they said: "The soul that he got from God he has bartered clean
away.
We have threshed a stook of print and book, and winnowed a chattering
wind
And many a soul wherefrom he stole, but his we cannot find:
We have handled him, we have dandled him, we have seared him to the bone,
And sure if tooth and nail show truth he has no soul of his own."
The Devil he bowed his head on his breast and rumbled deep and low: --
"I'm all o'er-sib to Adam's breed that I should bid him go.
Yet close we lie, and deep we lie, and if I gave him place,
My gentlemen that are so proud would flout me to my face;
They'd call my house a common stews and me a careless host,
And -- I would not anger my gentlemen for the sake of a shiftless ghost."
The Devil he looked at the mangled Soul that prayed to feel the flame,
And he thought of Holy Charity, but he thought of his own good name: --
"Now ye could haste my coal to waste, and sit ye down to fry:
Did ye think of that theft for yourself?" said he; and Tomlinson said,
"Ay!"
The Devil he blew an outward breath, for his heart was free from care: --
"Ye have scarce the soul of a louse," he said,
"but the roots of sin are there,
And for that sin should ye come in were I the lord alone.
But sinful pride has rule inside -- and mightier than my own.
Honour and Wit, fore-damned they sit, to each his priest and whore:
Nay, scarce I dare myself go there, and you they'd torture sore.
Ye are neither spirit nor spirk," he said; "ye are neither book nor brute
--
Go, get ye back to the flesh again for the sake of Man's repute.
I'm all o'er-sib to Adam's breed that I should mock your pain,
But look that ye win to worthier sin ere ye come back again.
Get hence, the hearse is at your door -- the grim black stallions wait --
They bear your clay to place to-day. Speed, lest ye come too late!
Go back to Earth with a lip unsealed -- go back with an open eye,
And carry my word to the Sons of Men or ever ye come to die:
That the sin they do by two and two they must pay for one by one --
And. . .the God that you took from a printed book be with you,
Tomlinson!"
>
>>
>> Further, nobody here has teaching you or any other participant as
>> part of their job. Any teaching here is done because it is fun for
>> the teacher, or because it it pleases them to be helpful or increase
>> the general level of competence in the world.
>
Well said.
marc
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
> > I think you need to understand something important about this newsgroup.
> > It consists largely of *professional* developers and scientists who
> > use/like lisp. Lots of them have PhDs in CS.
> This explains the stuck up attitude of many that have posted. Nobody
> should think themselves *above* anyone.
The amazing thing is that they don't. The working assumption of
everyone on this newsgroup upon seeing a newbie (until some
demonstration otherwise), is that said newbie is an equal or potential
equal -- A lisp expert, or a computer expert who is just coming to
lisp, or a bright student/amateur somewhere on that long road to
becoming an expert.
I think you don't realize that these high expectations are what lead to
some of the insult you feel. It is expected that *any newbie* already
knows enough to do a google search and read easily found FAQs before
asking questions here. When you ask a question that makes clear you
have not done this, you being to lose some of that respect.
This is a group that will treat you like an expert and valued member of
the community from post 1 until you demonstrate otherwise. How many
social situations do you enter where that is the case? While there are
drawbacks to hacker culture, there are also beatiful things about it,
and this is one of them. No bullshit, and no politics. If you can walk
the walk, you're in, and you don't need to prove anything to anyone --
just don't disprove it.
> > One of the folks who
> > posts here was a CS prof of mine 12 years ago. I've seen reference to
> > at least a half dozen other contributors here as professors of CS.
> > There are many contributors here who've written well regarded books on
> > programming or CS, who've written major pieces of important software, or
> > made important intellectual advances. For every relative dilettante
> > like me, there is a famous lisp expert like Kent Pitman. If there were
> > a major standards effort for common lisp, a number of the high-powered
> > folks who would write any new standard are posters here, and a fair
> > amount of discussion about it would take place on this newsgroup.
> > Don't let the off-topic flights of fancy engaged in by many regulars
> > fool you -- this is a professional forum. The ability to read and ask
> > questions here is like being invited to a faculty lounge full of
> > visiting experts when your university is hosting a major conference.
> This is wrong. This is usenet, and there is no membership to join.
I don't say there is. I'm just noting who it is that is hanging around
here, willing to answer your questions, and ready to accept you as an
equal the moment you demonstrate that you have the hacker nature.
People who bill for $100-$1000/hour are willing to answer your questions
and rap about lisp with you in their free time, for no compensation at
all.
> > Consider what you've said here in that light, and you might appreciate
> > the impression you've made. I doubt you would talk to your professors
> > the way you have responded to people here,
> I would have no problems saying any of these to my lecturer. I have said
> to him how annoying those parentheses are, and in fact, I even sent him
> that Star Wars joke (he'd already seen it). I would not tell him to
> "fuck off" however, since it would never be necessary (see next
> comment).
