Hi --
Lisp in Python. Interesting.
Comments from lispers would be an interesting read too :-)
http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/py4fun/lisp/lisp.html
Cheers
Henry
_________________________________________________________________
Micro$oft-Free Human 100% Debian GNU/Linux
KMFMS "Bring the genome to the people!
www.debian.org - www.debian-br.cipsga.org.br - www.debian-rs.org
synthespian <···········@debian-rs.org> writes:
> Lisp in Python. Interesting.
A Common Lisp implementation of Python would be more interesting,
especially if the python code compiled to efficient CL code.
--
(espen)
"Espen Vestre" <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> wrote in message
···················@merced.netfonds.no...
> synthespian <···········@debian-rs.org> writes:
>
> > Lisp in Python. Interesting.
>
> A Common Lisp implementation of Python would be more interesting,
> especially if the python code compiled to efficient CL code.
>
> --
> (espen)
I understand that there is a person associated with FSF who is currently
working on a Python->Guile (the FSF version of Scheme) translator. No reason
why it couldn't be done to CL instead.
Jim Bushnell
"Jim Bushnell" <···········@comcast.net> writes:
> "Espen Vestre" <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> wrote in message
> ···················@merced.netfonds.no...
> > synthespian <···········@debian-rs.org> writes:
> >
> > > Lisp in Python. Interesting.
> >
> > A Common Lisp implementation of Python would be more interesting,
> > especially if the python code compiled to efficient CL code.
> >
> > --
> > (espen)
>
> I understand that there is a person associated with FSF who is currently
> working on a Python->Guile (the FSF version of Scheme) translator. No reason
> why it couldn't be done to CL instead.
Exactly. No reason. So why start doing the Guile one? (And AFAIK,
Guile performance is also not that good). :)
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
715 Broadway 10th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> "Jim Bushnell" <···········@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > "Espen Vestre" <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> wrote in message
> > ···················@merced.netfonds.no...
> > > synthespian <···········@debian-rs.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > Lisp in Python. Interesting.
> > >
> > > A Common Lisp implementation of Python would be more interesting,
> > > especially if the python code compiled to efficient CL code.
> > >
> > > --
> > > (espen)
> >
> > I understand that there is a person associated with FSF who is currently
> > working on a Python->Guile (the FSF version of Scheme) translator. No reason
> > why it couldn't be done to CL instead.
>
> Exactly. No reason. So why start doing the Guile one? (And AFAIK,
> Guile performance is also not that good). :)
You'd think they'd at least pick one of the fast Schemes to target.
Then again, it might just be vaporware to placate those who would
spend all their time bitching about it, if there wasn't a development
effort "happening".
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
>
> Exactly. No reason. So why start doing the Guile one? (And AFAIK,
> Guile performance is also not that good). :)
Well you probably know better than me what Guile is for RMS. It's his
favorite lisp-like language. You even could read some years ago that
there will be an Guile based emacs, that even there are people working
on it...
I suggest asking RMS why they do not use Common Lisp. Might be an
interesting reply (well getting none, says enough too)
Happy Lisping
Friedrich
Friedrich Dominicus <·····@q-software-solutions.com> writes:
> I suggest asking RMS why they do not use Common Lisp. Might be an
> interesting reply (well getting none, says enough too)
About six months ago I had a brief discussion with Richard Stallman
where I asked him a question similar to yours. His reply was that,
"Common Lisp is eeeeeenormous!".
While there are plenty of perfectly valid reasons to choose some
language other than Common Lisp as a future replacement for Emacs
Lisp, this just isn't one of them.
I've got this feeling that RMS is basically out-of-the-loop these
days.
Carl Shapiro wrote:
> About six months ago I had a brief discussion with Richard Stallman
> where I asked him a question similar to yours. His reply was that,
> "Common Lisp is eeeeeenormous!".
When I bring up a commercial CL on my system, I get a process that
is about the same size as the one I get when I start emacs.
Conclusion: emacs is eeeeeenormous! :)
Will we be seeing RMS switch to vi?
Paul
>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Dietz <············@motorola.com> writes:
Paul> Carl Shapiro wrote:
>> About six months ago I had a brief discussion with Richard
>> Stallman where I asked him a question similar to yours. His
>> reply was that, "Common Lisp is eeeeeenormous!".
Paul> When I bring up a commercial CL on my system, I get a
Paul> process that is about the same size as the one I get when I
Paul> start emacs.
Paul> Conclusion: emacs is eeeeeenormous! :)
I believe that RMS talked about the CommonLisp language specification,
which is indeed a big stuff. I'm not sure he talked only of process
sizes. And CommonLisp requires not only the core language but also a
very rich standard library. Learning CommonLisp is a very significant
task!
PS: 1 beware of antispam device in my reply email
2 I just changed hosting company, so my DNS is upgrading, and
neither email nor webpage is working till tomorrow.
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net
alias: basile<at>tunes<dot>org
8, rue de la Fa�encerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> I believe that RMS talked about the CommonLisp language specification,
> which is indeed a big stuff.
Is it? Since I haven't seen a specification for, say, emacslisp,
I can't compare. :)
> And CommonLisp requires not only the core language but also a
> very rich standard library.
What the EFF are you talking about? The CL spec describes the
language and all its builtin functions; there is no separate
'standard library', very rich or otherwise.
Are you confusing CL with Scheme, perhaps?
Paul
Paul Dietz wrote:
>
> Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
>
> > I believe that RMS talked about the CommonLisp language specification,
> > which is indeed a big stuff.
>
> Is it? Since I haven't seen a specification for, say, emacslisp,
> I can't compare. :)
The Emacs Lisp reference manual's only 70000 lines of HTML.
> > And CommonLisp requires not only the core language but also a
> > very rich standard library.
>
> What the EFF are you talking about? The CL spec describes the
> language and all its builtin functions; there is no separate
> 'standard library', very rich or otherwise.
>
> Are you confusing CL with Scheme, perhaps?
I think what's meant is that there are lots of CL functions
that can be defined easily using other CL functions. How
far down you go before you hit the "core language" is an
exercise in drawing arbitrary boundaries.
> Paul
Le Hibou
--
Dalinian: Lisp. Java. Which one sounds sexier?
RevAaron: Definitely Lisp. Lisp conjures up images of hippy coders,
drugs,
sex, and rock & roll. Late nights at Berkeley, coding in Lisp fueled by
LSD.
Java evokes a vision of a stereotypical nerd, with no life or social
skills.
Donald Fisk wrote:
> I think what's meant is that there are lots of CL functions
> that can be defined easily using other CL functions. How
> far down you go before you hit the "core language" is an
> exercise in drawing arbitrary boundaries.
But all the builtin CL functions are defined in the spec, so if
he considered them part of a library he'd be counting them
twice (remember, he already complained the spec was large).
His argument only makes sense if there is some large set
of additional functions, not defined in the spec, that are
considered a part of CL.
Paul
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 16:08:08 -0500, Paul Dietz <············@motorola.com>
wrote:
> Is it? Since I haven't seen a specification for, say, emacslisp,
> I can't compare. :)
The Emacs Lisp manual is not much shorter than CLtL2.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
>>>>> "BS" == Basile STARYNKEVITCH <·········@SPAM+starynkevitch.net.invalid> writes:
[...]
BS> I believe that RMS talked about the CommonLisp language
BS> specification, which is indeed a big stuff.
Yes the spec is not minimalist, neither is the language. Compared to
C+libc, C++ + libc + stl, scheme+SRFI's+additional libraries etc. it
is not that huge and certainly not gratuitously so. Is there anything
by RMS that one can read on this? I do remember "don't use tcl wait
for us to complete guile" postings. Anything else?
BS> I'm not sure he
BS> talked only of process sizes. And CommonLisp requires not only
BS> the core language but also a very rich standard
BS> library. Learning CommonLisp is a very significant task!
Learning is a significant task. (<- read out the period aloud) Having
climbed part of the way for both C and common lisp a long time ago, I
am obviously biased, BUT I am not aware of convincing arguments that
learning common lisp is any harder than anything else out there. In
the GNU context it should be _easier_, if nothing else, as proficiency
in emacs usage can be taken for granted. I suspect the consensus in
this NG would be that learning common lisp has very significant
rewards. I doubt RMS would dispute that.
cheers,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:
> > Basile STARYNKEVITCH writes:
> > I believe that RMS talked about the CommonLisp language
> > specification, which is indeed a big stuff.
>
> Yes the spec is not minimalist, neither is the language. Compared to
> C+libc, C++ + libc + stl, scheme+SRFI's+additional libraries etc. it
> is not that huge and certainly not gratuitously so. Is there anything
> by RMS that one can read on this?
With regard to -- or at least WRT java and c++ -- Erann Gatt carried out
an interesting study[1] which IIRC showed that common lisp could produce
effective and efficient result quick with even relatively inexperienced
programmers.
I would be interested to see if the same is true of scheme[2] or if this
is specifically the domain of common lisp.
> > Learning CommonLisp is a very significant task!
> Learning is a significant task. (<- read out the period aloud).
Yes. Although, surely you mean "full stop" ;) And would add the sometime
getting out of bed in the morning can be a significant task too...
> In the GNU context it should be _easier_, if nothing else, as proficiency
> in emacs usage can be taken for granted. I suspect the consensus in
> this NG would be that learning common lisp has very significant
> rewards.
FWIW I certainly concur.
:)w
[1] www.flownet.com/gat/papers/lisp-java.pdf
[2] or guile, emacs lisp or whatever lisp decendant you could select.
>>>>> "WD" == Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> writes:
[...]
WD> I would be interested to see if the same is true of scheme[2]
WD> or if this is specifically the domain of common lisp.
I think that paper covers scheme programmers also.
BM> [...] Learning is
BM> a significant task. (<- read out the period aloud).
WD> Yes. Although, surely you mean "full stop" ;)
I would have, about 10 years ago, before my foreign brain got used to
the US dialect of your language. A smaller move than scheme->CL,
I'd say.
cheers,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
> Is there anything by RMS that one can read on this? I do remember
> "don't use tcl wait for us to complete guile" postings. Anything
> else?
There was a rather long thread about a Guild-based Emacs about one or
two months ago, on emacs-devel. Of course some people mentioned Common
Lisp as a non-braindead alternative, and IIRC RMS himself commented on
this. I'm sure there are archives at gnu.org.
Henrik Motakef <··············@web.de> writes:
> Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
>
> > Is there anything by RMS that one can read on this? I do remember
> > "don't use tcl wait for us to complete guile" postings. Anything
> > else?
>
> There was a rather long thread about a Guild-based Emacs about one or
> two months ago, on emacs-devel. Of course some people mentioned Common
> Lisp as a non-braindead alternative, and IIRC RMS himself commented on
> this. I'm sure there are archives at gnu.org.
http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel/2002-August/011003.html
It is amazing how this voice of reason is ignored. And I'm astonished
that RMS apears not to have a deep knowledge of Scheme which he is
advocating, see e.g.
http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel/2002-August/011258.html
Based on this, my guess is that he became a manager and ignores
important technical details not fitting to his view of the world.
Nicolas.
>>>>> "NN" == Nicolas Neuss <·············@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
Thanks for posting these links.
[...]
NN> http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel/2002-August/011258.html
NN> Based on this, my guess is that he became a manager and
NN> ignores important technical details not fitting to his view of
NN> the world.
And the below seems to be his position re CL:
http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel/2002-August/011184.html
cheers,
BM
* Basile STARYNKEVITCH
| I believe that RMS talked about the CommonLisp language specification, which
| is indeed a big stuff.
This is such an idiotic line.
| And CommonLisp requires not only the core language but also a very rich
| standard library.
It also requires learning a significant amount of computer science. Every
useful programming language in this century has a large standard library of
functions, types, and other supporting technology. Programming languages
that have yet to be brought into the 3rd millennium look smaller only because
their non-standard libraries are much, much larger than standard libraries of
any modern programming language.
| Learning CommonLisp is a very significant task!
More utter nonsense! It takes significantly /less/ time to master Common
Lisp than to master C++ or Java or even Perl or Python. Programming under
Windows requires about two orders of magnitude more stuff to learn than the
language.
If all you can do is repeat nonsense you may believe but you have not thought
about, consider yielding to people who at least spout /original/ nonsense.
(On the off chance that your typographical novelty is semantically relevant,
you should notice that other people write "Common Lisp" and make your claims
about that other language called "CommonLisp" stand out more from what people
might think it means.)
--
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 takes significantly /less/ time to master Common Lisp than to
> master C++ or Java or even Perl or Python. Programming under
> Windows requires about two orders of magnitude more stuff to learn
> than the language.
I would argue that this depends on where you draw the line of mastery.
Language primitives? Language syntax? Object models? Libraries?
At the primitives level, I agree with you. Ditto for syntax
(excepting macros.) But CLOS is a *hard* thing to *master*; the Java
object model is comparatively trivial. And libraries, well,
"standard" Java libraries are breeding like rats, so you can never
master the "entire" language at that level.
Scheme, now, that's easier to master than Java et al on all fronts.
Jeremy
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 08:20:50PM -0400, Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
> At the primitives level, I agree with you. Ditto for syntax
> (excepting macros.) But CLOS is a *hard* thing to *master*; the Java
> object model is comparatively trivial. And libraries, well,
Actually I think the additional effort required to learn CLOS is more
to clear your mind of the misconceptions of the Java/C++ model than of
any innate difficulty of CLOS itself.
I certainly had trouble with CLOS at first because I kept trying to
program it as if it were C++. Now it seems almost trivial to me.
Not to mention, the freedom one gets when dealing with `objects' and not
`machine data' can be a bit overwhelming at first. Would you have ever
considered using a function like MAPCAR if you were accustomed to C++?
Most of the confusion with call-by-value semantics are probably due to
this too.
--
; 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 wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 08:20:50PM -0400, Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
>
>>At the primitives level, I agree with you. Ditto for syntax
>>(excepting macros.) But CLOS is a *hard* thing to *master*; the Java
>>object model is comparatively trivial. And libraries, well,
>
> Actually I think the additional effort required to learn CLOS is more
> to clear your mind of the misconceptions of the Java/C++ model than of
> any innate difficulty of CLOS itself.
Could you name a few of those misconceptions? (Or alternatively give a
link?)
(This is not a rhetorical question, I am really interested.)
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 10:59:26AM +0200, Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Matthew Danish wrote:
> > Actually I think the additional effort required to learn CLOS is more
> > to clear your mind of the misconceptions of the Java/C++ model than of
> > any innate difficulty of CLOS itself.
>
> Could you name a few of those misconceptions? (Or alternatively give a
> link?)
Largely the conflation of a module-system and the object-system (such as
the idea that methods `belong' to classes) which leads to difficulties
with multi-method dispatch. If one is coming from the Java viewpoint
then one might view multiple-inheritance as dangerous. I suppose it can
also safely be said that method-combination and redefinition of
classes/methods is not something one encounters in the Java/C++ world.
The design of Java (and C++ to a great extent, as I see it) leads one to
design programs around classes (which are really modules), which makes
classes rather heavyweight. Whereas in Common Lisp, classes are just
data-structures and the `real work' is performed by methods and
functions which are bound to symbols grouped into packages, and
optionally encapsulated in a module system.
I see classes such as Math in Java as being prime examples of their
usage as modules. All the methods are `static' so the only purpose of
the class is to act as a module.
Maybe sometime I'll put together a less subjective explanation and then
I'll have a link for you.
--
; 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 wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 10:59:26AM +0200, Pascal Costanza wrote:
>
>>Matthew Danish wrote:
>>
>>>Actually I think the additional effort required to learn CLOS is more
>>>to clear your mind of the misconceptions of the Java/C++ model than of
>>>any innate difficulty of CLOS itself.
>>
>>Could you name a few of those misconceptions? (Or alternatively give a
>>link?)
>
> Largely the conflation of a module-system and the object-system (such as
> the idea that methods `belong' to classes) which leads to difficulties
> with multi-method dispatch. If one is coming from the Java viewpoint
> then one might view multiple-inheritance as dangerous. I suppose it can
> also safely be said that method-combination and redefinition of
> classes/methods is not something one encounters in the Java/C++ world.
Ah, and I thought it was something serious. ;-))
Thanks for that. The term "misconceptions" made me think that something
about the Java/C++ is "wrong" in the sense that you cannot translate it
to CLOS - but their object models are in fact a special (and restricted)
case of CLOS, so you haven't necessarily learnt something _disastrously_
wrong when you are used to Java/C++. CLOS "just" expands your
possibilities in many directions which can be hard to grasp at first...
Pascal
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 10:20:24PM +0200, Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Thanks for that. The term "misconceptions" made me think that something
> about the Java/C++ is "wrong" in the sense that you cannot translate it
> to CLOS - but their object models are in fact a special (and restricted)
> case of CLOS, so you haven't necessarily learnt something _disastrously_
> wrong when you are used to Java/C++. CLOS "just" expands your
> possibilities in many directions which can be hard to grasp at first...
The misconception was on my part, due to the Java/C++ box I had been
thinking inside. My wording was poor, I probably should have written
something along the lines of: ``The conflation of modules and classes is
of dubious merit and results in, what I find to be, misconceptions about
object-systems.''
--
; 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."
>>>>> "JHB" == Jeremy H Brown <·······@ai.mit.edu> writes:
[...]
JHB> I would argue that this depends on where you draw the line of
JHB> mastery. Language primitives? Language syntax? Object
JHB> models? Libraries?
This is a legitimate question to ask, and a tough one to answer. It
is also not clear to me where mastery of a language stops and mastery
of parts of computer science begins.
My gut feeling is it is everything except task-specific libraries. By
task-specific I mean things like GUI and networking libraries as they
require additonal domain knowledge. I am unsure if variants of thread
libraries (C and C++ had quite a few in the late 80's early 90's) can be
included in language mastery.
JHB> At the primitives level, I agree with you. Ditto for syntax
JHB> (excepting macros.) But CLOS is a *hard* thing to *master*;
JHB> the Java object model is comparatively trivial. [...]
Java does less, that's clear. Outside of MOP, what is hard to understand
about CLOS that makes mastering it so difficult? Let's assume a parallel
universe where Keene's book is the first book people read that covers OO,
would CLOS be as hard to master _there_?
cheers,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
Outside of MOP, what is hard to understand
> about CLOS that makes mastering it so difficult? Let's assume a parallel
> universe where Keene's book is the first book people read that covers OO,
> would CLOS be as hard to master _there_?
I can't answer these questions as well as I'd like. I haven't read
Keene's book, and I can't claim to have mastered CLOS; I've always
gotten frustrated with its complexity while reading the spec and wound
up ignoring most of it. So I think that'd be my major complaint in a
nutshell: it's extremely complex. The high-level concepts are
tolerably straightforward, but the details are heinous. (I mean, my
God, it's almost impossible to figure out exactly how multiple
inheritance actually works out; who can truly claim to have mastered
that? Not many here, I'll wager.)
Method combination is another point of confusing complexity. before,
after, around, etc... it's easy to make it nearly impossible for
someone coming to the code as a reader, rather than an original
author, to figure out where a program's control flow really goes.
Finally, let me acknowlege here what others will no doubt jump all
over me to point out: the increased complexity of CLOS gives you
increased power. I don't quibble with that. Where those hypothetical
others and I disagree is almost entirely religious in nature: where
lies the point of diminishing returns? Where does added power get
overwhelmed by added confusion? It is merely my opinion that CLOS'
complexity overwhelms the advantages it enables. I'm certain that for
some people that's not the case, and so we come to questions of how
many people, what type of people, etc., should have how much
difficulty with mastering CLOS (or any language feature), and that way
lies madness.
But anyhow, that's roughly why I think CLOS is hard to master.
Jeremy
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3D94D067.5040309@nyc.rr.com>
Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
> I've always
> gotten frustrated with its complexity while reading the spec and wound
> up ignoring most of it.
Not a bad way to get to know a complex system, actually. Start with a
subset one is comfortable with. Later on look back at the CLOS doc and
realize where what once seemed like obscure features could have made
one's code simpler.
> it's almost impossible to figure out exactly how multiple
> inheritance actually works out;
(inspect (find-class 'xxx)) and look for the class precedence list. That
will show you exactly how inheritance got worked out. if you mean, how
can you tell in advance, my experience has been that I am the one that
has gotten too confused (I do not consider "complex" a pejorative) if my
program semantics depend on how M/I precedence pans out.
>
> Method combination is another point of confusing complexity. before,
> after, around, etc... it's easy to make it nearly impossible for
> someone coming to the code as a reader, rather than an original
> author, to figure out where a program's control flow really goes.
yeah. thank god for trace!
>
> Finally, let me acknowlege here what others will no doubt jump all
> over me to point out: the increased complexity of CLOS gives you
> increased power. I don't quibble with that.
OK.
> Where does added power get
> overwhelmed by added confusion? It is merely my opinion that CLOS'
> complexity overwhelms the advantages it enables. I'm certain that for
> some people that's not the case...
Not to quibble, but I think it important then to say that /you/ have
gotten confused by the power of CLOS, not to state as an absolute that
its power is confusing.
The issue here is how one approaches a powerful mechanism, and as I said
above, the answer for some of us is "one step at a time".
> But anyhow, that's roughly why I think CLOS is hard to master.
I have crashed badly three times since moving from 4 wheels to 5 on my
in-line skates. One concussion, lotsa skin loss. I do not blame the
fifth wheel, I blame my lack of respect for the greater speeds/torque
involved. I finally figured out I need to give my motor skills time to
catch up with the more powerful technology. I am practicing speedskating
technique on 4 wheels, and holding back a little when on 5.
btw, those new J&J artifcial-skin bandages are the bomb. :)
kenny
clinisys
On 27 Sep 2002 16:28:42 -0400, ·······@ai.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown)
wrote:
>
>Finally, let me acknowlege here what others will no doubt jump all
>over me to point out: the increased complexity of CLOS gives you
>increased power.
The ratio of increased complexity to increased power is enormously
high. This is because CLOS is badly done.
To see CLOS done the way it should be check out:
http://www.ai.mit.edu/~jrb/goo/goo.htm
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <058l9.617132$UU1.108311@sccrnsc03>
"Thaddeus L Olczyk" <······@interaccess.com> wrote in message
·······································@4ax.com...
> On 27 Sep 2002 16:28:42 -0400, ·······@ai.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown)
> wrote:
>
> This is because CLOS is badly done.
I'm just so tickled that this group attracts such a high
caliber of people. How did we ever survive before?
From: ilias
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <an4eep$lf1$2@usenet.otenet.gr>
Joe Marshall wrote:
> "Thaddeus L Olczyk" <······@interaccess.com> wrote in message
> ·······································@4ax.com...
>
>>On 27 Sep 2002 16:28:42 -0400, ·······@ai.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown)
>>wrote:
>>
>>This is because CLOS is badly done.
>
>
> I'm just so tickled that this group attracts such a high
> caliber of people. How did we ever survive before?
>
>
You're not surviving.
Lisp is bleeding.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242226556472216@naggum.no>
* Joe Marshall
| I'm just so tickled that this group attracts such a high caliber of people.
| How did we ever survive before?
It is not this group. It is Usenet in general. Usenet in real life would
be like this: Visit a public library with at least a million books. (But
For best results, visit a university library.) Pick books at random. Pick
pages at random. How many pages would you understand? Do you complain
vociferiously about this? Do you blame the library for holding books that
you do not understand? Do you see lots of people flock to the library only
to express their inability to understand random pages from random books? Do
they come back every day to sit down in "support groups" where one can say
"I don't get this!" and get sympathy from another who says "I don't get it,
either!", but then someone says "oh, that's nothing, look at what /I/ don't
get!", and then they can all look at some pages from some books and laugh
and ridicule the authors and the "confusing complexity" of what they cannot
understand? No? Why not?
Suppose we regard Usenet as an instance of democrazy�. People should have
the right to voice their opinions, the more the less they know. If someone
does not understanding something, everybody can vote on it and forbid it.
People who argue that it is possible to learn just about anything, because,
they would argue, look at these people who have spent a decade or three on
this topic -- they surely understand it, would simply be voted down by the
vast majority who do not understand it. Therefore, we can have public votes
on whether carbon dioxide causes floods in Central Europe, tornados in North
America, and greening of Sahara, and we can assume that all the people on
this planet, the total mass of which is far exceeded by /ants/, the emissions
of whose technology is far exceeded by the /intestinal gases/ of all mammals,
the light and heavy metallic pollution of which has been far exceeded by the
heavy bombardment of interstellar matter on our planet, the carbon dioxide
and temperature levels of whose most active time on earsh has been usually
stable compared to the wild fluctuations of times past, which evidently did
not kill off anything but instead let things evolve, include us humans.
The only people who could possibly be wrong about something are the experts.
Yeah, this does indeed go to the "literacy" argument. *Sigh*
-------
� Intentional spelling variation.
--
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 Josling
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3D96302B.4DA6D442@melbpc.org.au>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> ... the carbon dioxide
> and temperature levels of whose most active time on earsh has been usually
> stable compared to the wild fluctuations of times past, which evidently did
> not kill off anything but instead let things evolve, include us humans.
>
Actually Scientific American had an article a while back about an episode of
runaway greenhouse that occured a long time ago on earth. It wiped out almost
all life except a few simple forms.
It was preceded by a runaway cooling caused by an unusual configuration of the
continents. The surface temperature went to -50C and the entire surface was
covered by ice.
Gradually the volcanoes kept putting CO2 into the air. With no rain to take
the CO2 out, the CO2 level increased. The ice started to melt but the CO2
level had built up to high levels. The average surface temperature went to
50C. Eventually the CO2 went to normal levels as it was washed out of the air.
Tim Josling
Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
> I can't answer these questions as well as I'd like. I haven't read
> Keene's book, and I can't claim to have mastered CLOS; I've always
> gotten frustrated with its complexity while reading the spec and wound
> up ignoring most of it. So I think that'd be my major complaint in a
> nutshell: it's extremely complex. The high-level concepts are
> tolerably straightforward, but the details are heinous.
Well, these concepts may be complex but they are obviously needed.
Look at other languages in use: C++ has templates that are used for
generating complex classes; Java has got the AspectJ addition; there's
already an AspectC# underway; in the AOSD mailing list, people have
already asked for an AOP extension for Python.
In the long run, those "simple" languages always turn out to be too
simple and more features are being added one by one. So you have to
learn these (or similar) concepts anyway in the "real world".
Pascal
·······@ai.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown) wrote in message news:<···············@suspiria.ai.mit.edu>...
> Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
> Outside of MOP, what is hard to understand
> > about CLOS that makes mastering it so difficult? Let's assume a parallel
> > universe where Keene's book is the first book people read that covers OO,
> > would CLOS be as hard to master _there_?
>
> I can't answer these questions as well as I'd like. I haven't read
> Keene's book, and I can't claim to have mastered CLOS; I've always
> gotten frustrated with its complexity while reading the spec and wound
> up ignoring most of it.
Maybe your problem is that you are relying too much on just the spec.
I think that CLOS is the easiest object system in existence. It does
the Right Thing that I expect in a given situation. But then again,
I'm not really familiar with its formal specficiation. It has lots of
features and subtleties that I don't use or know about, but which I
will discover over time.
So I think that'd be my major complaint in a
> nutshell: it's extremely complex. The high-level concepts are
> tolerably straightforward, but the details are heinous. (I mean, my
> God, it's almost impossible to figure out exactly how multiple
> inheritance actually works out; who can truly claim to have mastered
> that? Not many here, I'll wager.)
There are no real difficulties under multiple inheritance. In case of
an ambiguity, there is a simple left to right precedence system. If
you inherit from A and from B, in that order, then you are ever so
slightly more an A, in a context where you could be treated as A or B.
If you have to parameters that are each both of this type, and you
have an (A B) method and a (B A) method, then the choice is again made
left to right over the parameters. You are more of an A, which matches
the left parameter, so the (A B) method takes priority.
> Method combination is another point of confusing complexity. before,
> after, around, etc... it's easy to make it nearly impossible for
I don't see what is so difficult about auxiliary methods. What they do
is pretty obvious. The befores are called in order from general to
specific, then the normal method, then the afters in reverse order of
the befores. It all works in the most obvious way in which it could
work in the most reasonable of all possible worlds. I discovered the
basics by experimenting with them interactively. Though I don't use
CLOS much, I'm entirely confident that I can get it to do exactly what
I want without any difficulties.
> someone coming to the code as a reader, rather than an original
> author, to figure out where a program's control flow really goes.
A confusing program could be deliberately written in any object
system. When you read specifications, you get into a frame of mind
which is conducive to extrapolations into degenerate cases.
I think that the goal in programming with generic functions is to
create an intuitive interface, so that one doesn't have to be
concerned with where the flow of control goes. It goes to the right
``service provider'' which is best fit for the job. Of course you
could design a program which depends on method dispatch as a
control-flow mechanism, where the parameter types are just dummies to
divert the flow. In this program, the methods would do completely
different jobs that must be done in the right order. But who would
design that way?
> Finally, let me acknowlege here what others will no doubt jump all
> over me to point out: the increased complexity of CLOS gives you
> increased power. I don't quibble with that. Where those hypothetical
> others and I disagree is almost entirely religious in nature: where
> lies the point of diminishing returns?
That point rests in individual programs. In solving a given task, you
reach a point of dimishing returns when no additional complexity or
abstraction will buy you anything, whether it comes from features of
the standard language, or from your own devices.
> Where does added power get
> overwhelmed by added confusion?
You can't be confused by what you don't use. If you don't use multiple
inheritance in your program, then the complexity associated with
multiple inheritance does not arise in that program.
It is merely my opinion that CLOS'
> complexity overwhelms the advantages it enables. I'm certain that for
> some people that's not the case, and so we come to questions of how
> many people, what type of people, etc., should have how much
> difficulty with mastering CLOS (or any language feature), and that way
> lies madness.
>
> But anyhow, that's roughly why I think CLOS is hard to master.
Is it necessary to master CLOS? Perhaps as a long term goal for a Lisp
programmer who is serious about becoming a practitioner of object
oriented programming.
From: Aleksandr Skobelev
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <m3elbdqmlw.fsf@list.ru>
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
[...]
> The befores are called in order from general to specific, then the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> normal method, then the afters in reverse order of the befores.
[...]
You probably meant to say `from specific to general'? :)
·······@ai.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown) wrote in message news:<···············@suspiria.ai.mit.edu>...
> I can't answer these questions as well as I'd like. I haven't read
> Keene's book, and I can't claim to have mastered CLOS; I've always
> gotten frustrated with its complexity while reading the spec and wound
> up ignoring most of it. So I think that'd be my major complaint in a
> nutshell: it's extremely complex. The high-level concepts are
Wait a moment here. Your problem is that the spec is not a tutorial,
not CLOS itself. I know that many bodies seem to make their specs read
like and/or include tutorials nowadays, but you have to realize when
you are using a normative details only spec you just aren't going to
get the kind of hand holding you might want.
I mean, Python has a tutorial and a friendly reference describing a
trivially straightforward system. You read through that, and you're
good to go. Doing the same read-and-go with CLOS requires a proper
introduction, not reading the guide for experienced programmers
IMPLEMENTING lisp compilers, and you can't expect everything.
I think the core misconception here, is that Python's objects are so
dead simple that saying one has "mastered" them is kind of
meaningless. People then come to something like lisp, and expect the
same trivial effort to mastery, and when they don't get it, they fault
CLOS for being hard and confusing.
I'm relatively new to lisp, but this same thing truly killed SGML.
Every new person needs someone next to him/her to periodically yell,
"Dammit, don't use the parts you don't want!"
> But anyhow, that's roughly why I think CLOS is hard to master.
Hard to master is different from hard to use. Frankly, what's the
point of something easy to master? That's really the ultimate in
diminishing returns. CLOS, at least, actually _has_ returns from the
process of mastery. I would go so far as to say it has _increasing_
returns, not diminishing, but one simply must understand and accept
that no one is making you master it.
--
Robert Braddock
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: The fate of SGML (was Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242240844350299_-_@naggum.no>
* Robert Braddock
| I'm relatively new to lisp, but this same thing truly killed SGML. Every new
| person needs someone next to him/her to periodically yell, "Dammit, don't use
| the parts you don't want!"
Hmmm. Part of the problem with SGML was the were about 12 different features
that affected the syntax of the document instance, leading to 4096 different
syntaxes that were all supposed to be SGML. The problem was that you could
neither turn a feature or not turn it on without the possibility of affecting
the way the document would be parsed and processed. This meant that you had
to make a decision as to which of the features you wanted and make that
decision system-wide, leading to a serious lack of interoperability, which
was never the intended purpose of SGML to begin with. E.g., the character
set stuff was supposed to printed out on paper and shipped with the physical
tape to the printer or typesetter. Truly amazing parts of SGML was geared
towards non-electronic document interchange and were horribly dated by the
time the Internet hit the fan.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Today, the sum total of the money I
would retain from the offers in the
more than 7500 Nigerian 419 scam letters received in the past 33 months would
have exceeded USD 100,000,000,000. You can stop sending me more offers, now.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242217481874669@naggum.no>
* Jeremy H. Brown
| I haven't read Keene's book,
You really, really should. Several people, myself included, have found that
the apparent complexity of CLOS was a result of being bombarded with the
whole complexity up front, but with that thin book, the pedagogical steps
that were missing were presented in an orderly fashion. After you have read
Keene and have spent a little time experimenting with the concepts, like a
month of spare-time-hacking, go read the full specification. It wil make
sense like a revelation.
| I've always gotten frustrated with its complexity while reading the spec and
| wound up ignoring most of it.
Many people do that with accounting laws and principles, too.
| So I think that'd be my major complaint in a nutshell: it's extremely
| complex.
No, it is not. It is just complex, and you have decided not to deal with it.
| (I mean, my God, it's almost impossible to figure out exactly how multiple
| inheritance actually works out; who can truly claim to have mastered that?
| Not many here, I'll wager.)
Bullshit. The class precedence list is easy to compute and inspect.
| Method combination is another point of confusing complexity.
Bullshit. It is amazingly straight-forward and almost completely free of
surprises for something that powerful.
| before, after, around, etc...
Extremely elegant.
| it's easy to make it nearly impossible for someone coming to the code as a
| reader, rather than an original author, to figure out where a program's
| control flow really goes.
That is a factor of the intelligence, concentration, dedication, and general
skills of the programmer and has nothing to do with CLOS.
| Where those hypothetical others and I disagree is almost entirely religious
| in nature: where lies the point of diminishing returns?
Yeah, let's drag in "religious" while you are /not/ arguing. No wonder you
refuse to apply yourself to understand it. I mean, my God, it's /religious/!
| Where does added power get overwhelmed by added confusion?
Confusion is the result of less understanding than is required to deal with
the tasks at hand. If you have seriously tried to understand this and have
failed, maybe you should just leave it to others? You have, obviously, never
seriously tried, or you would never, /ever/ have brought up "religious", so
this is only an instance of /fear/ that you might not understand it, /fear/
of watching the time spent go unrewarded, /fear/ that you are not smart
enough to grasp it. Snap the hell out of it and start working on it!
| It is merely my opinion that CLOS' complexity overwhelms the advantages it
| enables.
Life in general is overshelmingly complex to people who refuse to do their
homework. I mean, my God, have you looked at those tax laws recently?
Better ignore them and claim that the IRS folks are "religious" and that the
whole system is so confusing you should be relieved of having to deal with it.
| I'm certain that for some people that's not the case, and so we come to
| questions of how many people, what type of people, etc., should have how much
| difficulty with mastering CLOS (or any language feature), and that way lies
| madness.
Have you looked at superstring theory in physics? That's complex. That's so
complex I cannot seem to remember how things interrelate between each time I
sit down to study it. But to people who work with this stuff all the time
seem to have no problems dealing with the complexity. Should I attack their
theory for being too complex for me to understand because I would sort of
like to, as a hobbyist science-philosopher kind of guy?
| But anyhow, that's roughly why I think CLOS is hard to master.
These thoughts hold you back. Please be so decent as to avoid letting them
hold other people back, as well. Lazy people tend to look for excuses not to
work, and if some other lazy person can tell them "I tried, I failed, but
look at all the trouble /that/ got me into! *snicker*", they will be very
happy because now they can rationalize their laziness. I mean, my God, it's
/religious/!
--
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 28 Sep 2002 15:58:01 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> * Jeremy H. Brown
> | I haven't read Keene's book,
>
> You really, really should. Several people, myself included, have found that
[...]
> | Method combination is another point of confusing complexity.
>
> Bullshit. It is amazingly straight-forward and almost completely free of
> surprises for something that powerful.
Figure 5.1 "Flow of control of standard method combination", on page 114 of
Keene's book, is exceptionally clear.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
From: ilias
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <an4i1q$ocs$1@usenet.otenet.gr>
Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
> Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
> Outside of MOP, what is hard to understand
>
>>about CLOS that makes mastering it so difficult? Let's assume a parallel
>>universe where Keene's book is the first book people read that covers OO,
>>would CLOS be as hard to master _there_?
>
>
> I can't answer these questions as well as I'd like. I haven't read
> Keene's book, and I can't claim to have mastered CLOS; I've always
> gotten frustrated with its complexity while reading the spec and wound
i'm a lisp-novice.
reading a few parts (reader, macros, backquote ) of CLHS makes it clear
form me:
if the fundamentals parts are defined that fuzzy, how fuzzy most became
a complex systems designed on that?