These aren't the things that pissed people off, or turned anyone's
opinion of you. Oh, the parentheses comment clearly marked you as
someone very new to lisp and who had not read the canonical information,
but that's about it. The star wars joke was funny (and old). I
wouldn't be surprised if it was originally written by a lisper.
> > even if they were very harsh.
> The lecturers and professors at university are never....repeat.......
> NEVER ......... harsh. It has been proven that negative reinforcement
> never works. Our professor almost certainly DOES NOT call us dumb.
You're at a very different university than the one I attended. I never
heard a professor call anyone dumb or stupid (at least not to their
face), but I certainly saw them be dismissive, or brutally direct.
BTW, you might want to study up a bit on psych before you make
pronouncements about what "never" works. For certain values of "work"
(short term, very specific "don'ts"), negative reinforcement can
actually be *more* effective than positive reinforcement.
> > Yet many, or even most of the posters here deserve a similar level of
> > professional repect.
> They only deserve as much respect as they give. The amount of respect
> that someone deserves is based on their own behaviour, NOT how many
> PHD's that they have.
Of course.
Try applying your own statement to yourself. Realize that *you* deserve
as much respect as *you* give.
Asking questions in a technical newsgroup without doing basic initial
work for yourself (using google to check for FAQs or basic information
and at least trying to read and understand those resources, then
specifying your questions as clearly as possible), shows a de facto lack
of respect for the other participants. That there exist linux groups
who are full of ebullient dilletantes who don't care about this, doesn't
change that it's considered basic etiquette across usenet.
Because you don't understand this culture, you don't realize how much
respect you *had* before you opened your mouth, and how unusual that is
in the wider culture.
Note, I was the first one who's mentioned any kind of "credentials" that
the people you are arguing with have, and I don't claim to have them
myself. Nobody here is bludgeoning you over the head with the trappings
of authority. They've all let their arguments speak for themselves. I
am merely pointing out, for your benefit, the intellectual level of the
company you are in.
> > Further, nobody here has teaching you or any other participant as part
> > of their job. Any teaching here is done because it is fun for the
> > teacher, or because it it pleases them to be helpful or increase the
> > general level of competence in the world.
You didn't see fit to respond to this, but you might note that it could
have something to do with the difference in your experience of your
professors, and your experience here.
Michael
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
·······@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) writes:
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
>
> > The lecturers and professors at university are never....repeat.......
> > NEVER ......... harsh. It has been proven that negative reinforcement
> > never works. Our professor almost certainly DOES NOT call us dumb.
>
> You're at a very different university than the one I attended. I never
> heard a professor call anyone dumb or stupid (at least not to their
> face), but I certainly saw them be dismissive, or brutally direct.
As an aside, I had a chemistry professor tell a student, "at your
level of intelligence, I suggest dropping out, or at minimum changing
majors." It was somewhat frightening, but not shocking. Maybe this
"arien" person goes to one of those extra-coddling, pricey private
schools set up so that average-intelligence children of well-off
parents can get "respectable" degrees?
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@whirlwind.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) wrote in
····················@whirlwind.OCF.Berkeley.EDU:
> ·······@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) writes:
>
>> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > The lecturers and professors at university are never....repeat.......
>> > NEVER ......... harsh. It has been proven that negative reinforcement
>> > never works. Our professor almost certainly DOES NOT call us dumb.
>>
>> You're at a very different university than the one I attended. I never
>> heard a professor call anyone dumb or stupid (at least not to their
>> face), but I certainly saw them be dismissive, or brutally direct.
>
> As an aside, I had a chemistry professor tell a student, "at your
> level of intelligence, I suggest dropping out, or at minimum changing
> majors." It was somewhat frightening, but not shocking. Maybe this
> "arien" person goes to one of those extra-coddling, pricey private
> schools set up so that average-intelligence children of well-off
> parents can get "respectable" degrees?
>
are you talking about 4 years of 13th grade?
yuck
marc
In article <···············@whirlwind.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>,
···@whirlwind.OCF.Berkeley.EDU says...
> ·······@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) writes:
>
> > arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > The lecturers and professors at university are never....repeat.......
> > > NEVER ......... harsh. It has been proven that negative reinforcement
> > > never works. Our professor almost certainly DOES NOT call us dumb.
> >
> > You're at a very different university than the one I attended. I never
> > heard a professor call anyone dumb or stupid (at least not to their
> > face), but I certainly saw them be dismissive, or brutally direct.
>
> As an aside, I had a chemistry professor tell a student, "at your
> level of intelligence, I suggest dropping out, or at minimum changing
> majors." It was somewhat frightening, but not shocking. Maybe this
> "arien" person goes to one of those extra-coddling, pricey private
> schools set up so that average-intelligence children of well-off
> parents can get "respectable" degrees?
Or perhaps in Australia we just have better lecturers, and education
system?
>
>
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
Several seconds after writing:
> I have learnt far more in the workforce than what I have learnt at
> university, and experience in the workforce is far more valuable
> than university. That is why I am only doing uni part time and
> continuing to work.
arien continues:
> Or perhaps in Australia we just have better lecturers, and education
> system?
Yeah, I'm sure that's it.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
In article <···············@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>,
···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU says...
> Several seconds after writing:
>
> > I have learnt far more in the workforce than what I have learnt at
> > university, and experience in the workforce is far more valuable
> > than university. That is why I am only doing uni part time and
> > continuing to work.
>
> arien continues:
>
> > Or perhaps in Australia we just have better lecturers, and education
> > system?
>
> Yeah, I'm sure that's it.
>
>
You don't quite understand what I mean. I'm not suggesting university
isn't valuble at all. It's just that employers value actual work
experience in the industry more so than a degree.
For instance, which would you be more likely to employ, a recent
university graduate or a person that has been working for the last 4
years in the particular field?
Maybe America is different, but in Australia, employers prefer real work
experience. But this comment in no way suggests that the universities
lecturers are not good, and is actually quite the opposite. And judging
on the comments on how the professors in American uni's treat their
students, I'm guessing that Australia's education is better.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
>
> And judging on the comments on how the professors in American
> uni's treat their students, I'm guessing that Australia's
> education is better.
If so, you should be able to measure this better education by the
results produced. Pick any objective measure -- technical papers
published in respected journals, scientific breakthroughs, Nobel prizes,
or something else entirely -- and compare the performance of Autralians
to the performance of Americans, scaling the numbers so that it's
proportional to population size.
Now how does Australia's educational system look? Is it doing a good
job of producing the kinds of minds which achieve results, or are you
trivially equating "nice" with "better"?
In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
Brian Palmer <·····@invalid.dom> wrote:
> arien wrote:
> >
> > And judging on the comments on how the professors in American
> > uni's treat their students, I'm guessing that Australia's
> > education is better.
>
> If so, you should be able to measure this better education by the
> results produced. Pick any objective measure -- technical papers
> published in respected journals, scientific breakthroughs, Nobel prizes,
> or something else entirely -- and compare the performance of Autralians
> to the performance of Americans, scaling the numbers so that it's
> proportional to population size.
As much as I hate to defend an annoying Australian, there is every
indication that undergraduate education here in New Zealand stands up
very well against that in the US. The country (and its universities) is
simply too small to have large and good graduate programs so a large
percentage of people actually do their graduate work in the US. From
everything I have heard from friends who have done that it's very easy
for a NZ graduate to slip right into a top US school and do well.
Perhaps our undergraduate programs aren't quite as good as the MITs and
Stanfords, but they do seem to be better than most universities in the
US.
-- Bruce
Brian Palmer wrote:
> Pick�any�objective�measure�--�technical�papers
> published in respected journals, scientific breakthroughs, Nobel prizes,
> or something else entirely -- and compare the performance of Autralians
> to the performance of Americans, scaling the numbers so that it's
> proportional to population size.
This is not a very accurate measure. It is more related to the amount of
scientific funding than to the quality of education. I would suspect that
many people from smaller countries go to the US to do research.
I once talked to a recent college graduate with a B.S. in Physics from a
respectable American University. He outright rejected my suggestion that
changing magnetic field produces electric field (this is the meaning of one
of the four Maxwell laws), saying "no, it produces current if there's a
wire around it, but no electric field" and insisting that he was 100% sure.
I could write a book filled with examples like this. Amazingly, some rare
smart people still manage to get a good undergrad education in this country.
Oleg
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote in message
> You don't quite understand what I mean.
Those are, by far, IMO, /the/ most intelligent (and perceptive) words
written by you (the sheep being stupid come a close second).
> I'm not suggesting university
> isn't valuble at all. It's just that employers value actual work
> experience in the industry more so than a degree.
Your point being....
> For instance, which would you be more likely to employ, a recent
> university graduate or a person that has been working for the last 4
> years in the particular field?
> Maybe America is different, but in Australia, employers prefer real work
> experience. But this comment in no way suggests that the universities
> lecturers are not good, and is actually quite the opposite. And judging
> on the comments on how the professors in American uni's treat their
> students, I'm guessing that Australia's education is better.
The question is: what do the requirements of employers have to do with
/anything/ here? Great! In Australia employers prefer _real work
experience_ (whatever that is) to a degree. All here are enlightened.
Again, your point being....
Vijay L
arien wrote:
> In article <··························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> ·····@invalid.dom says...