I'll look at CLOS.
but i know already: i'll be not able to assimilate it, *not* due to its
complexity but duo to its *unneccessary* complexity of
implementation-dependent details in behaviour which will lead to an
intuitive rejection of the information.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3wup5yt99.fsf@cley.com>
* Jeremy H Brown wrote:
> I can't answer these questions as well as I'd like. I haven't read
> Keene's book, and I can't claim to have mastered CLOS; I've always
> gotten frustrated with its complexity while reading the spec and wound
> up ignoring most of it. So I think that'd be my major complaint in a
> nutshell: it's extremely complex. The high-level concepts are
> tolerably straightforward, but the details are heinous. (I mean, my
> God, it's almost impossible to figure out exactly how multiple
> inheritance actually works out; who can truly claim to have mastered
> that? Not many here, I'll wager.)
> Method combination is another point of confusing complexity. before,
> after, around, etc... it's easy to make it nearly impossible for
> someone coming to the code as a reader, rather than an original
> author, to figure out where a program's control flow really goes.
I think you've been taught, or taught yourself, very badly. If you
find multiple inheritance complicated don't use it. If you find
method combination hard, don't use it. Nothing at all forces you to
use all of CLOS, and there are very few cases where you have to pay
any price for not using parts of it (the only one I can think of
off-hand is slot-naming issues if you don't want to have to worry
about effective slot definitions).
I mean, how hard can it be to just restrict yourself to classes with a
single superclass, and to DEFMETHOD with no qualifiers? You can still
use CALL-NEXT-METHOD to do the kind of stream dispatch-to-superclass
thing that Java &co have?
When you start needing things like method combinations - either one of
the standard ones or user-defined ones - they are waiting for you to
use, but they aren't causing you any extra work until you need them.
I haven't taught a course on Lisp for a few years now, but when I did
so regularly we used to spend about a day (of a week-long course) on
CLOS, and students would be absolutely fine with it. Typically 15-20
minutes at the end of the day would be me pointing them at all the
advanced stuff.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Jeremy H Brown wrote:
> > I can't answer these questions as well as I'd like. I haven't read
> > Keene's book, and I can't claim to have mastered CLOS; I've always
> I think you've been taught, or taught yourself, very badly. If you
> find multiple inheritance complicated don't use it. If you find
> method combination hard, don't use it. Nothing at all forces you to
> use all of CLOS, and there are very few cases where you have to pay
> any price for not using parts of it (the only one I can think of
> off-hand is slot-naming issues if you don't want to have to worry
> about effective slot definitions).
Your points regarding using subsets of CLOS are entirely correct, but
they miss the fact that I was responding to the question "Why is it
harder to master CLOS than <foo>?" I don't think I could claim to
have mastered the technology by using only a subset of its abilities.
Jeremy
PS Is Erik Naggum always so full of poisonous bile? I didn't expect
everyone to agree with me, and indeed, many people didn't, but he was
just out of control. All I was trying to do was provide a coherent
answer to a question I was asked.
Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
> PS Is Erik Naggum always so full of poisonous bile?
I don't see what you're talking about. Erik gave you an honest answer to
your ill-formed question that (indirectly, but quite intentionally) put
forth the proposition that an approach to object orientation that was
difficult to learn because (a) its power was not necessarily something you
immediately needed; and (b) you lacked the insight to go to a tutorial
rather than a reference source; was inherently inferior to another, more
limited approach to object orientation. Given that it is obvious from the
above that you are (a) not very advanced in your use of object-oriented
methods and (b) either clueless or lazy, I believe that Erik was very
charitable in giving you an answer at all, as are any of us in giving you
our knowledge.
> All I was trying to do was provide a coherent
> answer to a question I was asked.
Then try to provide a coherent question that does not label as inferior
something that you don't understand.
faa
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242327596066444@naggum.no>
* Jeremy H. Brown
| PS Is Erik Naggum always so full of poisonous bile?
What, precisely, have I done to you to warrant this direct personal attack?
What, precisely, do you have against poisonous bile when you are so ready and
willing to dispense it yourself? One moral code for you and another for me?
Is Jeremy H. Brown always such a retarded, whining, /unjust/ loser?
What was it that caused you to become evil? Did I fail to please you? Did I
fail to make you feel good? Did I not suck your dick the way you wanted?
What? Do you think this is the place you should go with your "I need to feel
good today" requests? Hire a prostitute if you want to people to please you.
Should I be /nicer/ to some dickweed like yourself for asking such a moronic
"question"? Do you think the retards who obsess about my person on this
newsgroup make me want to come and chop off their fingers or do you think
they make me want to help them understand something you wonder about that I
know and can explain so you understand it, too?
Just how goddamn stupid are you, Jeremy H. Brown? You are clearly unable to
focus on the things that have real value to you and are ready and willing to
squander long-term benefits by behaving like a disgusting little creep whose
feelings are hurt because you do not /think/. Do you think I will help you
again? I do not generally hold grudges against people and respond to what
they say, not to who they are, but you have made a lasting impression on me
with your retarded question.
| I didn't expect everyone to agree with me, and indeed, many people didn't,
| but he was just out of control.
Really? Your emotions are in check and you respond rationally? /Please/
look closer to home for the lack of control. You may find that you have no
control over your emotions and have to blame others for how you feel, which
causes your emotions to run freely out of control -- when it is no longer you
who are responsible for how you feel, you have no reason to control them.
This is your core mistake, and a mistake that intelligent people simply do
not make. You have branded yourself as emotionally unfit. Congratulations.
If you were less emotional and more rational, you would be able to read
something other people write and get something useful out of it even if you
had /personal/ issues with it. But I have not attacked you in any way and I
have not disrespected you. Quite the contrary, in fact: I have held you to a
standard to which you only /think/ you are unable to conform, and I did that
because I believed you could. That is, until your present idiotic response.
If you wish to tell me that I should lower my expectations of you and make
you feel less bad by not expecting anything of you, you could always have
found some non-emotional way to do that and just tell me that you would never
be able to satisfy the simple requirement that you think and act rationally
and focus on what you wish to learn. Robert Hanlin did that very well. I do
not expect him to become a rational being ever, and would rely on others to
tell me he had transformed himself. Just like Erann Gat and "ilias", who are
also beyond reach and pester people because of their own shortcomings.
If, again, you were more in control of yourself, you would not have any
problems seeing that you could have made a much better choice: a rational
course of action that helps you reach /your/ goals. If you wish to feel good
without reason, Usenet is not a good place. If you wish to think about and
/solve/ your problems, it may be a good place. And those who help each other
and respect each other enough to avoid the moronic hostility you have just
committed, become personal friends, too, but then they have the decency not
to air their personal feelings in public, which cretin like you should learn.
As long as you focus on what you think about other people, you will never be
able to improve your own condition, either. Think about how you feel, and do
something about it, which means that you do not attack others, you deal with
these things on a personal level. You may yet find that if you should choose
to think and behave better, people who demand that you think before you spout
nonsense and stupid questions will treat you better. It is really up to you,
but I repeat my question above:
Is Jeremy H. Brown always such a retarded, whining, /unjust/ loser? Does he
always flaunt his emotions in public? Will we see yet another retard make an
utter fool out of himself and destroy his reputation completely before he
wimpers out and accuses people of wanting to hurt him, when in fact you were
the first to attack anyone. Just because you feel hurt does not mean that
anyone attacked you. You may yet learn something as simple as that if you
have a working brain at all and it is not overpowered by testosterone and
other anti-intelligence hormones so useful to retards who need revenge.
And, no, I am only full of poisonous bile towards those who deserve it, and
they always go out of their way to prove it. To people who have the thinking
skills and intelligence of drug-addicted criminals, that is indeed "always"
because they need to protect themselves from the realization that other
people are indeed better people than they are.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Today, the sum total of the money I
would retain from the offers in the
more than 7500 Nigerian 419 scam letters received in the past 33 months would
have exceeded USD 100,000,000,000. You can stop sending me more offers, now.
From: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <usmzrz8wr.fsf@telus.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> And, no, I am only full of poisonous bile towards those who deserve it,
> and they always go out of their way to prove it.
How appropriate for a public forum. How impersonal. How ... professional.
What you consistently fail to understand is that /even when they deserve it/
such behaviour is not appropriate.
So says I.
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242398120239149@naggum.no>
* Ray Blaak
| How appropriate for a public forum. How impersonal. How ... professional.
How emotional.
| What you consistently fail to understand is that /even when they deserve it/
| such behaviour is not appropriate.
And you have gained access to my brain how? If you think personal comments
are so wrong and apparently attack me for not living up to what I have said,
why do /you/ do it? Perhaps you /do/ understand that even when something is
not "appropriate", it can still have its place and function?
Please be less concerned with me and more concerned with yourself, especially
in public. Also note that I /respond/ to your personal attacks. Even though
what you do is clearly inappropriate by all standards, even someone like you
should be able to understand that letting attacks stand is not in anyone's
interest. If you are so interested in better behavior, start with 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.
From: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <uptuvz4gy.fsf@telus.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> | What you consistently fail to understand is that /even when they deserve it/
> | such behaviour is not appropriate.
>
> And you have gained access to my brain how? If you think personal comments
> are so wrong and apparently attack me for not living up to what I have said,
> why do /you/ do it?
I don't think that personal comments are so wrong. I think that poisonous bile
is wrong. I don't do that.
> Perhaps you /do/ understand that even when something is
> not "appropriate", it can still have its place and function?
Yes I do. I just disagree that "poisonous bile" has its place and function in
this instance.
> Also note that I /respond/ to your personal attacks. Even though
> what you do is clearly inappropriate by all standards, even someone like you
> should be able to understand that letting attacks stand is not in anyone's
> interest.
"Attack" my ass. Criticism? Chiding? Pointing out a percieved inconsistent
position? I you think my words constitute an attack you need to get a much
thicker skin. Certainly responding and disagreeing with my criticisms are fair
game, but Jesus, you've got to lighten up.
> If you are so interested in better behavior, start with yourself.
I act consistently with what I preach.
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242408304912864@naggum.no>
* Ray Blaak <·····@telus.net>
| I think that poisonous bile is wrong. I don't do that.
Great! Do I get to determine whether what I write is poisonous bile, too?
A truly large number of you judgmental assholes who attack me out of the blue
and have nothing whatsoever to contribute to this forum make the very same
crucial mistake: You think your emotions tell you what exists in the real
world. Just because you feel bad means there must be something really
terrible out there. Just because you feel that something is "poisonous bile"
means that this is an objective fact. You are generally so incapable of
realizing that /you/ bring both attitude and interpretation to the scene.
When you call what I write "poisonous bile" that is not, amazingly, poisonous
bile. When some holier-than-thou dipshit like Ray Blaak behaves like an
asshole, spending all his time attacking someone who has not attacked him,
that is /not/ poisonous bile. Oh, no. That is Ray Blaak posting facts.
What makes me quite certain that I do not actually do anything wrong is that
each and every one of my attackers are stark raving mad. Just like the fucks
that attack me and my person when I criticize something they have posted in a
public forum where critical response must be expected, mental cases like Ray
Blaak have nothing whatsoever to offer other than their opiniated moralism.
Do you think I find your behavior offensive? Sure as hell I do! People who
are so immature and so emotionally dysfunctional that they have to attack me
just because I do not stroke their ego or please them sufficiently are the
root cause of the noise here. Instead of trying to do something about it,
/all/ of you sociopaths make it your task to blame me for everything that
people of your own kind do. There is very little evidence that those who
attack me out of the blue even understand that this is wrong. They believe
that they are defending some "right" that is being abrigded and eroded.
That "right" is the "right" of ignorant assholes to post stupidities without
being criticized for it. For some bizarre reason, that somebody does not
agree with you retarded children is cause for you to attack them. For some
even more bizarre reason, you have to attack people who express their opinion
of something. Your egos must be so /fragile/ and /brittle/ that it can break
simply by reading someone who does not approve of you. What do you guys
/expect/ from any professional interaction, or social for that matter?
I have come to believe that those who cannot deal with public discussion seek
approval and validation of their failure to function in private, as well.
When someone does not give them that approval and validation, they are
offended and feel disrespected and rejected as human beings. If they were
complete /before/ they went out in public and posted, they would not require
other people to give them so much emotional support, and could deal with
critical responses to what they have done in public, which is /not/ their
entire person. They would /know/ that if they have shown other people was
not to their liking, they could try with something else. Reasonably mature
people do this all the time, feeling secure in themselves and not needing the
approval of strangers. But you retarded children are unable to cope with
being told that you have done something wrong and just have to oppose all
that looks like authorities to you. Nobody shall tell you what to do. I /do/
wonder what is wrong with you people.
| I just disagree that "poisonous bile" has its place and function in this
| instance.
You are even so self-righteous that you think there can be no disagreement on
your judgment of other people. This is what makes you the most offensive.
That you do not understand that you pour poisonous bile into the forum is
indicative of a serious personality disorder. Such arrogance is pathological.
| "Attack" my ass. Criticism? Chiding? Pointing out a percieved inconsistent
| position?
Let me get this straight: You are the only person in the entire universe who
gets to make judgments of how things are to be seen. Only you get to decide
what is attacks and what is poisonous bile. Of course, being such a moron as
you have to be to hold this retarded view of anything, you decided that what
you do is harmless. Such is the offensiveness of your hypocritical position
that you have to defend yourself against realizing what kind of person you
are. That is why you guys hate me so much: I have zero compunctions about
telling people like you exactly how I see you. I am very seldom wrong, and
you guys go out of your way to prove it each and every time.
| I you think my words constitute an attack you need to get a much thicker
| skin.
Is yours for sale?
| Certainly responding and disagreeing with my criticisms are fair game, but
| Jesus, you've got to lighten up.
How did this advice work for you?
| I act consistently with what I preach.
Self-righteous to the last. Disgusting creep. Call the God you are on a
mission from and ask if he really intended for you to sacrifice yourself and
portray yourself as such a moralistic dipshit that you have no value to any
human being whatsoever.
My God, you cretins annoy me. Get a life. Seek help to get over the
traumatic lack of approval and validation of your pathetic worthless self.
--
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: ilias
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <anafc2$ofk$1@usenet.otenet.gr>
Erik Naggum wrote:
[...]
Bitter:
·················································@usenet.otenet.gr
Sheeps:
·················································@usenet.otenet.gr
Immunity:
·················································@usenet.otenet.gr
-
'friends'.
why do you let him do?
-
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3D99378D.2020702@nyc.rr.com>
ilias wrote:
> why do you let him do?
Progress! But you are not ready for the answer. Do you know what zen
koans are all about? If not, read no further. If so...
Sheeps? Fuck you.
kenny
clinisys
From: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <ud6qu3b83.fsf@telus.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> [...ranting...]
Here we go.
> When some holier-than-thou dipshit like Ray Blaak behaves like an
> asshole, spending all his time attacking someone who has not attacked him,
> that is /not/ poisonous bile. Oh, no. That is Ray Blaak posting facts.
Well, the "fact" part is right.
You just don't take criticism well, do you?
Your behaviour in general is at least consistent (be a moron, get flamed), can
be viewed as fair (don't be a moron, don't get flamed) and even benficial
(reduce the moron traffic in c.l.l).
The problem is that it is not consistent with your little "public speaking"
manifesto. Your tantrums are most definitely personal, and in any professional
workplace I have encountered would be grounds for being fired, or at least a
reprimand.
Here's some advice, unsolicited of course: if you must be an asshole, be so
honestly. Hell, it's not even criminal. Just don't pretend that you act in
such a impersonal, professional manner when you so often so clearly don't.
> Just because you feel that something is "poisonous bile" means that this
> is an objective fact.
Now what, epistemological debates? Are you trying to tell me that you have
some special ability to access objective facts without using your judgement?
Yeah, you got me: I think it, thus I argue it.
> Let me get this straight: You are the only person in the entire universe
> who gets to make judgments of how things are to be seen. Only you get to
> decide what is attacks and what is poisonous bile.
Now whatever gave you that idea? I mean *really*?
We all make the judgements about what is good and bad, always, and talk and
bicker about it. Can it be otherwise?
I spotted what I judged to be an inconsistency in your stated position. I
called you on it. Freak out as you will.
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242444843863548@naggum.no>
* Ray Blaak
| Here we go.
No, we don't. Your only intent is to piss me off personally. If you have
such unsatisfied personal needs that this is a good thing for you to do,
please consult a mental health professional and do not use Usenet as your
personal pissing ground. Thank you for playing.
--
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:
> What makes me quite certain that I do not actually do anything wrong is that
> each and every one of my attackers are stark raving mad.
Just because someone is stark raving mad doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.
> My God, you cretins annoy me.
No doubt. And you annoy us cretins. The rules of civilized behavior were
invented so that petty annoyances do not degenerate into wars.
Erann
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242496349746363@naggum.no>
* Erann Gat
| Just because someone is stark raving mad doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.
No, it does not, but here's a simple test: If I challenge the criticism
and want to learn if they are able to engage in dialogue instead of
accepting it, will they turn mad with rage and rant and rave about
irrelevant issues or are they able to understand that their perspective
may not be universally acceptable? If they cannot understand that just
because they feel something, it is not necessarily so, their criticism is
completely worthless for the simple reason that it is a criticism of
their own feelings, not of anything I have done.
Another important test is to see whether there is any way to make the
criticism go away. For the stark raving mad, it is not something I do
that I can change that is at issue, it is me as a person they dislike and
have to attack in public. Such morons are clearly irrelevant for me.
| The rules of civilized behavior were invented so that petty annoyances do
| not degenerate into wars.
Then why do you only require that /others/ be civilized and not yourself?
Why do you believe that if you /think/ someone is uncivilized, you have
the right to attack them viciously and prolongedly without end in sight?
If your "civilized behavior" only apply to people you /like/, it is worth
less than nothing -- it is a /threat/ to civilized behavior everywhere.
So far, the cretins have behaved much worse than I ever have. I do not
go after people. I criticize their /statements/ and /specifics/. They
attack my /person/ and /generalities/. This distinction is lost on the
cretins because they do not know the difference, so they /believe/ their
person is attacked and that the criticism is general. If they had had
the mental wherewithall to /ask/ instead of /assume/ and would want to
/understand/ before they /defended/ themselves, they would both feel much
less bad and they would not be cretins in the first place. What makes
the cretins cretins is precisely that they assume too much and then are
manifestly unwilling to listen to correction to how they /feel/. How
could one possibly deal with people like this. In their disturbed view,
they are both infallible and righteous and beyond the reach of reason
because they do not even have sufficient respect for the person they feel
have hurt them (active intention) because they feel hurt (passive effect)
to be able to listen to counterviews. This is also impossible after they
have lashed out with their personal attacks, because it is such a goddamn
stupid thing to do that they /must/ defend this stupidity lest they
accept to /be/ morons, not just occasionally behave like one. This is,
again because they think people /are/ the worst they do, and in fact
attack me on that basis, so if I point out that they have done something
moronic and behave /like/ morons in that respect, they feel they /are/
morons. This massive failure to deal with their own failures and their
abject rejection of reason as their guide to self-esteem leads them to
both feel hurt and actively seek to hurt others. In brief, cretins are
out of control when they have any negative emotions at all, and blithely,
stupidly assume others are, too. They are the people who think it is
somebody else's problem that they feel offended and would invent
political correctness if it had not already been invented by other
cretins who have to blame someone for their own coping problems.