>
>>arien wrote:
>>
>>>By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object oriented
>>>before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
>>
>>You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. Visit
>>http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", then click on
>>"object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
> In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could have
> answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it in one
> word - "yes" or "no".
It's actually not so simple. You have asked a very general question
here. Nowadays, OOP is generally associated with Java, Smalltalk and
C++. In fact, Common Lisp is object-oriented but goes way beyond what
Java and Smalltalk offer. So a simple "yes" wouldn't have been sufficient.
Actually, no language ensures that you write proper object-oriented
code, even not languages like Java and Smalltalk. A few minutes ago I
have posted two links on this topic that you might want to read, because
they illustrate the difference between procedural and object-oriented
thinking very nicely.
All the best,
Pascal
--
Given any rule, however �fundamental� or �necessary� for science, there
are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the
rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> By the way, is Lisp Object oriented?
Very much so. Everything in lisp is an object.
,---
| CMU Common Lisp 18d, running on pokey.henrik-motakef.de
| Send questions to ··········@cons.org. and bug reports to ·········@cons.org.
| Loaded subsystems:
| Python 1.0, target Intel x86
| CLOS based on PCL version: September 16 92 PCL (f)
| * (class-of nil)
| #<BUILT-IN-CLASS NULL (sealed) {28F0EE9D}>
| * (class-of 2)
| #<BUILT-IN-CLASS FIXNUM (sealed) {28F134F5}>
| * (class-of #'car)
| #<BUILT-IN-CLASS FUNCTION (read-only) {28F3956D}>
| * (defclass foo () ())
| #<STANDARD-CLASS FOO {48565B35}>
| * (class-of (make-instance 'foo))
| #<STANDARD-CLASS FOO {48565B35}>
| * (class-of (find-class 'foo))
| #<STRUCTURE-CLASS STANDARD-CLASS {28F0E34D}>
`---
If you want to define your own classes like you would do in Java, the
string to google for is CLOS, the Common Lisp Object System. As a word
of warning, CLOS (as well as Lisp in general) is quite powerful in
comparison with other object systems, it might happen that you will
not be able to use Java again without getting really pissed about the
hype this mediocre farce of a macro-assembler gets.
> I have only learnt object oriented
> before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
Odd statement, alas.
Regards
Henrik
> > I have only learnt object oriented
> > before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
>
> Odd statement, alas.
>
> Regards
> Henrik
>
Sorry, it might be odd, but it's true. I've only been taught object
oriented, so I seriously don't know what a procedural language looks
like, or how it works.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
> Sorry, it might be odd, but it's true. I've only been taught object
> oriented, so I seriously don't know what a procedural language looks
> like, or how it works.
>
An OO language like Java and a procedural language like C
are almost the same. They are both empirical paradigms and
the divide is invisible. It is easier to code OO in C than
it is to code procedural code in Java though. Your biggest
problem with C would be to get polymorphism to work.
The difference gets smaller and smaller the more I use the
languages.
--
Thomas.
Thomas Stegen wrote:
> arien wrote:
>
>> Sorry, it might be odd, but it's true. I've only been taught object
>> oriented, so I seriously don't know what a procedural language looks
>> like, or how it works.
>
> An OO language like Java and a procedural language like C
> are almost the same. They are both empirical paradigms and
> the divide is invisible.
That's actually wrong - procedural and object-oriented programming are
two vastly different paradigms. (Hint: It's the mental model that
counts, not what the programming language looks like.)
See for example:
* http://csis.pace.edu/~bergin/papers/Whynotproceduralfirst.html
* http://csis.pace.edu/~bergin/patterns/ppoop.html
Pascal
--
Given any rule, however �fundamental� or �necessary� for science, there
are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the
rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Thomas Stegen wrote:
>
>>
>> An OO language like Java and a procedural language like C
>> are almost the same. They are both empirical paradigms and
^^^^^^^^^
>> the divide is invisible.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
This was actually a typo. Imperative is what I meant.
That other thing was actually a type as well. But see below.
>
>
> That's actually wrong - procedural and object-oriented programming are
> two vastly different paradigms. (Hint: It's the mental model that
> counts, not what the programming language looks like.)
That is not a hint.
Anyways, when most people use the word object-oriented they
are talking about the imperative paradigm. Some actually talk about
the messaging paradigm. Java is imperative for example. So is C.
A paradigm refers to the way computations proceeds, not how code is
structured. Procedural and object-oriented refers to structuring of
code not models of computation. The messaging paradigm computes
by applying code to immutable data (immutable in theory at least).
The imperative paradigm modifies data in an explicitly addressed
updatable store. Java is somewhat based on the messaging paradigm
but is mostly imperative in nature.
Some things which many associate with OO have in reality nothing
to do with paradigms per se, but are ways of structuring code.