If it is civilized behavior you want, try reacting civilized when you
feel hurt. That is when it counts. If you cannot react civilized to
what /you/ believe is uncivilized behavior, you are both manifestly
unjust as well as unethical, judgmental, and uncivilized. In brief, a
cretin. You seem to think all this are good things, however, and that
you should not feel ashamed for talking about the civilized behavior of
others with our record. As far as civilized behavior goes, I am /miles/
ahead of you, and regard your criticism of me as extremely immature, like
a child who has memorized but not understood some rules from a book and
fail to understand that it is /not/ civilized to run around and accuse
people of not being civilized according to your stupid rule-book.
Speaking of books, I gave you a hint once. You replied only with your
typical stupid indignation. Perhaps you should read it. Let me give a
few references that may help you understand my view of you and of what
/real/ civilized public conduct is about and why chastising you childish
cretins is /not/ a violation of it:
DDC 158.1; ISBN 0-517-59798-5; LCCN 93044654; 1994
Dave Marinaccio
All I really need to know I learned from watching Star Trek
On the societal values exemplified by Star Trek
DDC 179.9; ISBN 0-674-80861-4; LCCN 72083468; 1971, 1972
Lionel Trilling
Sincerity and Authenticity
On the development of these concepts in literature
DDC 309; ISBN 0-393-30879-0; LCCN 76025131; 1974, 1976
Richard Sennett
The Fall of Public Man
On the loss of separation of private from public persona
DDC 395; ISBN 0-312-28118-8; LCCN 2001048651; 2002
P. M. Forni
Choosing Civility
On the purpose and method of being civil
DDC 323.196073; ISBN 1-893554-44-9; LCCN 2001040833; 2002
David Horowitz
Uncivil Wars (the controversy over reparations for slavery)
On the willingness to hurt those who "offend" with truth
DDC 812.52; ISBN 0-374-52799-7; LCCN 99087875; 2000
Lionel Trilling
The moral obligation to be intelligent: select essays
On literary criticism from an ethical vantage point
All of these books should be read with focus on some pointed questions:
"Is it my responsibility how I feel or somebody else's?" and "Do others
have a duty to make me feel good and can I punish them if they don't?"
/Children/ should not be hurt, should even be protected from harm, and
should if possible be made to feel good because they are neither expected
to have the mental apparatus to deal with criticism nor expected to cope
with their emotions. /Adults/ should never be treated like children nor
should they demand to be treated like children. Growing up means gaining
control over your emotions and your behavior in public. However, hurt
even adults enough and they turn violent. I, for instance, get /really/
pissed at the retarded children who have never developed beyond the stage
in their lives where they think taunting, harrassing, disrespecting, and
mistreating those who are not exactly like themselves is proper behavior.
Childish and lower primate behavior like that should be confined to zoos.
And typically, they think Usenet is a kindergarten/zoo because they think
life in general is. There is only one thing to do: Yell at these retards
that they grow the hell 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.
From: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <uvg4ln7lr.fsf@telus.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> So far, the cretins have behaved much worse than I ever have. I do not
> go after people. I criticize their /statements/ and /specifics/. They
> attack my /person/ and /generalities/.
Can you please explain how telling someone to suck your dick is criticizing
their statements and specifics?
I submit that it is indeed attacking their person.
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242499688948465@naggum.no>
* Ray Blaak
| Can you please explain how telling someone to suck your dick is
| criticizing their statements and specifics?
Could you please explain why what he did to me is acceptable to you? On
second thought, never mind. You think that what /you/ do is acceptable.
| I submit that it is indeed attacking their person.
Have you developed the concept of "context" yet? Please try that.
--
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: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <u65wlgxpw.fsf@telus.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * Ray Blaak
> | Can you please explain how telling someone to suck your dick is
> | criticizing their statements and specifics?
>
> Could you please explain why what he did to me is acceptable to you?
Where did I say that I agreed with his posts? Where did I say I did not? It is
not relevant to the issue of you being inconsistent with your stated position.
> | I submit that it is indeed attacking their person.
>
> Have you developed the concept of "context" yet? Please try that.
Ah, yes. The context. Talking about cocksucking, were we? [googling] I think
not. That juicy tidbit came from you. I did make a mistake, though: you
weren't asking Jeremy to suck your dick, you were asking if you did a good job
at sucking his. I apologize.
So let's see if you will answer the question, without deflecting with
irrelevant counter questions, without platitudes about my feelings or my
beliefs of objective knowledge and absolute truth:
Do you think that talking about sucking someone's dick is an impersonal act?
Appropriate for a pubic forum? Professional? Criticizing their /statements/
and /specifics/?
If not, then you're right! In my humble opinion, of course. But then you are
not acting according to your stated beliefs of appropriate public speaking.
If yes, then at least you are being consistent. However you are then living in
your own universe.
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242551459235380@naggum.no>
* Ray Blaak
| Where did I say that I agreed with his posts?
By implication, you idiot.
--
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: ilias
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <and7hh$k1m$1@usenet.otenet.gr>
Ray Blaak wrote:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
>
>> So far, the cretins have behaved much worse than I ever have. I do not
>> go after people. I criticize their /statements/ and /specifics/. They
>> attack my /person/ and /generalities/.
>
>
> Can you please explain how telling someone to suck your dick is criticizing
> their statements and specifics?
>
> I submit that it is indeed attacking their person.
>
please.
simplify the case.
he it is:
a) completely confused, maybe due to the excessive study of literature,
which has leaded to an uncontrolable association-flow, so he really
don't know sometimes what he talks.
b) he is aware that he talks and behave sometimes very unfair, but he's
not able to apologize for that.
c) he is playing. yes, simply playing and enjoying your reactions.
-
please read the post "bitter".
then you know, tha either a, b or c is true.
it makes no sense to talk.
-
Bitter:
·················································@usenet.otenet.gr
Sheeps:
·················································@usenet.otenet.gr
Immunity:
·················································@usenet.otenet.gr
In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> * Erann Gat
> | Just because someone is stark raving mad doesn't necessarily mean
they're wrong.
>
> No, it does not, but here's a simple test: If I challenge the criticism
> and want to learn if they are able to engage in dialogue instead of
> accepting it, will they turn mad with rage and rant and rave about
> irrelevant issues or are they able to understand that their perspective
> may not be universally acceptable? If they cannot understand that just
> because they feel something, it is not necessarily so, their criticism is
> completely worthless for the simple reason that it is a criticism of
> their own feelings, not of anything I have done.
Except that you use deliberately inflammatory language so you can't know
whether they are responding emotionally to your challenge or to your
language. Responding emotionally to four-letter words is not a slam-dunk
indication of insanity. It's more likely simply an indication of being
human.
> | The rules of civilized behavior were invented so that petty annoyances do
> | not degenerate into wars.
>
> Then why do you only require that /others/ be civilized and not yourself?
Why do you ask have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet questions?
> Why do you believe that if you /think/ someone is uncivilized, you have
> the right to attack them viciously and prolongedly without end in sight?
I have not attacked you in a very, very long time. I know that you
perceive some of the things I've said to you recently as attacks, but you
are mistaken.
> If your "civilized behavior" only apply to people you /like/, it is worth
> less than nothing -- it is a /threat/ to civilized behavior everywhere.
That didn't parse.
E.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242504571185148@naggum.no>
* Erann Gat
| Except that you use deliberately inflammatory language so you can't know
| whether they are responding emotionally to your challenge or to your
| language. Responding emotionally to four-letter words is not a slam-dunk
| indication of insanity. It's more likely simply an indication of being
| human.
Contrary to what people who have yet to evolve enough to develop the
concept of context believe, I do /not/ initiate these fights. The idiocy
you keep clamoring about would apply if the "victim" had done nothing
wrong. That is simply not the case. You are so judgmental in your
moralism that you cannot even /want/ to know how someone else thinks.
When I see that in a person, I know he has nothing whatsoever to share
with me. It is all about how you feel, and you are so staggeringly dumb
as to believe that other people should adjust to it but not you to theirs.
| > Then why do you only require that /others/ be civilized and not yourself?
|
| Why do you ask have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet questions?
I don't. Please answer the question. It is a legitimate question, it
has an answer, and I actually want to know why you are so unable to
behave well and go on to accuse me of your very own behavior.
| I know that you perceive some of the things I've said to you recently as
| attacks, but you are mistaken.
When did you ever grant me the freedom to tell you that you are mistaken
in /your/ conclusions? Just like that little fuck Ray Blaak, you are so
monumentally stupid that you actually believe your view is the Truth.
| > If your "civilized behavior" only apply to people you /like/, it is worth
| > less than nothing -- it is a /threat/ to civilized behavior everywhere.
|
| That didn't parse.
Take a remedial course in English grammer. Pay particular attention when
the word "subjunctive" comes up. Goddamn ignorant.
Let me know the answer to a couple questions I keep thinking of: Why do
you think this forum is an appropriate place to discuss your wildly
misguided notions about me? Why do you force yourself upon me?
--
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:
> * Erann Gat
> | Except that you use deliberately inflammatory language so you can't know
> | whether they are responding emotionally to your challenge or to your
> | language. Responding emotionally to four-letter words is not a slam-dunk
> | indication of insanity. It's more likely simply an indication of being
> | human.
>
> Contrary to what people who have yet to evolve enough to develop the
> concept of context believe, I do /not/ initiate these fights.
Yes, you do. You're doing it right now:
> you are so staggeringly dumb
...
> | > Then why do you only require that /others/ be civilized and not yourself?
> |
> | Why do you ask have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet questions?
>
> I don't. Please answer the question. It is a legitimate question, it
> has an answer,
No, it is not a legitimate question because it is based on a false
premise. It is no more a legitimate question than asking why the square
root of two is an integer.
I do *not* require others be civilized and not myself. I do not *require*
anything of anyone (at least not on usenet). I believe that the world
(and this newsgroup) would be a better place if everyone did conduct
themselves civilly, and I do my best to conduct myself civilly. I do not
always succeed, but I do try.
> | I know that you perceive some of the things I've said to you recently as
> | attacks, but you are mistaken.
>
> When did you ever grant me the freedom to tell you that you are mistaken
> in /your/ conclusions?
When did you ever need my permission to tell me that I am mistaken?
> | > If your "civilized behavior" only apply to people you /like/, it
is worth
> | > less than nothing -- it is a /threat/ to civilized behavior everywhere.
> |
> | That didn't parse.
>
> Take a remedial course in English grammer. Pay particular attention when
> the word "subjunctive" comes up. Goddamn ignorant.
I suggest that before you accuse me of being ignorant of English grammar
that you look up the conjugation of the verb "apply".
> Let me know the answer to a couple questions I keep thinking of: Why do
> you think this forum is an appropriate place to discuss your wildly
> misguided notions about me?
Well, because you keep bringing it up for one thing. And, at the risk of
stating the obvious, because I don't think my notions are so wildly
misguided.
> Why do you force yourself upon me?
I don't. How could I possibly force myself upon you? Surely you are
aware of how to use a killfile?
E.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242551426567099@naggum.no>
* Erann Gat
| Yes, you do. You're doing it right now:
Yes, Sir. Erann Gat is the holder of The Truth.
--
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:
> * Erann Gat
> | Yes, you do. You're doing it right now:
>
> Yes, Sir. Erann Gat is the holder of The Truth.
Enlightenment at last! :-)
E.
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) wrote in message news:<····················@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov>...
> In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> > | > If your "civilized behavior" only apply to people you /like/, it
> is worth
> > | > less than nothing -- it is a /threat/ to civilized behavior everywhere.
> > |
> > | That didn't parse.
> >
> > Take a remedial course in English grammer. Pay particular attention when
> > the word "subjunctive" comes up. Goddamn ignorant.
>
> I suggest that before you accuse me of being ignorant of English grammar
> that you look up the conjugation of the verb "apply".
Actually, Erik's usage is a grammatically correct, if archaic
subjunctive conjugation.
For example:
Modern usage: "If Erann came to supper, we wouldn't have enough food."
Archaic usage: "If Erann come to supper, we have not enough food."
That said, it's unusual, and a bit confusing, to mix modern and
Elizabethan usage in the same sentence. If Erik had written
"If your "civilized behavior" only apply to people you /like/, it be
worth less than nothing -- it be a /threat/ to civilized behavior
everywhere,"
it would have been more clear that this was a neo-Shakespearean rant,
and not his usual modern style.
Oh, and BTW, I believe it should be "Goddamn ignoramus," not "Goddamn
ignorant," (i.e., ignorant is an adjective, not a noun).
In the larger scheme of things, Erik's english is excellent - far, far
better than my norwegian will ever be. The fact that he even knows
this archaic subjunctive usage speaks volumes about the depth of his
knowlege.
Now if only he would turn one tenth part of his intellect toward
dealing with people with a civil tongue, c.l.l might be a more
welcoming forum. But then, some people may not want it to be more
inviting to newcomers. Oh, well...
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242626461960586@naggum.no>
* Raffael Cavallaro
| Now if only he would turn one tenth part of his intellect toward dealing
| with people with a civil tongue, c.l.l might be a more welcoming forum.
| But then, some people may not want it to be more inviting to newcomers.
You could do your part and be more civil towards me and stop harrassing
me at every juncture. For some reason that only you know, this is not
only impossible to you, you appear to believe that it is my duty to be
civil to you first, and in the meantime you should harrass me. But when
I am civil and friendly to people, your kind never say a word. Perhaps
you should be a little more willing to do what you demand of others?
Perhaps you should see a psychiatrist and tell him that you are so unable
to deal with another person rationally that you just /have/ to post your
hateful irrationality and ask him for help because this has become a
serious problem in your life? Would you do that, for the sake of better
civility in this forum? Or could you just /quit/ posting your poisonous
bile about me all the time? That would be /so/ welcome.
--
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:
> * Raffael Cavallaro
> | Now if only he would turn one tenth part of his intellect toward dealing
> | with people with a civil tongue, c.l.l might be a more welcoming forum.
> | But then, some people may not want it to be more inviting to newcomers.
>
> You could do your part and be more civil towards me and stop harrassing
> me at every juncture. For some reason that only you know, this is not
> only impossible to you, you appear to believe that it is my duty to be
> civil to you first, and in the meantime you should harrass me. But when
> I am civil and friendly to people, your kind never say a word.
What are you expecting? Someone to say, "Good boy, Erik, you were polite
today!"?
People don't generally get thanked for being civil. It's just expected of
people.
N.B.: What passes for civil varies tremendously from society to society.
In Israel for example (I cite this only because I have personal experience
with it) a certain level of insulting, screaming, and yelling is
considered quite acceptable. Americans are often quite shocked when they
experience this for the first time.
FWIW, Erik, I do notice that you are often civil to people. I also notice
that you contribute vast quantities of high-quality technical content to
this newsgroup. The volume and quality of your writing is astonishing,
and a little scary too. I don't know if you realize how extraordinary you
are. Very few people are capable of doing what you do. (I'm considered a
pretty bright person among my peers, but I don't think I'm a fraction as
technically capable as you are.)
The fact that you are so smart makes it all the more annoying that you
don't realize how counterproductive some of your debating tactics can be.
Erann
From: ilias
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <anhv5p$h52$1@usenet.otenet.gr>
Erann Gat wrote:
[...]
> are. Very few people are capable of doing what you do. (I'm considered a
> pretty bright person among my peers, but I don't think I'm a fraction as
> technically capable as you are.)
>
> The fact that you are so smart makes it all the more annoying that you
> don't realize how counterproductive some of your debating tactics can be.
>
> Erann
"Power is nothing without control"
(Pirelli Tires commercials)
-
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242667448709403@naggum.no>
* Erann Gat
| What are you expecting? Someone to say, "Good boy, Erik, you were polite
| today!"?
I expect civility beyond compare from people who demand it from me.
If they have a "right" to become hostile and agressive because they see
something they do not like, they actually validate in action what they
criticize in words, but it is probably more annoying that they do not
realize just how much they do this, because the misguided notion of
feeling "justified" in their actions completely cloud their vision.
I expect that people who post in public want dialogue, but the cretins
want only condemnation. I do not accept this. I accept even less that
these same guys come back to attack me even though I have done nothing
whatsoever to /them/. Furthermore, they are completely above reproach in
their own eyes, and therefore have nothing whatsoever to offer anyone.
The treatment I get at the hands of these cretins is so fucking annoying
that I doubt that anyone else understands it.
| The fact that you are so smart makes it all the more annoying that you
| don't realize how counterproductive some of your debating tactics can be.
What amazes me is that people who know statistics do not realize that
they are more productive than not. People come around, realize early on
in an exchange that they have been criticized for something specific and
for a reason. More often than not, people get the idea pretty fast. I
keep track of this because it obviously matters a great deal to me, but
those who only count the artillery rounds make the same mistake those who
think Israel is at blame and the Palestinians are only victims do. In
any battle, the defensive force will appear stronger than the attacking
force for the obvious reason that they must not only stop attackers, but
ensure that they know that attacking has higher costs than benefits and
if defeated once, will meet even harder defeat next time around. If you
are a na�ve bystander, you will believe that the party that uses the most
force is the agressor, but if you actually want to stop the attacks, you
cannot fail to understand that the aggressor will /continue/ as long as
he are not sufficiently discouraged. For a truly large number of cretins
and aggressors against me (and no amount of "defense" rhetoric will get
anyone who has not been attacked in any way off the hook when he makes
the first aggressive move towards me), this works wonderfully. Many
people are mortally afraid of engaging me in combat. This is only good!
Imagine the number of fucked-up basked cases who would waste everyone't
time and disturb the peace if they were not discouarged. However, some
simply do not get it, just like so many Palestinians, probably because
they have never spent the modicum of mental effort required to see that
what they regard as attacks are /reactions/ to something quite definite.
If random bystanders really wanted peace, they would acknowledge the
/problem/ that is being reacted to and help fix it. If they attack the
party that is only defending itself, they make things much, much worse.
So in the spirit of dialogue, why do the cretins not realize how counter-
productive /their/ efforts are? Can they actually show /one/ case where
it has helped to attack the party who defends itself? Why can they not
understand that their attacks legitimatize defense reactions? What could
be so wrong with people that they attack and attack in a frenzy of moral
indignation without understanding that their victim has a right to a
rebuttal? It is when they deny that right that things turn most ugly.
--
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 fact that you are so smart makes it all the more annoying that you
> | don't realize how counterproductive some of your debating tactics can be.