Inheritance comes to mind as an example of this. There is nothing
that prevents inheritance from being used in any paradigm.
So what I am saying is that there is definitely a difference
between procedural and object-oriented styles of programming these
are not necessarily paradigms. The imperative paradigm (which is
the most well known paradigm) and the messaging paradigm are
indeed very different. Finding a language which supports pure
imperative programming should not be hard. Finding a language
that supports pure messaging programming will be very hard indeed.
Languages based on the messaging paradigm is often mixed with
another paradigm to express certain properties of objects.
But at the same time, there is no real widespread consensus
regarding many of the paradigms...
I also feel I might have lost sight of the real objective here :)
--
Thomas.
Thomas Stegen wrote:
> A paradigm refers to the way computations proceeds, not how code is
> structured. Procedural and object-oriented refers to structuring of
> code not models of computation. The messaging paradigm computes
> by applying code to immutable data (immutable in theory at least).
> The imperative paradigm modifies data in an explicitly addressed
> updatable store.
The distinction you make between procedural and object-oriented on the
one hand and imperative and messaging on the other hand is new to me,
but very interesting. Thanks for that. Where do you have this
distinction from? (a book, a paper, a link?)
Pascal
--
Given any rule, however �fundamental� or �necessary� for science, there
are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the
rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
Pascal Costanza wrote:
>
> The distinction you make between procedural and object-oriented on the
> one hand and imperative and messaging on the other hand is new to me,
> but very interesting. Thanks for that. Where do you have this
> distinction from? (a book, a paper, a link?)
Most of what know I have picked up in small pieces from different
places and I can hardly remember them all and I am hardly an expert,
but a very nice and brief overview is given here:
http://www.catseye.mb.ca/lala/paradigm/index.html
--
Thomas
Thomas Stegen wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>
>>
>> The distinction you make between procedural and object-oriented on the
>> one hand and imperative and messaging on the other hand is new to me,
>> but very interesting. Thanks for that. Where do you have this
>> distinction from? (a book, a paper, a link?)
>
>
> Most of what know I have picked up in small pieces from different
> places and I can hardly remember them all and I am hardly an expert,
> but a very nice and brief overview is given here:
>
> http://www.catseye.mb.ca/lala/paradigm/index.html
I haven't read it yet, but I definitely like the Monty Python reference.
:-))
Pascal
--
Given any rule, however �fundamental� or �necessary� for science, there
are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the
rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
> > > I have only learnt object oriented
> > > before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
> >
> > Odd statement, alas.
> >
> > Regards
> > Henrik
> Sorry, it might be odd, but it's true. I've only been taught object
> oriented, so I seriously don't know what a procedural language looks
> like, or how it works.
Like, well... Java.
The reason your statement is odd is that Java is very clearly a
procedural language which happens to have some OO features, in roughly
the same category as C++ or Objective-C. If you want an "OO language",
where objects are truly a defining core paradigm, look at Smalltalk. Or
even... wait for it... Common Lisp.
In going from Java to CL, you're moving *further* from the procedural
paradigm, and introducing more and deeper object-orientation.
The other issue is that object orientation and procedural style, are, if
not entirely orthogonal, certainly not opposites. 'Functional', would
be the paradigm you're looking for as a complement to procedural.
Lisp is not purely functional (a purely functional language allows no
side-effects), but it has all the important expressive features of a
functional langauge and was the first such language. It gives you first
class functions and closures, which means there is enough power to
program in a purely functional style if you wish to. This is not even
*close* to true for java [*]. For the pure opposite to procedural
programming, check out something like Haskell, which will feel a lot
more like lisp than like java.
Michael
[*] It's probable that java is turing complete without re-assignment,
but I doubt it's much fun to get anything useful accomplished in it that
way.
In article <··························@panix.com>, ···@panix.com says...
> arien <·············@getlost.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > I have only learnt object oriented
> > > > before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
> > >
> > > Odd statement, alas.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Henrik
>
> > Sorry, it might be odd, but it's true. I've only been taught object
> > oriented, so I seriously don't know what a procedural language looks
> > like, or how it works.
>
> Like, well... Java.
>
> The reason your statement is odd is that Java is very clearly a
> procedural language which happens to have some OO features, in roughly
> the same category as C++ or Objective-C. If you want an "OO language",
> where objects are truly a defining core paradigm, look at Smalltalk. Or
> even... wait for it... Common Lisp.
I would like to argue against this, but I can't cuz I really don't know
anything about procedural. In university, everything has been OO, and I
believe we were taught Java because of that reason.
Now, I could well be wrong, and I most probably am, but I believed Java
to be more OO almost any other language. I believed C++ to be "a
procedural language which happens to have some OO features," but I never
thought that Java was.
hmmmmm
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey33cqnbaot.fsf@cley.com>
* spammers suck wrote:
> I would like to argue against this, but I can't cuz I really don't
> know anything about procedural. In university, everything has been
> OO, and I believe we were taught Java because of that reason.