>
> What amazes me is that people who know statistics do not realize that
> they are more productive than not.
That is a subjective assessment because it depends entirely on what your
goals are. If your goal is to create chaos then terrorism can be "more
productive than not." And while I don't have any particular insight into
your motivations, you give every indication that creating chaos is not one
of your goals -- quite the opposite.
Be that as it may, might I suggest, if you really want to invoke
statistics, that you ought to do a control experiment: for a while, when
you feel you are being attacked (or when someone is acting like a cretin,
or whatever), just let it slide instead of attacking back, and see if the
net productivity (no pun intended) of that approach -- measured by
whatever metric you choose -- really is lower than what you're achieving
now. You might be surprised. Or maybe I'll be surprised, who knows? I
submit it's worth a try.
E.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242678272165387@naggum.no>
* Erann Gat
| The fact that you are so smart makes it all the more annoying that you
| don't realize how counterproductive some of your debating tactics can be.
* Erik Naggum
| What amazes me is that people who know statistics do not realize that
| they are more productive than not.
* Erann Gat
| That is a subjective assessment because it depends entirely on what your
| goals are.
Look: Erann, I have only so much patience with you and I really thought
you had started on a dialogue this time, but you have not. /Your/ view
is a subjective assessment if anything else is. Your core
misunderstanding is that your value judgments are nothing more than your
personal view, but some absolute truth. There is a strong element of
/belief/ in your view that is quite irrational. You have to understand
how personal your position is before you can even approach me with such
an argument. If your views are The Truth (a comment you stupidly did not
quite grasp), there is no value in listening to you. /Real/ truth is not
the conclusion, it is how you find it. If you only give other people the
end result, but refuse to show people how to get there, you are not of
assistance. Those who accept things on faith tend to behave this way.
I regret to see that you are so unwilling to take part in the journey.
| You might be surprised.
Why insult my intelligence so gravely after you fawned over it in another
message? It makes your attempts at compliments sound hollow and
insincere, to put it mildly. Consider for a moment that you might be
wrong. That would really be the day. As long as you believe that only
can be right, you have nothing to offer me or anyone. Think about 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.
In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> * Erann Gat
> | The fact that you are so smart makes it all the more annoying that you
> | don't realize how counterproductive some of your debating tactics can be.
>
> * Erik Naggum
> | What amazes me is that people who know statistics do not realize that
> | they are more productive than not.
>
> * Erann Gat
> | That is a subjective assessment because it depends entirely on what your
> | goals are.
>
> Look: Erann, I have only so much patience with you and I really thought
> you had started on a dialogue this time, but you have not. /Your/ view
> is a subjective assessment if anything else is.
Yes, of course it is. I never said any different.
> Your core
> misunderstanding is that your value judgments are nothing more than your
> personal view, but some absolute truth.
I presume that you meant to say that my core misunderstanding is that *I
think* that my value judgements are nothing more than my personal views.
But you are wrong. I do not think that. (And frankly, I'm getting a
little tired of having you tell me what I think, particularly since you
keep getting it wrong.)
> | You might be surprised.
>
> Why insult my intelligence so gravely after you fawned over it in another
> message?
I'm sorry if you took that comment as an insult to your intelligence. It
wasn't intended to be.
> Consider for a moment that you might be
> wrong. That would really be the day. As long as you believe that only
> can be right, you have nothing to offer me or anyone. Think about it.
I admitted the possibility that I might be wrong in the very next sentence
(which you conveniently deleted).
Why do you go out of your way to manufacture disagreements between us?
E.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242720537442941@naggum.no>
* Erann Gat
| Yes, of course it is. I never said any different.
Yes, you do. All the time. You correct me when I post my observations.
You override me when I want to show you my point of view. I have reason
to believe that you do not understand that you do this. I wonder what it
will take to make you understand.
* Erik Naggum
| Your core misunderstanding is that your value judgments are nothing more
| than your personal view, but some absolute truth.
* Erann Gat
| I presume that you meant to say that my core misunderstanding is that *I
| think* that my value judgements are nothing more than my personal views.
| But you are wrong. I do not think that. (And frankly, I'm getting a
| little tired of having you tell me what I think, particularly since you
| keep getting it wrong.)
That was weakly phrased on my part, but I marvel at your ability to get
confused. Perhaps you should try to /listen/ to what I say and feel less
of an urge to correct me all the time?
You clearly believe that your personal value jugdments are more than your
personal view, some absolute truth. You show me this belief in your words
all the time, but more your choice of words and what you choose to react
to than the meaning they would have carried if they were trustworthy.
You seem to confirm that your value judgments are more than your personal
views in the above paragraph. When my value jugdments are /invalidated/
by you and you presume to know what the /correct/ value jugdments should
be, my response is to tell you that you do not hold The Truth, or throw
up my hands in exasperation and ridicule you for it, which you amazingly
do not understand.
| I admitted the possibility that I might be wrong in the very next sentence
| (which you conveniently deleted).
Your next sentence was "Or maybe I'll be surprised, who knows?" and that,
with all due respect, is no admission of a possibility that you might be
wrong. Quite the contrary. Your last sentence was "I submit it's worth
a try" which shows that it was but a feeble-minded way to coach others to
do your bidding by appearing to be receptive.
| Why do you go out of your way to manufacture disagreements between us?
I am sorry to see that you perceive my insistence on showing you my view
after you ignore it, correct it, and override it as if I were manufacturing
disagreements. The fact is that we disagree on many important things.
You would see that if you tried to listen. In my experience, you are not
receptive to anything that would falsify or deny your own position. You
are more than happy to tell people what you think and how you see things,
with a thinly guised notion of absolute truth behind it, which is not per
se bad -- it can even be good -- but do you ever /listen/ to other people
such that you actually change your mind about something? (Before you
come up with the expected retort, people accuse me of two things: Not
budging if I think I am right, and not saying the same thing is right all
the time. The intelligent reader concludes that I listen and change my
mind when I have good reason to do so. The unintelligent reader
concludes that I am unreasonable and cannot be trusted.)
--
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:
> * Erann Gat
> | Yes, of course it is. I never said any different.
>
> Yes, you do. All the time. You correct me when I post my observations.
Even if that were true (and it isn't -- disagreement is not the same as
correction) that would still not mean that I claim my corrections to be
objective fact. However, most of our recent disagreements have been over
what I do and do not think, an area in which I happen to believe I am
somewhat better positioned to judge than you.
(Of course, I cannot completely rule out the possibility that I am, as you
have claimed in the past, mentally ill, and that you have some
extraordinary power to accurately diagnose my mental illnesses through our
usenet exchanges. I have actually considered this possibility more
seriously than you know. (The number of people who support you in this
newsgroup has given me serious pause.) But I have reached the tentative
conclusion that I am sufficiently sane to judge my own motives and beliefs
better than you can. So on matters of my beliefs, yes, I will be
correcting you when you get it wrong. Everything else is just my
opinion.)
> You override me when I want to show you my point of view. I have reason
> to believe that you do not understand that you do this. I wonder what it
> will take to make you understand.
You keep accusing me of doing things I cannot possibly be doing because
the mechanics of usenet forbid it. I can't "override" you. I can only
disagree with you. I have reason to believe that you do not understand
this. I wonder what it will take to make you understand.
(BTW, I am repeating your own words to you not to mock you but because I
believe that much of what you say is very sound advice. My main
disagreement with you is that IN MY OPINION you do not practice what you
preach.)
> You clearly believe that your personal value jugdments are more than your
> personal view, some absolute truth.
You are clearly deluded if you think this is clear. Not only is it not
clear, it is in fact false. (See my comment above about my personal
beliefs being an area in which I consider myself more of an authority than
you.)
> You show me this belief in your words
> all the time, but more your choice of words and what you choose to react
> to than the meaning they would have carried if they were trustworthy.
> You seem to confirm that your value judgments are more than your personal
> views in the above paragraph. When my value jugdments are /invalidated/
> by you and you presume to know what the /correct/ value jugdments should
> be, my response is to tell you that you do not hold The Truth, or throw
> up my hands in exasperation and ridicule you for it, which you amazingly
> do not understand.
I understand it perfectly well. I understand that you think this is what
I am doing. But you are wrong (see my comment above about my personal
beliefs again).
> | I admitted the possibility that I might be wrong in the very next sentence
> | (which you conveniently deleted).
>
> Your next sentence was "Or maybe I'll be surprised, who knows?" and that,
> with all due respect, is no admission of a possibility that you might be
> wrong. Quite the contrary. Your last sentence was "I submit it's worth
> a try" which shows that it was but a feeble-minded way to coach others to
> do your bidding by appearing to be receptive.
How about this then: I might be wrong. I don't know how I can make it any
clearer than that.
> | Why do you go out of your way to manufacture disagreements between us?
>
> I am sorry to see that you perceive my insistence on showing you my view
> after you ignore it, correct it, and override it as if I were manufacturing
> disagreements. The fact is that we disagree on many important things.
Indeed we do. Nonetheless, it seems to me that you go out of your way to
amplify our differences.
> You would see that if you tried to listen. In my experience, you are not
> receptive to anything that would falsify or deny your own position.
Funny, that's my impression of you.
Not only am I receptive to evidence that would falsify my position, I have
in fact suggested an experiment with a possible outcome that would falsify
my position. But I cannot conduct that experiment, only you can, so that
ball is in your court. (I notice, by the way, that seems to be exactly
what you're doing. So I am going to try to reciprocate by going back to
talking about Lisp now -- in another thread. This one's worn out.)
E.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242758424011422@naggum.no>
* Erann Gat
| I am repeating your own words to you
Let me know when you have words of your own to share with us.
--
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>...
> * Raffael Cavallaro
> | Now if only he would turn one tenth part of his intellect toward dealing
> | with people with a civil tongue, c.l.l might be a more welcoming forum.
> | But then, some people may not want it to be more inviting to newcomers.
>
> But when
> I am civil and friendly to people, your kind never say a word.
I also don't post here whenever you you end your sentences with
periods, or start them with capital letters.
In other words, civil behavior is expected to be the *norm*. One
shouldn't expect praise for it (although I did praise your knowlege of
english, for example, because it is *not* the norm that people read
and write a second language so fluently). One should, however, expect
to be chided for roasing newbies alive, or asking people to commit
suicide, etc.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242668044420400@naggum.no>
* Raffael Cavallaro
| In other words, civil behavior is expected to be the *norm*.
Why are you then unable to behave towards me?
| One should, however, expect to be chided for roasing newbies alive, or
| asking people to commit suicide, etc.
But not, apparently, disturbing the peace the way you do? When you are
criticized for that, you go mad. Could you /please/ make a serious effort
to understand that you have no right to behave the way you do no matter
how offended you are? That, in fact, your emotional response is not the
topic of this newsgroup? If you have such a problem with it, send mail.
When you choose to flaunt your personal problems in public the way you
do, you could not /possibly/ make anything better. This is all the more
true if you think I flaunt my personal problems with idiots in public, so
you really have no excuse whatsoever for what /you/ do. Accept that and
we might have a useful starting point in a dialog. If you unthinkingly
assume the right to do what you do, you near-explicitly validate mine.
This is the message that I receive, regardless of your words. Understand
this, and you should be able to choose an approach that actually works.
--
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:
> That, in fact, your emotional response is not the
> topic of this newsgroup?
But your entire post, to which I'm replying, is just *your* emotional
response. Why is *your* emotional response the topic of this newsgroup?
Why to *you* get to ask people to "please commit suicide," when, "no,
you're really mistaken here," or "you're way off base there," or even
"No, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of X," would do. How is
asking people to kill themselves the legitimate topic of comp.lang.lisp?
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242721196423218@naggum.no>
* Raffael Cavallaro
| But your entire post, to which I'm replying, is just *your* emotional
| response.
This is your view. It is wrong.
| Why is *your* emotional response the topic of this newsgroup?
You attack me, you dumbfuck. What do you expect?
| How is asking people to kill themselves the legitimate topic of
| comp.lang.lisp?
How is context irrelevant in your life?
I have come to conclude after many years of informal study, there are two
kinds of people�: Those who think, learn, speak contextually, and those
who think, learn, speak absolutely. There is no middle ground between
these two kinds of people. If you do not understand the importance of
context in human learning, there is no evidence of it /anywhere/, and you
approach other people's statements as either true or not true and you
/accept/ them as replacements of other statements if they are true. If
you do understand the importance of context in human learning, it is
/everywhere/, and you approach other people's statements as valid in
context, and you expend some effort to understand the context in which it
is valid, and judge that more than the surface "truth" of the statement.
Thus a person of the absolute persuasion will only believe one thing at a
time in a given area, while a person of the contextual persuasion will be
able to believe many different things in different contexts, pending a
unifying context. When a person of the absolute persuasion reads the
statements of a person of the contextual persuasion, they are usually
unable to understand anything that goes on, and prefer the stupidest of
all possible reactions: they count words. If people use words from
so-and-so list of words, they are knowledgeable, kind, gentle, etc, and
if they use words from so-and-so list of words, they are idiots, mean,
harsh, etc. Conceptual, contextual understanding of human communication
is unavailable to people of the absolute persuasion and they will ask
out-of-context questions and harrass people for their choice of words
completely regardless of anything that happened surrounding their use.
Needless to say, I consider people of the absolute persuasion to be
useless wastes of resources that could be better spent elsewhere and
favor recycling of the wasted resources that did not achieve contextual
understanding in its lifetime. Others tend to think that it can be
taught, but I see no evidence of success. Children exhibit these traits
long before they are able to verbalize their conceptualization process.
--
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:
> How is context irrelevant in your life?
>
> I have come to conclude after many years of informal study, there are two
> kinds of people�: Those who think, learn, speak contextually, and those
> who think, learn, speak absolutely.
You miss the most fundamental context here consistently. Specifically,
that you're involved in a discussion with other human beings. You're not
exchanging posts with abstract ideas.
You speak with disdain of those who think "absolutely," but your
behavior in this forum often amounts to a call for those who don't meet
your absolute standards of technical understanding to commit suicide and
recycle "the wasted resources that did not achieve contextual
understanding in its lifetime."
The only alternative is that you are being facetious with your calls for
those you dislike to commit suicide. But your repeated defense and
elaboration of these arguments suggests that you are not joking, and
mean what you say.
You seem, therefore, to value the technical ideas of common lisp above
not only other people's feelings, but their lives as well. It is this
context, which you so blithely ignore, that causes others to think you
abusive. Compassionate people think that there is something profoundly
wrong with someone who values technical ideas above human life.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242727494743775@naggum.no>
* Raffael Cavallaro
| You miss the most fundamental context here consistently. Specifically,
| that you're involved in a discussion with other human beings. You're not
| exchanging posts with abstract ideas.
Would you let us in on your inventions in telepathy?
Just because you believe something does not make it fact. You seem to
have a /really/ hard time grasping this extremely simple concept.
| You speak with disdain of those who think "absolutely," but your behavior
| in this forum often amounts to a call for those who don't meet your
| absolute standards of technical understanding to commit suicide and
| recycle "the wasted resources that did not achieve contextual
| understanding in its lifetime."
This would be the conclusion from someone who does not understand
context. Just as expected, in other words.
| Compassionate people think that there is something profoundly wrong with
| someone who values technical ideas above human life.
Are you saying that you consider yourself /compassionate/? *laugh* That
/really/ takes the cake. You are an abusive, obsessive nutcase who has
such a huge hangup with me that you keep harping on the same string long
after it has ceased to be relevant to anyone else. You are a waste of
space and a serious annoyance to this forum. The only way you could
improve on the condition in this newsgroup were to quit posting your
abusive messages directed at me. People need your poisonous bile like
they need a punctured gall bladder. Everybody here knows that you have a
serious emotional problem with respect to me and that you are unlikely to
ever get over it. So who cares? /You/ keep bringing the painful things
up again and keep re-living it as if I should care that you inflict pain
on yourself. You could stop that any moment, but you don't. Clearly,
you are stark raving mad and instead of seeking help to get over your
traumatic experiences, seek to inflict pain on others, as well. This is
evil. This is why you think others are evil, too. This is why you will
never become a human being worth having compassion for.
So go kill yourself, now. OK?
--
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: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <uwuoytbqh.fsf@telus.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * Raffael Cavallaro
> | You miss the most fundamental context here consistently. Specifically,
> | that you're involved in a discussion with other human beings. You're not
> | exchanging posts with abstract ideas.
>
> Would you let us in on your inventions in telepathy?
>
> Just because you believe something does not make it fact. You seem to
> have a /really/ hard time grasping this extremely simple concept.
Whereas your utterances are factual? What a moronic debating tactic.
*Everyones's* utterances are opinions in that there is no absolute knowledge,
truth etc. Dismissing what others say on this basis is a) stupid and b)
applies equally well to your assertions.
You keep using this technique to dismiss anyone's criticisms about
you. Apparently you think it effective.
> | Compassionate people think that there is something profoundly wrong with
> | someone who values technical ideas above human life.
>
> Are you saying that you consider yourself /compassionate/? *laugh* That
> /really/ takes the cake. You are an abusive, obsessive nutcase who has
> such a huge hangup with me that you keep harping on the same string long
> after it has ceased to be relevant to anyone else. You are a waste of
> space and a serious annoyance to this forum. [...] People need your
> poisonous bile like they need a punctured gall bladder. Clearly, you are
> stark raving mad and instead of seeking help to get over your traumatic
> experiences, seek to inflict pain on others, as well. This is evil. This
> is why you think others are evil, too. This is why you will never become
> a human being worth having compassion for.
>
> So go kill yourself, now. OK?
The abusive nutcase is you. Raffael's posts are hardly poisonous bile. What is
amazing is that you have absolutely no sense of how you appear to others. That
you are stark raving mad is in the end all that I can conclude about you.
--
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 4 Oct 2002, Ray Blaak wrote:
> *Everyones's* utterances are opinions in that there is no absolute knowledge,
> truth etc.
Recently I read the book "Zeno and the Tortoise: How to think like a
philosopher" by Nicholas Fearn. It is a fun little book that covers many
philosophy "tricks" and classic arguments. Chapter 2 covers the "no
absolute knowledge or truth" philosophy.
The most damning criticism of this type of philosophy is that it is
inherently paradoxical. Suppose it is correct. Some people believe it,
others don't. But this means that people that believe in absolute truth
are WRONG and people that don't are RIGHT. In other words, the philosophy
itself is absolutely true!
Nowadays there is also the philosophy of "tolerance", which basically says
that every culture should tolerate other cultures. But this philosophy is
also paradoxical. What if another culture is intolerant? Do you tolerate
that? Suppose you do tolerate intolerance. Your own culture has tolerant
and intolerant people; since you have decided to tolerate intolerance you
should tolerate the intolerant people in your own culture. But then the
philosophy of tolerance is vacuous, since it is no different than no
philosophy. On the other hand, if you decide to not tolerate intolerance
then you are imposing your own cultural values (tolerance) onto other
cultures, which violates the idea of tolerance.