> Now, I could well be wrong, and I most probably am, but I believed
> Java to be more OO almost any other language. I believed C++ to be
> "a procedural language which happens to have some OO features," but
> I never thought that Java was.
I think something you're going to discover is that much university
computing teaching is bullshit. There are a lot of reasons for this
which this article is too small to contain.
But, if you think about Java: are all `objects' that you deal with
actually first-class objects? No, they aren't - numbers aren't for
instance. Are classes and methods &c objects? (Maybe they sort-of
are nowadays, but can you, say, subclass class objects?).
Contrast with a seriously OO language like, say Common Lisp: all
`objects' are actually first-class objects (including numbers, the
source code of your program, classes, methods &c &c). In a *really*
serious OO language, things like numbers are not only objects but can
be subclassed by user code (this can't be done in CL).
--tim
In article <···············@cley.com>, ···@cley.com says...
> * spammers suck wrote:
>
> > I would like to argue against this, but I can't cuz I really don't
> > know anything about procedural. In university, everything has been
> > OO, and I believe we were taught Java because of that reason.
>
> > Now, I could well be wrong, and I most probably am, but I believed
> > Java to be more OO almost any other language. I believed C++ to be
> > "a procedural language which happens to have some OO features," but
> > I never thought that Java was.
>
> I think something you're going to discover is that much university
> computing teaching is bullshit. There are a lot of reasons for this
> which this article is too small to contain.
I'm not going to disagree with you here. I personally think that
university is overated. Unfortunately, it is difficult these days to get
employment without a degree (in Australia at least). Besides, you have
to start out somewhere.
>
> But, if you think about Java: are all `objects' that you deal with
> actually first-class objects?
What is the difference with a first-class object? What is it?
> No, they aren't - numbers aren't for
> instance. Are classes and methods &c objects?
Maybe I will understand what you mean someday. I think I see what you
mean with "numbers". But numbers are integers, isn't "Integer" an
object?
To me, when you create an instance of a class - that is an object.
> (Maybe they sort-of
> are nowadays, but can you, say, subclass class objects?).
What do you mean here? You *can* create sub-classes of another class.
You then create instances of these sub-classes. But I'm not sure if this
is what you mean.
>
> Contrast with a seriously OO language like, say Common Lisp: all
> `objects' are actually first-class objects (including numbers, the
> source code of your program, classes, methods &c &c). In a *really*
> serious OO language, things like numbers are not only objects but can
> be subclassed by user code (this can't be done in CL).
Hmmm, I see what you mean. Say, create a subclass of Integer. I'm not
sure if you can do this in Java or not. My gut feeling though is that
you probably can.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 02:25:24PM +1030, arien wrote:
> > But, if you think about Java: are all `objects' that you deal with
> > actually first-class objects?
>
> What is the difference with a first-class object? What is it?
I think you already understand this, but to flesh it out: are `int's and
`Integer's both objects? In Java, only one of them is. You cannot
dispatch a method on a primitive type, so it is not a first-class
object. In Common Lisp you can dispatch a method on any value(s).
>
> > No, they aren't - numbers aren't for
> > instance. Are classes and methods &c objects?
>
> Maybe I will understand what you mean someday. I think I see what you
> mean with "numbers". But numbers are integers, isn't "Integer" an
> object?
Well, besides the fact that "numbers are integers" is not quite true
(integers are numbers, yes, not the other way), in Java (but not
necessarily in other languages!) "Integer" is not an object but a class.
>
> To me, when you create an instance of a class - that is an object.
In Common Lisp, every value is an instance of a class. Even integers,
and even classes! In Java, this is not true.
Try (class-of 1)
Then try (class-of (find-class 'integer))
>
> > (Maybe they sort-of
> > are nowadays, but can you, say, subclass class objects?).
>
> What do you mean here? You *can* create sub-classes of another class.
> You then create instances of these sub-classes. But I'm not sure if this
> is what you mean.
I'm not sure what he meant by applying the verb "to subclass" to the
noun "class objects" (am I reading this right?). Perhaps he meant a
prototype object system? CLOS isn't that though...
On the other hand, you can subclass class classes (a.k.a. metaclasses).
STANDARD-CLASS and STRUCTURE-CLASS are just two possible metaclasses.
> > Contrast with a seriously OO language like, say Common Lisp: all
> > `objects' are actually first-class objects (including numbers, the
> > source code of your program, classes, methods &c &c). In a *really*
> > serious OO language, things like numbers are not only objects but can
> > be subclassed by user code (this can't be done in CL).
>
> Hmmm, I see what you mean. Say, create a subclass of Integer. I'm not
> sure if you can do this in Java or not. My gut feeling though is that
> you probably can.