--
NOJW
In article
<········································@sundance.cse.ucsc.edu>,
Nathan Whitehead <········@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote:
> The most damning criticism of this type of philosophy is that it is
> inherently paradoxical. Suppose it is correct. Some people believe it,
> others don't. But this means that people that believe in absolute truth
> are WRONG and people that don't are RIGHT. In other words, the philosophy
> itself is absolutely true!
It's worth remembering that the word paradox means an *apparent*
contradiction. People who believe that there is no absolute truth would
say that those who believe in absolute truth are most likely mistaken,
not that they are absolutely "WRONG."
Here's another one for you - you can never get away from being the
ultimate arbiter of what's true, or false, right or wrong. Even if you
believe that some one else's philosophy, some other person, or some
ethical code, etc. has the 'right' answers, it was still *you* who made
the judgement that that philosophy, person, etc. was a reliable
authority.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3D9DC821.20708@nyc.rr.com>
Ray Blaak wrote:
> The abusive nutcase is you. Raffael's posts are hardly poisonous bile. What is
> amazing is that you have absolutely no sense of how you appear to others. That
> you are stark raving mad is in the end all that I can conclude about you.
>
Point of information: apparently not, or you would have discarded the
article without sending it, since it makes no sense to correspond with a
stark raving madman. More likely you (and others here on c.l.l.) just
enjoy trading insults.
kenny
clinisys
In article <··············@nyc.rr.com>,
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> > Ray Blaak wrote:
> > The abusive nutcase is you. Raffael's posts are hardly poisonous bile. What
> > is amazing is that you have absolutely no sense of how you appear to
> > others. That you are stark raving mad is in the end all that I can conclude
> > about you.
>
>
> Point of information: apparently not, or you would have discarded the
> article without sending it, since it makes no sense to correspond with a
> stark raving madman. More likely you (and others here on c.l.l.) just
> enjoy trading insults.
If what Ray wrote was the contents of a private email you might have a
point, but it was a post to a public forum. His intended audience was
obviously wider than what he referred to as "the abusive nutcase." He
wants the whole group to know his opinion. This sort of mutual support
is quite common in healthy communities.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242760881940081@naggum.no>
* Raffael Cavallaro
| This sort of mutual support is quite common in healthy communities.
People who openly favor lynch mobs are not evidencing mental health.
People who actually congregate for mutual support, do not turn hateful.
--
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: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <ufzvlwge2.fsf@telus.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * Raffael Cavallaro
> | This sort of mutual support is quite common in healthy communities.
>
> People who openly favor lynch mobs are not evidencing mental health.
> People who actually congregate for mutual support, do not turn hateful.
Lynched. You think you are being lynched. [stunned silence] I marvel at your
reality disconnect.
The typical naggumite encounter goes like this:
moron #1: [being a moron]
erik: [chastizing moron #1]
moron #1: "why are you so mean?"
erik: [flamage]
moron #2: "hey, that's rude. stop that."
erik: [thermonuclear flamage. moron #2's continent razed to sea level]
moron #3: "um..."
Sweet jesus, man! If you think you are being lynched, just what in holy hell
do you call your moron elimination tactics?
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242808880431533@naggum.no>
* Erik Naggum
| People who openly favor lynch mobs are not evidencing mental health.
| People who actually congregate for mutual support, do not turn hateful.
* Ray Blaak
| Lynched. You think you are being lynched. [stunned silence] I marvel at your
| reality disconnect.
Fascinating. You think I think I am being lynched. What could possibly have
possessed a person to reach such an insane conclusion?
| Sweet jesus, man! If you think you are being lynched, just what in holy
| hell do you call your moron elimination tactics?
A call for peace from those who have nothing whatsoever of value to offer
this forum with regards to its actual purpose.
Go away, Ray Blaak.
--
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: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3D9E777B.8030701@nyc.rr.com>
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> In article <··············@nyc.rr.com>,
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Ray Blaak wrote:
>>>The abusive nutcase is you. Raffael's posts are hardly poisonous bile. What
>>>is amazing is that you have absolutely no sense of how you appear to
>>>others. That you are stark raving mad is in the end all that I can conclude
>>>about you.
>>
>>
>>Point of information: apparently not, or you would have discarded the
>>article without sending it, since it makes no sense to correspond with a
>>stark raving madman. More likely you (and others here on c.l.l.) just
>>enjoy trading insults.
>
>
>
> If what Ray wrote was the contents of a private email you might have a
> point, but it was a post to a public forum. His intended audience was
> obviously wider than what he referred to as "the abusive nutcase." He
> wants the whole group to know his opinion. This sort of mutual support
> is quite common in healthy communities.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> In article <··············@nyc.rr.com>,
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Ray Blaak wrote:
>>>The abusive nutcase is you. Raffael's posts are hardly poisonous
bile. What
>>>is amazing is that you have absolutely no sense of how you appear to
>>>others. That you are stark raving mad is in the end all that I can
conclude
>>>about you.
>>
>>
>>Point of information: apparently not, or you would have discarded the
>>article without sending it, since it makes no sense to correspond with a
>>stark raving madman. More likely you (and others here on c.l.l.) just
>>enjoy trading insults.
>
>
>
> If what Ray wrote was the contents of a private email you might have a
> point, but it was a post to a public forum. His intended audience was
> obviously wider than what he referred to as "the abusive nutcase." He
> wants the whole group to know his opinion. This sort of mutual support
> is quite common in healthy communities.
I am too subtle sometimes. What I am after is for folks not to post
articles about anything other than, well, the Lisp family. If you can't
get this through your fucking head...
...just kidding, but that is how I feel we end up in these death spirals
and how folks' personal names end up getting bandied about: frustration
with correspondents leads unfortunately to articles in a language NG
focused on individual frustrating posters.
Those who are ganging up these days on one such easily-frustrated CL
luminary are no better than he, in that their motivation is frustration
with someone posting on CL. We the chorus are often asked why we do not
castigate him, just as we castigate you for your attacks on him... that
is just more frustration on their part, this time with the community.
Hazarding a guess, we the community have abstracted away from each side
of the issue to the higher sin of both sides focusing on individuals.
[Aside: I was delighted to read EN's assertion of something I have long
suspected, viz, that respect for the individual underlies his attacks on
them.]
anyway, ask not how c.l.l. can pummel for you your adversaries, ask how
you can stop being adversarial in c.l.l.
kenny
clinisys
From: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <uit0hwgrd.fsf@telus.net>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Ray Blaak wrote:
> > The abusive nutcase is you. Raffael's posts are hardly poisonous
> > bile. What is amazing is that you have absolutely no sense of how you
> > appear to others. That you are stark raving mad is in the end all that I
> > can conclude about you.
>
> Point of information: apparently not, or you would have discarded the
> article without sending it, since it makes no sense to correspond with a
> stark raving madman.
You are right, actually. Their truth or falsehood of my words, however, does
not depend on who they are said to.
Still, I take it back. Erik is not stark raving mad. He does have his obvious
lucid moments, after all.
I now think he has Tourette's Syndrome, usenet style.
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242808732473980@naggum.no>
* Ray Blaak
| I now think he has Tourette's Syndrome, usenet style.
And your sharing this valuable insight is /so/ relevant to everyone else
here!
Go away, Ray Blaak.
--
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.
> > Raffael Cavallaro
> >
> > You speak with disdain of those who think "absolutely," but your behavior
> > in this forum often amounts to a call for those who don't meet your absolute
> > standards of technical understanding to commit suicide and recycle "the
> > wasted resources that did not achieve contextual understanding in its
> > lifetime."
> Erik Naggum
>
> This would be the conclusion from someone who does not understand
> context. Just as expected, in other words.
> [snip]
> This is why you will
> never become a human being worth having compassion for.
>
> So go kill yourself, now. OK?
Erik, you managed to prove the point I was making, by example, in the
very same post.
Despite your elaborate rationalizations, you completely gloss over your
own abusive behavior. There's little point in continuing attempts to
persuade you that you'd be a much greater asset to the Common Lisp you
value so highly if you only treated posters to c.l.l better. Bye.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242733255574704@naggum.no>
* Raffael Cavallaro
| Erik, you managed to prove the point I was making, by example, in the
| very same post.
No, I did not, I ridiculed your idiotic psychological hangup and intended
to inflict pain on you in the way you have shown me it works best. But
more importantly, I wanted to see if I had to revise my opinion of you,
and now, thanks to your retarded response, I can conclude: You cannot
possibly have an IQ above 70. It is impossible for someone to be so
stupid as you are without an actual deficit of capacity. Therefore, I
apologize for making fun of you in a way you were clearly unable to
understand. It is not nice to make fun of people with handicaps, so I
apologize profusely for doing so.
| Despite your elaborate rationalizations, you completely gloss over your
| own abusive behavior.
No, I do not. Before I listen to criticism, I want abusive bastards who
keep going after me to show me that you can stop doing what you do. If
you cannot stop, then you have no reason whatsoever to harangue me for
your own failures, and you show me that you consider your responses
appropriate to the stimuli you receive. So do I for mine. For some
reason that is probably sufficiently explained by low IQ, you do not see
the pattern involved here and think that the substance of what you do not
like makes such a huge difference that any similarities are to be ignored.
You make the same same mistake that any other retard does: They think the
world is no more complex than they can grasp. You have to have an IQ
above a certain level to understand that the world is vastly more complex
than any one person can grasp at any one time. Some have set that at 85,
other at 75 (1 sigma = 15). You fall /way/ below either threshold. I
repeat from my previous message: Just because you believe it, does not
make it fact. You simply do not grasp this, do you? That which Raffael
Cavallaro believes, that also exists. Therefore, whether you make claims
about your beliefs or about facts makes no difference to you at all,
because it is all the same to you. This is why you actually /believe/ all
the horrible accusations you pass my way, too, and I can only look at the
deranged retard who screams at me from a street corner in Berkeley with
metabolized sympathy -- that residual effect of having felt sympathy,
except for the feeling of sympathy part.
| There's little point in continuing attempts to persuade you that you'd be
| a much greater asset to the Common Lisp you value so highly if you only
| treated posters to c.l.l better.
I realize that your low intelligence makes it hard for you to understand,
but you have to work hard at this particular question: Why should anyone
do what you think is better? What gives you the right to demand anything
of anybody other than yourself? When you clearly do not demand anything
of yourself, least of all civil behavior, what you demand of others is less
than worthless -- you are a parasite. This is the crucial point that you
have never been able to understand that has been questioned all along.
Here's the recipe for actually communicating that civility is valued. It
is one of the most difficult things in the world, if we are to watch the
people who demand it from others, who think that it is not rude to call
others rude. Be prepared because this will come as a shock. The one
recipe for actually communicating that civility is the desired form of
human communication is this one simple imperative. OK? All well
prepared for the tremendous force of this recipe? Here we go, then:
Be civil.
I know, whoa!, heavy. But let it sink. Let it affect you slowly if you
cannot take it in all at once. Then actually follow it. Then save this
for later, because it will take time to figure out how they are related:
The one recipe for getting uncivil behavior from other people. You need
to know this because you need to know when you have be civil and have to
resist the urge to say what you think. Here is the recipe to get uncivil
behavior from other people. Now, remember, this is what you should /not/
do if you want to be /really/ civil to other people. This can be a heavy
blow even though you have to save it for later when you have managed to
internalize the previous heavy rule. So, again, the recipe for getting
uncivil behavior from other people, which you should /not/ do, is:
Annoy them.
Please do not post about civility or rudeness or any such thing if you do
not understand these recipes. Thank 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.
From: Fred Gilham
Subject: Understanding Erik Naggum (was Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python))
Date:
Message-ID: <u71y76dtiw.fsf_-_@snapdragon.csl.sri.com>
I think it might be a public service to make the following point. I
may be presumptuous here, but I will attempt to clarify Erik Naggum's
behavior in the hope that people will stop embroiling themselves in
useless flame fests.
The `secret' to understanding Erik Naggum is to realize that he cares
about other things more than he does civility. He does not consider
civility a goal in and of itself, or at least, he does not consider it
a high priority goal.
Many people are civil because they want to be liked and accepted.
Erik doesn't care if he's liked and accepted. He would like to be
respected, but even then he doesn't care if he's not respected by
people he doesn't respect.
You can call this arrogance, ego or whatever you want. But that won't
change it. If you don't come to grips with the above, you will waste
time in futile efforts to convince Erik that his behavior is uncivil,
because he doesn't care if it is or not when other things he values
more are at stake.
If, on the other hand, you were to convince Erik that something he
said were technically incorrect, that would make a difference. I've
seen it before: he admits his error.
In other words, Erik's values are not yours. I personally would
prefer that he had different values; I regret very much his chronic
feuds with Erann Gat, for example. But I don't expect to change him
by yelling at him. (Or change Erann, for that matter.)
One more thing. Erik claims that his detractors don't care about
civility either. That's because they themselves are willing to
sacrifice civility when they are offended. This is a good point. You
know how much you value civility by finding out when you are willing
to abandon it. It's like the joke about the man who asked a woman if
she'd marry him for a million dollars. She said, "Sure." Then he
asked her if she'd sleep with him for fifty dollars. She was greatly
offended. "What kind of a woman do you think I am?" she replied. He
said, "We've already established that. We're just haggling over the
price."
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
"In the 20th century, more citizens were killed by their own
governments than by foreign enemies....totalitarianism first of all
regards its own people as the enemy." --- Arnold Beichman
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum (was Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python))
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-0410021814160001@192.168.1.51>
In article <·················@snapdragon.csl.sri.com>, Fred Gilham
<······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> wrote:
> I regret very much his chronic feuds with Erann Gat, for example.
So do I.
> But I don't expect to change him
> by yelling at him. (Or change Erann, for that matter.)
What would you have me change?
> One more thing. Erik claims that his detractors don't care about
> civility either. That's because they themselves are willing to
> sacrifice civility when they are offended. This is a good point.
No, it isn't. But since you are such an admirer or Erik's style I think
I'll emulate it a bit and not explain why it's not a good point and just
tell you to go think about it.
E.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum (was Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python))
Date:
Message-ID: <3242811704361850@naggum.no>
* Fred Gilham
| I regret very much his chronic feuds with Erann Gat, for example.
* Erann
| So do I.
My God! Look at yourself! You start them, you feed them, you do not
quit. I have to stop responding to you before you go away, again.
| What would you have me change?
Stop being so fucking obnoxious and annoying, you pestering idiot.
| No, it isn't. But since you are such an admirer or Erik's style I think
| I'll emulate it a bit and not explain why it's not a good point and just
| tell you to go think about it.
You could not emulate my style if your life depended on it. Quit making
it my fault that you cannot behave the way you want me to behave.
--
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: JB
Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum (was Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python))
Date:
Message-ID: <3d9f5ba8_10@news.newsgroups.com>
>> I regret very much his chronic feuds with Erann Gat, for
>> example.
>
> So do I.
I am sorry, Sir, but with all possible respect: I simply do
not believe you. I think you enjoy it. You enjoy every bit
of it.
I thought a lot about Erik: How is it possible that a man
with a sharp analytical brain like his, is not able to
understand very simple things?
Then I understood.
It is a pity that you do not speak Hungarian. One of our
greatest poets, who Erik resembles to some extent, wrote in
one of his most beautiful poems
"what would happen,
what could happen,
if the terrible clutch of reason
always wounded ourselves?"
(It sounds quite good in Hungarian.)
You are not a newbie in this NG and you have known Erik for
a long time. So it is really up to you to stop it as you
can control this.
What I wrote is not a moral judgement though.
--
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 =-----
* Fred Gilham
| I think it might be a public service to make the following point.
However tasteless it is to use names in the Subject, this was a pretty
good summary, actually. That is probably a first in and of itself.
| He does not consider civility a goal in and of itself [...]
Quite right. I actually cannot stand people who are polite and civil but
have nothing whatsoever to communicate or accomplish with it. Civility
is a protocol to get something done in a situation where people need to
feel good about themselves. It is vitally important when you want to get
those things done that require it. However, your "feeling good" is not
something you can require other people to cater to without having a clear
purpose to the exchange in the first place.
| Erik doesn't care if he's liked and accepted.
Yes, I do, but I do not seek a professional, technical forum about
(Common) Lisp to be liked and accepted. If I do not find myself liked
and accepted, I, too, feel unhappy, and I am actually quite hurt by the
numerous evil people who do nothing on this newsgroup but attack me.
What the fuck do they think this forum is for? Take them away, and there
is /very/ little hostile traffic in this newsgroup. And I do /not/ start
whatever remains. Just look at the recent number of assholes who had to
opine about me. So, yes, I care very much when these assholes fill the
newsgroup with hate rhetoric.
However, it is more correct that I do not think being liked and accepted
should take predence to technical matters /in a technical forum/. It
would be inconceivable for me to say "I like you as a person, but you
post misinformation about Common Lisp in comp.lang.lisp". I think that
would be about as likely as a stock broker saying "I like you as a person,
but you give your customers really bad stock advice", or a priest saying
to another "I really like you as a person, but could you please cut down
on murdering abortion doctors?"
| He would like to be respected, but even then he doesn't care if he's not
| respected by people he doesn't respect.
It is because I fundamentally respect people that I think they should
listen. However, I find that the disrespect that people resort to when
they do not "feel good" is quite alarming.
| You can call this arrogance, ego or whatever you want.
I do not care much what people call it, but I fail to see how ranking
being liked and accepted and resepcted lower than technical merits can be
called ego, though. In other words, I expect to be liked, accepted and
respected for on technical merit /in a technical forum/.
| If, on the other hand, you were to convince Erik that something he said
| were technically incorrect, that would make a difference. I've seen it
| before: he admits his error.
I appreciate that at least someone sees this.
| In other words, Erik's values are not yours.
This sounds a little too general. I have found a lot more people who
share my values that do not. Very few people actually stand up and say
they prefer a forum of civil and polite idiots to a forum of sometimes
quarreling experts, and for the newbie who wants to learn and seeks help,
fora that are rife with polite idiots who give bad advice is really not
something you know how much you will hate until you experience it.
| I personally would prefer that he had different values; I regret very
| much his chronic feuds with Erann Gat, for example.
I havea no idea why Erann thinks this forum is a suitable place to spew
accusations against me and post so much poisonous bile. What does that
fucking moron expect to /achieve/? That shithead is purely destructive.
| You know how much you value civility by finding out when you are willing
| to abandon it.
Glad to see someone else make this point. I have argued strongly that if
your ethical standards are abandoned when you deal with people you do
feel "enough" sympathy or empathy with, they are worthless. The great
invention of "due process" is precisely that which treats people with a
fundamental /respect/ regardless of what they have /done/. I really try
to do this myself, but I find that even knowledge of the legal system and
appreciation of the concept of due process is /missing/ in people who
waste no opportunity to attack me, unfairly, unjustly, and most of all
for things they /invent/ and which I have never done. False accusations
is the ultimate disrespect.
But I can't quite get over seeing such an inflammatory Subject line above
such accurate contents.
--
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:
> But I can't quite get over seeing such an inflammatory Subject line above
> such accurate contents.
I was horrified by the subject line, too. On the other hand, and I
don't know if this was what Fred was thinking, if one were to try to
write a message with content like this, what would be the most
effective Subject line to get it read by the people who most need to
read it? The current one isn't a bad choice.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
> I was horrified by the subject line, too. On the other hand, and I
> don't know if this was what Fred was thinking, if one were to try to
> write a message with content like this, what would be the most
> effective Subject line to get it read by the people who most need to
> read it? The current one isn't a bad choice.
One still has lessons to learn about Usenet etiquette even after many
years.
The original subject line came about in the heat of composition; I
didn't think about it enough.
I think I'm going to post a Lisp question and try to get my name
associated with something more on-topic....
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Thou shalt not convince stupid people to try cordless bungee jumping....
Thou shalt not substitute Semtex when all the Playdough's gone....
Thou shalt not bob for hand grenades....
In article <···················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> I havea no idea why Erann thinks this forum is a suitable place to spew
> accusations against me and post so much poisonous bile. What does that
> fucking moron expect to /achieve/? That shithead is purely destructive.
What I hoped to achieve was to be able to conduct a conversation with you
without it degenerating into insults.
I hoped to make you see that you engage in the same behavior that you
decry in others. It is astonishing to me that anyone can read (or write)
the paragraph above and not be rocked by its blatant hypocricy.
Many people whom I believe could make constructive contributions here have
fled c.l.l. because of you. I know because they have sent me private
emails encouraging my efforts here. I hoped to change things so that they
might return.
I hoped to change things so that visitors to c.l.l. would not made to feel
like pariahs for taking umbrage when someone calls them a shithead.
I have not made as many technical contributions to this newsgroup as you
have. I nevertheless stand proudly behind my record of contribution to
the Lisp community. I helped Lisp get into space. I taught Lisp to
students. I published one of the very few studies comparing programming
languages that shows quantitatively how Lisp is superior to Java and C++.
I created jobs for Lisp programmers.
Those are all things that I was trying to accomplish. You win some, you
lose some.
Now I have had my fill of it for a while, so I am going walkabout (again)
where there be not Naggums (to paraphrase one of the people who has
written me privately concerning my efforts here).
If there's anyone left out there who still cares about what I have to say,
my email address is ···@jpl.nasa.gov.
Bye for now.
E.
* Erann Gat
| What I hoped to achieve was to be able to conduct a conversation with you
| without it degenerating into insults.
So quit being so fucking obnoxious and annoying, you pestering idiot.
| I hoped to make you see that you engage in the same behavior that you
| decry in others. It is astonishing to me that anyone can read (or write)
| the paragraph above and not be rocked by its blatant hypocricy.
Of course you are. Mirrors are forbidden in certain places because of you.
| Many people whom I believe could make constructive contributions here have
| fled c.l.l. because of you.
I have to fight /someone/. You are one of them at a large number of
occasions. Take some responsibility for your own goddamn evil behavior.
| I know because they have sent me private emails encouraging my efforts
| here.
Ah, Brilliant. You're a fucking /saint/ on a holy mission from God to
save the world. And there are nutjobs insane enough to cheer you on!
| I hoped to change things so that they might return.
Quit attacking me. Quit attracking the other nutjobs in more fights.
| I hoped to change things so that visitors to c.l.l. would not made to
| feel like pariahs for taking umbrage when someone calls them a shithead.
How about how I feel after yet another round of you evil bastards?
Such selective sympathy is a good symptom of true evil.
| Now I have had my fill of it for a while, so I am going walkabout (again)
| where there be not Naggums (to paraphrase one of the people who has
| written me privately concerning my efforts here).
Good. Leave us alone for good.
| If there's anyone left out there who still cares about what I have to
| say, my email address is ···@jpl.nasa.gov.
Fuck off, Erann Gat. This time, it was your fault that Ray Blaak and
Raffael Cavallero got back here and started with their fantastically evil
behavior, once again.
--
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 is more correct that I do not think being liked and accepted
> should take predence to technical matters /in a technical forum/. It
> would be inconceivable for me to say "I like you as a person, but you
> post misinformation about Common Lisp in comp.lang.lisp". I think that
> would be about as likely as a stock broker saying "I like you as a person,
> but you give your customers really bad stock advice", or a priest saying
> to another "I really like you as a person, but could you please cut down
> on murdering abortion doctors?"
In fact there is considerable evidence that this way of criticizing
people is much more effective. The Pattern community has established the
so-called Writers' Workshop to review papers, and participators are
required to first make positive statements before stating the actual
criticism. They are also required to state the criticism in a "positive"
way by not just saying what is "wrong", but by suggesting possible
improvements. I have been to several of these workshops and co-organized
a similar workshop on AOP, and this always turned out to be _far_ more
effective than for example the "standard" conference experience where
people usually just criticize in a blunt negative way.
I myself was very surprised when I first made this experience, because
it seems illogical at first that these things matter so much in a
superficially purely technical context. But they do.
The Writers' Workshop format has been adapted from a similar format for
literature/poetry workshops, so there is a traceable history.
http://hillside.net might be a good starting point to learn more about
the Writers' Workshop format. For example,
http://www.hillside.net/patterns/EuroPLoP/details.html contains a small
section about it. Richard Gabriel has written a book about it - see
http://www.dreamsongs.com/Books.html for more details.
So essentially it is not only conceivable that saying first some nice
things is "better", it's a proven technique. (I guess you can also draw
some evidence from psychological studies, but I am not sure in this regard.)
Of course, this wouldn't make sense in the example of "murdering
abortion doctors", but I guess this example was a bit exaggerated to
make your point clear.
I also have to admit that I don't know a lot about the "history" of the
arguments in c.l.l. So maybe my point is not so relevant in this
context. (Sorry in advance if that's the case.)
Pascal
On Sat, 05 Oct 2002 06:25:57 +0200, Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> said:
[...]
PC> first make positive statements before stating the actual
PC> criticism
This reminds me again of an anecdote, about Bohr this time. He is
said to have never criticized sharply people presenting their work,
and to have been well known for his civility. So once a physicist
became very upset after a workshop---the reason being Bohr's remark
about his talk that `this is very interesting.' Also, Bohr liked
to begin his comments with the words, `I don't mean to criticize.'
On reading a completely worthless paper, he exclaimed, `I don't
mean to criticize, I just cannot understand how someone could write
such rubbish!'
By the way, once I heard someone (an algebra professor, if that
matters) say that learning is a painful process, and I believe that
is true, at least with regards to effective learning.
---Vassil.
* Vassil Nikolov
| This reminds me again of an anecdote, about Bohr this time. He is
| said to have never criticized sharply people presenting their work,
| and to have been well known for his civility.
Guys, guys, are you quite sure you have read what I /actually/ write?
| On reading a completely worthless paper, he exclaimed, `I don't mean to
| criticize, I just cannot understand how someone could write such
| rubbish!'
Consider the context of the contributions. What we have here in
comp.lang.lisp are far from publishable material. And people /are/
treated respectfully and civilly first. They actually are, even though
they of course have a vested interest in attacking me when some of the
resident evil flame me for everything I do. I mean, what could be better
than to have someone to blame for your own incompetence when it is
called? What could be better for the incompetent than to deflect
attention away from himself to talk about how bad I am who dared correct
him and made him feel bad? After all, every other incompetent and evil
bastard here does it, so what should hold any new incompetent back?
Surely, not his /own/ ethical standards.
| By the way, once I heard someone (an algebra professor, if that matters)
| say that learning is a painful process, and I believe that is true, at
| least with regards to effective learning.
It is made less painful the earlier you correct your mistakes. When
people go non-linear simply because they are corrected early with some
misguided assumptions, I can hardly take the blame for that. In fact, I
refuse to take the blame for correcting someone when he comes to a forum
to discuss his notions and discussion must be based in getting people in
line with the accepted models as soon as possible?
What I find so disturbing after watching yet another flame war where
people attack me, is that I am once again blamed for it. THEY attack ME!
What do you expect me to /do/ with the evil that flows out of Erann Gat,
Ray Blaak, and Raffael Cavallero? I want these evil shitheads to stop
more than anything else in the world when they gang up on me. Sure, I
want them to hurt like hell for having started yet another flame war
about how bad I am. Is there not a single person here who understands
what it is like to be the victim of so much unfettered hatred as these
three produce? It is not something I have done to them, it is how they
feel for having been similar idiots in the past that causes them to hate
me this time around, too. And they do not need much to start up the hate
machine. Some idiot who asks whether I am always so full of poisonous
bile is enough to start them on their torrential outpouring of hatred.
What if someone started to behave the way you relate here about Bohr or
others? What do /I/ get from people who hate me? "Thanks for your
wonderful contributions, but ..."? Not likely. Some insincere flattery
comes only long after it has become clear that they are once again going
to lose their own fight.
--
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 05 Oct 2002 12:59:46 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> said:
VN> This reminds me again of an anecdote, about Bohr this time. He is
VN> said to have never criticized sharply people presenting their work,
VN> and to have been well known for his civility.
EN> Guys, guys, are you quite sure you have read what I /actually/ write?
I think I am more guilty of writing poorly than of reading poorly.
With that anecdote, what I wanted was to express my reluctance to
believe in the effectiveness^1 of sugar-coated criticism. (I use
this adjective, `sugar-coated,' to sum up my perception of the
approach, outlined in greater detail earlier in the thread, of
`being kind and gentle' to the person being criticized.) Even with
Bohr---who was apparently a very nice person, and whom it would be
unfair to describe as giving out sugar-coated criticism with the
negative connotation I give it---it only went so far...
_________
^1 I do believe, however, in the _usefulness_ of sugar-coated
criticism in various situations, including ones where some
`Macchiavellian' purpose is involved, or ones where the
objective pursued is something different from correction of
mistakes
I realize now that in the way I wrote my post about Bohr, it could
be interpreted in quite a different way (i.e. suggesting Bohr as an
example for Erik to follow), which was not my intention. Too
stupidly ambiguous of me, and I deserve to be flamed for not
learning to write before starting to post...
And just in case I need to make myself clearer, I cannot recall
you, Erik, ever posting or advocating sugar-coated criticism, and I
do not expect you to do that in the future; and to the extent that
my opinion matters, this has been and will be a good thing.
And note that the negation of sugar-coated criticism is not just
flame and acrimony, but also includes straight, to the point, and
fair criticism that identifies weaknesses and corrects errors
without undue concern that someone's feelings might be hurt because
they made a mistake in public and now it is being exposed in
public...
[...]
VN> By the way, once I heard someone (an algebra professor, if that matters)
VN> say that learning is a painful process, and I believe that is true, at
VN> least with regards to effective learning.
EN> It is made less painful the earlier you correct your mistakes.
True; but I think this path to pain minimization is seldom taken...
Most of us usually learn the hard way---but at least with some what
is learned is learned well.
[...]
EN> What if someone started to behave the way you relate here about Bohr or
EN> others?
That's a rhetorical question, but... As I wrote above, I would not
like to see any sugar-coated criticism in comp.lang.lisp. Of
course, having anyone of Bohr's caliber in the group would be so
valuable that perhaps I would become a hypocrite and forget about
my objections to sugar-coated criticism if it comes from such a
person.
* * *
Another great mind who had an encounter with Bohr early in his
career was Richard Feynman. I read about it in `Los Alamos from
Below' as published in _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman_ (the
story occurs about 4-5 pages from the end of that chapter). I will
quote here just the two final paragraphs of that story (the whole
chapter, not just that episode, is worth reading; did you know that
he at one time was in charge of the `IBM group' (i.e. the
(mechanical) computers) at Los Alamos?):
[on not being afraid to say when an idea is crazy]
I was always _dumb_ in that way. I never knew who I was talking
to. I was always worried about the physics. If the idea looked
lousy, I said it looked lousy. If it looked good, I said it
looked good. Simple proposition.
I've always lived that way. It's nice, it's pleasant---if you
can do it. I'm lucky in my life that I can do this.
(The original reference seems to be: _Reminiscences of Los Alamos,
1943-1945__, edited by L. Badash et al., pp. 105--132. D. Reidel
Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 1980.)
---Vassil.
--
Garbage collection is charged at 0.19e-9 cents a cons. Bulk rates
are also available: please contact memory management for details.
* Vassil Nikolov [ quoting Richard Feynman ]
| I've always lived that way. It's nice, it's pleasant---if you
| can do it. I'm lucky in my life that I can do this.
I have read all of Feynman's books and those about him, and find that his
person is quite interesting in addition to his work. I still wonder what
the "lucky" part refers to.
--
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:
> * Vassil Nikolov [ quoting Richard Feynman ]
> | I've always lived that way. It's nice, it's pleasant---if you
> | can do it. I'm lucky in my life that I can do this.
>
> I have read all of Feynman's books and those about him, and find that his
> person is quite interesting in addition to his work. I still wonder what
> the "lucky" part refers to.
I think that it refers to his own
personality. There are lots of people that are not
able to express their opinions. Being able to say
"this sucks" to the boss (or CEO, CTO etc) is a
nice "personality feature" that not everyone has.
--
Eduardo Mu�oz
On 06 Oct 2002 15:05:06 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> said:
RF> | I've always lived that way. It's nice, it's pleasant---if you
RF> | can do it. I'm lucky in my life that I can do this.
EN> I have read all of Feynman's books and those about him, and find that his
EN> person is quite interesting in addition to his work. I still wonder what
EN> the "lucky" part refers to.
I am not sure I understand---do you mean that being able to speak
one's opinion straight does not depend on luck?
---Vassil.
--
Garbage collection is charged at 0.19e-9 cents a cons. Bulk rates
are also available: please contact memory management for details.
* Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com>
| I am not sure I understand---do you mean that being able to speak
| one's opinion straight does not depend on luck?
I mean that I do not understand what luck has to do with 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.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com>
> | I am not sure I understand---do you mean that being able
> | to speak one's opinion straight does not depend on luck?
>
> I mean that I do not understand what luck has to do with
> it.
>
Being gifted is not enough. When the circumstances are bad
then all your talents may not help you to have a life you
are entitled to.
But I admit that in modern western societies it is not
likely that the circumstances are as bad.
--
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>
| When the circumstances are bad then all your talents may not help you to
| have a life you are entitled to.
Nobody is entitled to anything. The whole entitlement business is bogus.
--
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:
> * JB <··@yahoo.de>
> | When the circumstances are bad then all your talents may
> | not help you to have a life you are entitled to.
>
> Nobody is entitled to anything. The whole entitlement
> business is bogus.
>
Thx for answering.
We had an excellent, extremely gifted pianist in Hungary.
Before the revolution in 1956 he had to play in bars and at
some point of his "carier" he was even arrested. Rumour has
it that his arm was broken.
He fled from Hungary in 1956 and became a world renown
artist.
Can we even estimate the number of highly talented people in
the former Soviet Union who achieved nothing and maybe even
died in camps?
Having luck is substantial and Feynman could appreciate the
luck of having been born in a free country and having had
nice parents who supported him. (From "Surely You Are..."
we know that he owed a lot to his father.)
Of course you could equally well say that "being lucky" is
just a manner of speaking and is such a general term that
it means nothing.
--
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 =-----
On 07 Oct 2002 12:19:38 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> said:
VN> I am not sure I understand---do you mean that being able to speak
VN> one's opinion straight does not depend on luck?
EN> I mean that I do not understand what luck has to do with it.
OK. (I should have been more sure in my understanding and not ask
for things to be repeated twice...)
My current (but not final) thinking about luck is that it is a
general term for all those factors that we do not know (and thus do
not control). For example, out of N investors, all competent,
intelligent, and a priori well-informed, only M `lucky' ones will
actually make good money, for M significantly less than N. Or, to
quote a classic story, when it was suggested to Napoleon to promote
someone to general, Napoleon said, `Yes, he is good, but is he
lucky?'
Of course, being lucky can only be determined for the past. Can I
really plan on going to be lucky? (Yes, I know it is often
done...)
---Vassil.
--
Garbage collection is charged at 0.19e-9 cents a cons. Bulk rates
are also available: please contact memory management for details.
* Vassil Nikolov
| Of course, being lucky can only be determined for the past.
There are two parts to luck. There is the getting an opportunity part.
This is very hard to predict or control or even bet on. Then there is
the taking advantage of an opportunity part. This is a personality trait
-- or so it seems. A psychologist I know who has studied personality
types and tests for them and who works with safety on ships and oil rigs
and such and who uses breaks down safety instruction by personality type
for best effect, claims that the ability to be surprised is near constant
through a person's life. Thrill seekers and the like thrive on surprises
and their ability to deal with them. People who run their own business
have to be able to cope with a vast array of surprises, one of the worst
being completely unpredictable and untrustworthy politicians who may
change regulations or taxation or other serious threats to their business
with very brief if any notice, and at a distant second, the market, their
competitors and the stability of their suppliers and their own personell.
While it is clearly luck to be able to offer a prospective customer what
he wants when he wants it where he wants it, actually making money on
that beneficial predicament is /not/ luck, it is simply hard work. solid
risk management, and discipline. More often than not, people who fail in
business or in life have had no shortage of opportunities, but have only
failed to take advantage of them or follow up on the initial "leads".
| Can I really plan on going to be lucky?
Google has that feature.
--
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 08 Oct 2002 20:12:32 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> said:
EN> There are two parts to luck. There is the getting an opportunity part.
EN> This is very hard to predict or control or even bet on. Then there is
EN> the taking advantage of an opportunity part. This is a personality trait
EN> -- or so it seems.
The entrepreneural spirit, isn't it?
And those people that have it---are they lucky to have it?
Perhaps, but if it is inherited, and they do because their parents
or their parents' matchmakers made the right choice (consciously or
subconsciously), then again, it might not be a matter of luck.
By the way, the opposite of `good luck' is `bad luck,' but is there
a word for `negative opportunity'? (I tried m-w.com's Collegiate
Thesaurus, but it didn't offer any antonyms.)
---Vassil.
--
Garbage collection is charged at 0.19e-9 cents a cons. Bulk rates
are also available: please contact memory management for details.
* Vassil Nikolov
| The entrepreneural spirit, isn't it?
That would be much more. I relate it only to surprisability.
| And those people that have it---are they lucky to have it?
I relate luck to opportunities that offer a choice of action. If the
situation offers no choice, it is may be the consequence of a past
choice, or simply a natural event. Is it luck that human beings evolved
on this planet? No. Is it luck that you were born highly intelligent?