The problem with Integer is that it is just a skeleton; a mere wrapper
for a primitive type.
So in the end you are still stuck with having to deal with primitive
types.
--
; 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: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3lm4eaida.fsf@cley.com>
* Matthew Danish wrote:
> I'm not sure what he meant by applying the verb "to subclass" to the
> noun "class objects" (am I reading this right?). Perhaps he meant a
> prototype object system? CLOS isn't that though...
Yes, I meant `define subclasses of the class of class objects', but
phrased it very badly.
--tim
arien wrote:
> I'm not going to disagree with you here. I personally think that
> university is overated.
That is because students underrate it. When you leave university
you will have so much less time to learn. The reason is simple,
when you go to university all you are concerned with is learning
and you have time a plenty to do it. It is the vast majority of
students that ruin university for others when they choose electives
that will give them friday off instead of pursuing their interest.
Students who go through the first year of Computer Science and do
not know how to write to the standard output in Java and think
it is because it is hard are being stupid. I have no sympathy
whatsoever for them. What if all students were genuinely interested
in whatever they are studying? They would usher each other along,
it would be status in learning something new, you could bring up
computers and programming during lunch without your fellow student
staring blankly at you and labelling you as a geek.
I hate that there I know only two or three students at the university
with which I can discuss programming and ideas I might have. The
others only want to know the difference between a pointer and an array
and how to write to standard output in Java. Sometimes they make me
happy when they ask "what is this Common Lisp thing you are talking
about?" That is all well and good, but when they do not have the
basic foundation to understand the answer at all they loose interest,
which is understandable. Which is to some extent understandable.
>>But, if you think about Java: are all `objects' that you deal with
>>actually first-class objects?
>
> What is the difference with a first-class object? What is it?
>
Maybe some Googling or reading would do you good?
>>No, they aren't - numbers aren't for
>>instance. Are classes and methods &c objects?
>
> Maybe I will understand what you mean someday. I think I see what you
> mean with "numbers". But numbers are integers, isn't "Integer" an
> object?
>
Integers are numbers, but numbers are not necesarily integers.
> To me, when you create an instance of a class - that is an object.
In Java terminology, and in many other contexts, but not in all
contexts.
>
>
>>(Maybe they sort-of
>>are nowadays, but can you, say, subclass class objects?).
>
>
> What do you mean here? You *can* create sub-classes of another class.
> You then create instances of these sub-classes. But I'm not sure if this
> is what you mean.
You can not use int as a superclass in Java.
>
>
>>Contrast with a seriously OO language like, say Common Lisp: all
>>`objects' are actually first-class objects (including numbers, the
>>source code of your program, classes, methods &c &c). In a *really*
>>serious OO language, things like numbers are not only objects but can
>>be subclassed by user code (this can't be done in CL).
>
>
> Hmmm, I see what you mean. Say, create a subclass of Integer. I'm not
> sure if you can do this in Java or not.
There is only one way to find out.
--
Thomas.
In article <··········@nntphost.cis.strath.ac.uk>,
·······@cis.strath.ac.uk says...
> arien wrote:
>
> > I'm not going to disagree with you here. I personally think that
> > university is overated.
>
> That is because students underrate it. When you leave university
> you will have so much less time to learn.
This is not what I meant. What I mean is that I have learnt far more in
the workforce than what I have learnt at university, and experience in
the workforce is far more valuable than university. That is why I am
only doing uni part time and continuing to work.
What I find with university, is that they give you an introduction to
something, but then if you want to find out more, then it's up to you to
go and find it out. University itself doesn't teach you much, you have
to go learn it yourself.
--
Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien wrote:
> [...] I have learnt far more in
> the workforce than what I have learnt at university, and experience in
> the workforce is far more valuable than university. That is why I am
> only doing uni part time and continuing to work.
Well, I guess it depends on what you value. It's not possible to make a
general statement about industry or acedemia being "better". I, for one,
love what I do in the university, and I hope I get to stay here for a
long time! =)
> What I find with university, is that they give you an introduction to
> something, but then if you want to find out more, then it's up to you to
> go and find it out. University itself doesn't teach you much, you have
> to go learn it yourself.
Arguably, the point of higher education is not to give you specific
knowledge, but rather to teach you how to acquire knowledge. I don't
have any personal experience with industry (I have only worked outside
of classes in an academic research setting), but I don't see why it
would be any better. The point of industry is not to teach employees
anything. It is to have employees do what the company needs to have
done, and mostly let the employee learn whatever she needs to know to do it.
That's my USD 0.02.
Joe
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3y98eakcq.fsf@cley.com>
* spammers suck wrote:
> I'm not going to disagree with you here. I personally think that
> university is overated. Unfortunately, it is difficult these days to
> get employment without a degree (in Australia at least). Besides,
> you have to start out somewhere.
I think that academic *computing* education is overrated,
specifically. There are a lot of reasons for this, I think, most of
which are related to the extreme immaturity of the discipline. I
don't think that this is the case for other, more mature, disciplines,
or at least not all of them. You can get a decent education in
physics, or many engineering disciplines I should think (well, I know
for physics, and I hope for engineering).
But I think *specifically* for computing you have to constantly be
aware that *what you are told may not be true, or even approximately
true*.
> What is the difference with a first-class object? What is it?
`first-class' is a slightly fuzzy term (at least the way I use it),
but it generally means that the thing so being described has a bundle
of properties which all other first-class things have. For objects
that would include being able to have methods defined for them, and
possibly being able to be subclassed by user code.
There's a slight dilemma here. For languages (like Java) where
methods belong to a class, a system class (to which you don't have the
source) which can't be subclassed by a user can't have methods defined
on it by the user, and so is really not that useful. CL finesses this
issue by not associating methods with classes but rather with generic
functions. Thus, even though numbers can't be subclassed in CL, you
can define your own methods on them.
I suspect that this difference in where methods belong - to classses
or to generic functions - is one of the things that causes OO bigots
to not count CL as OO. The term `OO' has come to be very restricted
to `pretty much like C++', with SmallTalk added in because we'd feel
so silly if we left it out'.
> Maybe I will understand what you mean someday. I think I see what you
> mean with "numbers". But numbers are integers, isn't "Integer" an
> object?
Well, Integer is a class, but 3 is not an Integer, it's an int, and
int *isn't* a class. In CL, NUMBER is a class, and 3 *is* a NUMBER
(specifically it's a FIXNUM which is a proper subclass of NUMBER).
> What do you mean here? You *can* create sub-classes of another
> class. You then create instances of these sub-classes. But I'm not
> sure if this is what you mean.
No, the issue is to do with whether there is an *object* in the system
that represents a class, and what you can do with those objects. To
give a Lisp example, if I define a class:
(defclass foo ()
((x :initform 0
:initarg :x
:accessor foo-x)))
Then this creates an object which *is* that class, and which you can
find from its name by the FIND-CLASS function. There are only a few
things you can do with this object in standard CL, the most important
one being to make an instance of it. But this seemingly tiny bit of
functionality actually opens up huge vistas - once you can get hold of
class *objects* you can have them as values of variables, return them
from functions and so on. This means you can do stuff like this:
(defgeneric child-class-of (node))
(defun make-child-for (node &optional (class (child-class-of node)))
(add-child-node node (make-instance class)))
This kind of thing has whole design patterns built around it in
languages where classes are not first class.
But then the question is: now we have these first class classes, what
is *their* class? And is it meaningful to define subclasses of
*those* classes, instances of which would presumably be themselves
classes, but classes with possibly variant behaviour? If you can do
this, then you can cook your own object system to some extent,
depending on how great the variant behaviour that the system supports
is.
Well, CL defines some of this - the default class of a class defined
with DEFCLASS is STANDARD-CLASS:
> (defclass foo ()
((x :initform 0
:initarg :x
:accessor foo-x)))
#<standard-class foo 218216C4>
> (class-of *)
#<standard-class standard-class 20715C7C>
> (class-of *)
#<standard-class standard-class 20715C7C>
But it's not really defined how you should subclass STANDARD-CLASS, or
more precisely, what you need to do to control the behaviour of
instances of such subclasses (which themselves are classes). However
there is a semi-standard for all this which is defined in a book
called the `Art of The Metaobject Protocol', part of which gives a
sample definition of a metaobject protocol, or MOP. Many
implementations support something quite close to the MOP described in
that book. The AMOP MOP wasn't standardised because it was felt that
there wasn't enough experience with it, and there are also various
issues of design which I think hadn't (and haven't) been fully
resolved.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw wrote
>
> I suspect that this difference in where methods belong - to classses
> or to generic functions - is one of the things that causes OO bigots
> to not count CL as OO. The term `OO' has come to be very restricted
> to `pretty much like C++', with SmallTalk added in because we'd feel
> so silly if we left it out'.
>
>
I guess it's time to trot this link out again:
http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html
in which Jonathan Rees lays out a menu of properties of languages that
claim to be "OO", and explains why saying "language X is/is not OO"
unless you specify which subset of the menu means "OO" to you.
* arien <·············@getlost.invalid>
| By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object oriented
| before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
TROLL ALERT!
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
Date:
Message-ID: <7kg1nw7l.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
arien <·············@getlost.invalid> writes:
> By the way, is Lisp Object oriented?
Yes, but....
Not in the way your average C++ user (single dispatch) or Java (single
inheritance) thinks.