No. Is it luck that you were given an opportunity to attend a better
school because your teachers discovered your potential? Yes.
--
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 08 Oct 2002 10:45:32 -0400, Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> said:
[retelling an anecdote about Napoleon]
I realize I should have kept the balance by giving a quote from
Suvorov as well (who was, in a way, Napoleon's Russian
counterpart). He was irritated by statements (aimed to offend him)
that his victories were all due to luck, and said, `Once lucky,
twice lucky: sometimes there must be skill as well!'
---Vassil.
--
Garbage collection is charged at 0.19e-9 cents a cons. Bulk rates
are also available: please contact memory management for details.
In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com>
>| I am not sure I understand---do you mean that being able to speak
>| one's opinion straight does not depend on luck?
>
> I mean that I do not understand what luck has to do with it.
Back in the mists of time, I read several of Feynman's memoirs. I understood
(read "assumed" :) his statement to expand to "I've always given my opinion
without regard to sugar-coating it or the political ramifications of
(arguably) insulting the listener, and feel lucky that my employers and
co-workers have never taken offense at my self-perceived lack of tact."
Digressing, I don't remember who (perhaps Bohr himself?), but at one point
someone wanted Feynman to work with *specifically* 'cause he (Feynman) would
question their physics without regard to their stature in the field.
Feynman was, of course, frequently Out Standing In His Field. ;)
-- Larry
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
>
> I have read all of Feynman's books and those about him, and find that his
> person is quite interesting in addition to his work. I still wonder what
> the "lucky" part refers to.
I assume that he meant that he considered himself lucky to have worked
in environments where he could behave like that and not have to deal
with spurious politeness issues. One impression I got from his books
is that he perhaps did not regard himself as terribly clever - even
though he obviously was *terribly* clever - so he may have considered
himself lucky to have been in the right place at the right time to do
the work that got him the jobs that ... Or alternatively that he was
lucky to have been born as clever as he was.
Interestingly, long before I discovered cll (or in fact Lisp) I had
come to the conclusion that this kind of non-sugar-coated behaviour is
very much a characteristic of hard scientists (not scientists with
very short haircuts and tattoos, but scientists who work in the hard
sciences). When I was studying physics, and in my holiday jobs doing
electronics, one of the delights was being able to simply say or be
told `no, that's wrong, because ...' and to work in an environment
where this was not treated as some personal insult, but as a
statement. This kind of emotional detachment from an argument is a
really wonderful thing.
Something I should have taken more note of, when I started to work in
AI-related departments, was that this kind of detachment didn't work -
numerous times I got into trouble for telling people that their
wonderful idea would not work, without going through some elaborate
politeness ritual first.
I should have stayed in physics depts, I guess...
--tim
>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Bradshaw <··········@tfeb.org> writes:
Tim> Interestingly, long before I discovered cll (or in fact Lisp) I had
Tim> come to the conclusion that this kind of non-sugar-coated behaviour is
Tim> very much a characteristic of hard scientists (not scientists with
Tim> very short haircuts and tattoos, but scientists who work in the hard
Tim> sciences). When I was studying physics, and in my holiday jobs doing
Tim> electronics, one of the delights was being able to simply say or be
Tim> told `no, that's wrong, because ...' and to work in an environment
Tim> where this was not treated as some personal insult, but as a
Tim> statement. This kind of emotional detachment from an argument is a
Tim> really wonderful thing.
At my former employer, our research group used to have arguments like
this. They sometimes got heated, but everyone knew that these were
technical arguments, not personal. I really enjoyed those arguments.
A great way to learn lots of cool stuff and not be embarrassed for not
knowing things. Ahh, the good ol' days....
Ray
··········@tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw) writes:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
> >
> > I have read all of Feynman's books and those about him, and find that his
> > person is quite interesting in addition to his work. I still wonder what
> > the "lucky" part refers to.
>
> I assume that he meant that he considered himself lucky to have worked
> in environments where he could behave like that and not have to deal
> with spurious politeness issues. One impression I got from his books
> is that he perhaps did not regard himself as terribly clever - even
> though he obviously was *terribly* clever - so he may have considered
> himself lucky to have been in the right place at the right time to do
> the work that got him the jobs that ... Or alternatively that he was
> lucky to have been born as clever as he was.
(snippage)
This reminds me of an anecdote I ran across in Simon Blackburn's book,
_Think_: In talking with a concert pianist, a fan says, "You are so
lucky to have so much talent!" The pianist responds, "And the more I
practice, the luckier I get." The same probably applies to Feynman,
who seemed to work hard at a lot of things.
--
Rob St. Amant
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~stamant
+ ·······@haeckel.csc.ncsu.edu (Robert St. Amant):
| This reminds me of an anecdote I ran across in Simon Blackburn's book,
| _Think_: In talking with a concert pianist, a fan says, "You are so
| lucky to have so much talent!" The pianist responds, "And the more I
| practice, the luckier I get." The same probably applies to Feynman,
| who seemed to work hard at a lot of things.
Lots of discoveries in science happen because of a lucky accident.
Perhaps most famous is the discovery of penicillin, but examples
abound. Have top scientists been just lucky, then? Hardly. Someone
summed it up nicely: "Luck favours the prepared mind." I don't know
who said it, but it does have a Feynmanesque flavour to it. When you
find a nice solution to a problem, it may seem that you were just
lucky to have stumbled upon it. But two factors are commonly
overlooked: All the hard work that preceded the lucky find, and the
prepared mind that recognized the glimmer of the solution when it was
near. In fact, this is such an important point I think I'll borrow a
trick from those preachers who think everything is more readily
believed when repeated, preferably surrounded by a pause for thought:
Luck favours the prepared mind.
All right, I think I'll go back to lurking now.
ObLisp:
I am currently running a midterm exam that students take from a
computer with a web browser. Responses and requests arrive at our
Apache server, get packaged by mod_lisp and squirted across an ssh
tunnel to a different machine, where a Lisp server handles the logic
and a PostgreSQL database secures and organizes the data. All this
took just a few hundred lines of Lisp code. Even I was astounded when
the whole setup just plain worked as soon as I had rooted out umpteen
typos from the code. I'm keeping my fingers crossed though, as about
a thousand students are going to take the test over the next three
days. This might be an appropriate time to thank all the good folks
on comp.lang.lisp for showing me the Lisp way over the past years,
even though they didn't even know I was there. (Heck, I'll even throw
in a thank you to the bad folks, who also teach by negative example.)
I shudder at the thought that this system might have been cobbled
together from pieces of baling wire, PHP code and chewing gum. As it
is, much of the code is pretty ad hoc, but with each iteration I find
better abstractions and trim away more unnecessary code. This is so
easy to do with Lisp! I really enjoy it.
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- Yes it works in practice - but does it work in theory?
Harald Hanche-Olsen:
> ... Someone
> summed it up nicely: "Luck favours the prepared mind." I don't know
> who said it, but it does have a Feynmanesque flavour to it.
Hamming attributes it to Pasteur.
oz
+ ozan s yigit <··@blue.cs.yorku.ca>:
| Harald Hanche-Olsen:
| > ... Someone
| > summed it up nicely: "Luck favours the prepared mind." I don't know
| > who said it, but it does have a Feynmanesque flavour to it.
|
| Hamming attributes it to Pasteur.
Indeed. And here I had even mentioned Pasteur, if not by name. And
it wasn't "luck", but "chance". I should have googled before posting.
(My feeble excuse for not doing so is that I usually read usenet while
offline.) The exact quote is concerned with observation, but I like
the more general statement.
- Harald
ozan s yigit <··@blue.cs.yorku.ca> writes:
> Harald Hanche-Olsen:
> > ... Someone
> > summed it up nicely: "Luck favours the prepared mind." I don't know
> > who said it, but it does have a Feynmanesque flavour to it.
>
> Hamming attributes it to Pasteur.
At his inaugural lecture, when he took up his post as
professor of chemistry at Lille, in 1854, Pasteur said:
In the fields of observation, chance favors only those
who are prepared.
Any-one know the original French? The translation in front
of me has Pasteur saying that Lady Luck hands out her
favours amongst a select few: those who have prepared. It is
not that the prepared get more lucky breaks than the
unprepared, the unprepared get no lucky breaks at all! Such
a sentiment is in keeping with Pasteur's intense approach to
research.
Alan Crowe
>>>>> "AC" == Alan S Crowe <····@cawtech.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
AC> ozan s yigit <··@blue.cs.yorku.ca> writes:
>> Harald Hanche-Olsen: > ... Someone > summed it up nicely: "Luck
>> favours the prepared mind." I don't know > who said it, but it
>> does have a Feynmanesque flavour to it.
>>
>> Hamming attributes it to Pasteur.
AC> At his inaugural lecture, when he took up his post as
AC> professor of chemistry at Lille, in 1854, Pasteur said:
AC> In the fields of observation, chance favors only those who
AC> are prepared.
AC> Any-one know the original French? The translation in front of
AC> me has Pasteur saying that Lady Luck hands out her favours
AC> amongst a select few: those who have prepared. It is not that
AC> the prepared get more lucky breaks than the unprepared, the
AC> unprepared get no lucky breaks at all! Such a sentiment is in
AC> keeping with Pasteur's intense approach to research.
It's also a riff on 'fortuna audentes juvat' -- 'Fortune favors the
bold' -- which I thought was from the _Metamorphoses_ but which Google
informs me is from the _Aeneid_, X.284 and X.458. So much for a
classical education; I have been replaced by a massively parallel
device....
Charlton
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
> It's also a riff on 'fortuna audentes juvat' -- 'Fortune favors the
> bold' -- which I thought was from the _Metamorphoses_ but which Google
> informs me is from the _Aeneid_, X.284 and X.458. So much for a
> classical education; I have been replaced by a massively parallel
> device....
You *are* a massively parallel device.
--
Gareth McCaughan ················@pobox.com
.sig under construc
In the last exciting episode, Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> wrote::
> Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>> It's also a riff on 'fortuna audentes juvat' -- 'Fortune favors
>> the bold' -- which I thought was from the _Metamorphoses_ but
>> which Google informs me is from the _Aeneid_, X.284 and X.458. So
>> much for a classical education; I have been replaced by a
>> massively parallel device....
>
> You *are* a massively parallel device.
I'm sure there's a way of interpreting that as being a really obtuse
insult :-).
--
(concatenate 'string "chris" ·@cbbrowne.com")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/oses.html
UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we
tried to cheat them out of and didn't manage. See also DISHONESTY,
SNEAKY, UNDERHAND and JUST LUCKY I GUESS.
-- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Christopher Browne wrote:
> In the last exciting episode, Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> wrote::
> > Charlton Wilbur wrote:
> >> It's also a riff on 'fortuna audentes juvat' -- 'Fortune favors
> >> the bold' -- which I thought was from the _Metamorphoses_ but
> >> which Google informs me is from the _Aeneid_, X.284 and X.458. So
> >> much for a classical education; I have been replaced by a
> >> massively parallel device....
> >
> > You *are* a massively parallel device.
>
> I'm sure there's a way of interpreting that as being a really obtuse
> insult :-).
I'm sure there is. Lest there be any doubt: It wasn't
intended that way. :-)
--
Gareth McCaughan ················@pobox.com
.sig under construc
Robert St. Amant <·······@haeckel.csc.ncsu.edu> wrote:
+---------------
| This reminds me of an anecdote I ran across in Simon Blackburn's book,
| _Think_: In talking with a concert pianist, a fan says, "You are so
| lucky to have so much talent!" The pianist responds, "And the more I
| practice, the luckier I get." The same probably applies to Feynman,
| who seemed to work hard at a lot of things.
+---------------
I can't seem to find (or even Google) the reference, but someone once
talked about three ways people look at "luck" -- blind, energetic, and
practiced -- describing the differences this way:
Blind: "You know, it's *possible* that an airplane might fly over
my house and just at that moment a cargo door might pop open
and a suitcase full of money might fall out and fall through my
roof into my living room, so I'll just sit here and wait for it."
Energetic:
"You know, I lost a dollar the other day -- probably fell out of
my pants as I was making change, and it's likely that other people
have lost money, too, so if I spend all day walking up & down the
sidewalks looking in the gutters & corners & doorways, all over
town, I'll bet I can find some of that money."
Practiced:
A famous golfer [insert favorite name] was playing with a friend
when he got stuck in a sand trap just short of the hole. Taking
out his 9-iron, he looked very carefully at the lie & the hole &
the wind, and effortlessly wedged the ball up and out onto the
green, where it rolled for a bit before neatly dropping into
the cup. His friend turned to the famous one's caddy and said,
"Wow! What a lucky shot!" The caddy replied, "Yeah, it was.
And it didn't hurt that he practiced it about a hundred times
yesterday, either."
-Rob
p.s. I'm also reminded of the following definition from the
"HipCrime Vocab" by Chad C. Mulligan (a character in John Brunner's
novel "Stand On Zanzibar"):
Coincidence: What happens when you weren't watching
the other half of what was going on.
-----
Rob Warnock, PP-ASEL-IA <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://www.rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
* Tim Bradshaw
| I assume that he meant that he considered himself lucky to have worked in
| environments where he could behave like that and not have to deal with
| spurious politeness issues.
But this seems to imply that it is "luck" if you become competent at what
you do, as all my experience with competent people, from carpenters to
neurosurgeons have been a straight-forward language and no pretense about
whether they know something or not -- they know they know what they know.
(People who do not have a clue tend to mumble about beliefs and opinions.)
| One impression I got from his books is that he perhaps did not regard
| himself as terribly clever - even though he obviously was *terribly*
| clever - so he may have considered himself lucky to have been in the
| right place at the right time to do the work that got him the jobs that
| ... Or alternatively that he was lucky to have been born as clever as he
| was.
Such is perhaps luck, but if you want to be good at what you do, and you
are willing to change fields in order to be good at what you do if you
could not be good enough at it in your first and randomly chosen field
that it made your self-esteem, you will probably get into such a position.
| Interestingly, long before I discovered cll (or in fact Lisp) I had come
| to the conclusion that this kind of non-sugar-coated behaviour is very
| much a characteristic of hard scientists (not scientists with very short
| haircuts and tattoos, but scientists who work in the hard sciences).
It has been my experience that it is strongly related to competence, but
competence is related to some method of measurement of your success at
what you try to do. If you work in a field where you cannot distinguish
between good or bad, where everything is someone's "personal opinion" and
nobody has any right answers, that just /has/ to be destructive for your
self-confidence. Incompetents and other approximators probably think it
is good for them to work in fields where they can hide their incompetence
in the statistical noise and rebel against those who want to measure the
effectiveness of their work.
| When I was studying physics, and in my holiday jobs doing electronics,
| one of the delights was being able to simply say or be told `no, that's
| wrong, because ...' and to work in an environment where this was not
| treated as some personal insult, but as a statement. This kind of
| emotional detachment from an argument is a really wonderful thing.
I do not think of it as emotional detachment. I think of it as emotions
attached to actually accomplishing your goals. You want to make things
work, and that makes you feel well about things that help you reach that
goal, and less well about things that detract you from your goals.
Ever noticed how many of those nutjobs who go after me turn out to be
dabblers and hobbyists who do not actually want to be good at programming
in Common Lisp and therefore do not appreciate accurate information and
quality advice relevant to that task? Ever noticed how many of those who
clamor about etiquette do not actually program in Common Lisp?
One of the feel-good guys even says it should be /fun/ here, but I think
it is fun to be good at things, I think it is fun and /entertaining/ and
rewarding to /understand/ complex things. I find my enjoyment in working
hard on something for months and then I feel good about grasping things,
they were fun to grasp for its own sake. Like many people revel in their
ability to accomplish physically hard tasks and enjoy their strength,
some people actually find enjoyment in managing complex intellectual
tasks. Since we are talking about Richard Feynman, I bought a book for
its title alone: �The Pleasure of Finding Things Out�. (DDC 500; ISBN
0-7382-0108-1; LCCN 99064775)
| I should have stayed in physics depts, I guess...
I think it is sufficient to work with competent people, and that starts
with people who actually care about the work they do. If you do not care
about the work you do, you would obviously care more about something
else, such as feeling good /despite/ not caring about the work you do.
Really /caring/ about one's work is so foreign to some people that they
become extremely defensive when one even /suggests/ that they should,
directly or by implication, such as by asking for the expected results.
I wonder how these feel-good guys react when they need the services of
bankers, waiters, grocery store attendants, librarians, accountants,
dentists, doctors, insurance agents, landlords, real estate agents, etc,
but instead of doing their job like professionals and performing the
services you expect from them, tell you about they /feel/ when you ask
them politely to please get on with it. Do they care when somebody does
not do their job, whether they had a fight with their spouse that morning
over who should leave work early to go to the pediatrician? Do they care
if the auto mechanic that promised their car that afternoon could not
complete the job because his dog was run over? Do they care if their
stock broker fails to sell or buy when instructed to and they lose money
because he was on the phone with his wife who threatened to leave him?
Do they care about the plight of the roofer who was supposed to come fix
their leaking roof but never showed even though it was the only day of
the week you could be home to wait for him, because he did not feel like
roofing that day? Do they happily go hungry back to work when they spend
their entire lunch hour waiting for the waiter to bring them their food
and get no better explanation than that the chef did not like their suits?
Do they return late from lunch and tell the people that had called them
while they were gone to go stuff it because they were hungry? Or to take
an example I jotted down from �The Shipping News�: "We see the postman
has landed in the clink for throwing the mail in Killick-Claw harbor. He
said he had too much to deliver, and folks could just take a dip and help
themselves. I guess it helps if you can swim." Please note the "landed
in the clink" part. For some reason, that was an appropriate use of
force against someone who did not do their job for "personal reasons".
My impression is that the feel-good guys are incompetent and stupid and
need others to be nice to them because if other people were fair and just
to them, they would suffer tremendously, and therefore defend other
incompetent and stupid people because they can identify with the sloppy
bastards, but not with those who actually do their job well and have that
as their primary motive and their reason both for asking questions and
providing answers to problems from others who also want to do their job
well and who find their enjoyment in their capacity to do just that.
--
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:
> One of the feel-good guys even says it should be /fun/ here, but I think
> it is fun to be good at things, I think it is fun and /entertaining/ and
> rewarding to /understand/ complex things. I find my enjoyment in working
> hard on something for months and then I feel good about grasping things,
> they were fun to grasp for its own sake.
I totally agree with you in this respect. That's _exactly_ the kind of
fun I am looking for.
Pascal
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
EN> But this seems to imply that it is "luck" if you become
EN> competent at what you do, as all my experience with competent
EN> people, from carpenters to neurosurgeons have been a
EN> straight-forward language and no pretense about whether they
EN> know something or not -- they know they know what they know.
EN> (People who do not have a clue tend to mumble about beliefs
EN> and opinions.)
I think the "luck" is in finding a group of competent people, and an
environment in which competence is valued over self-esteem, without
having to invest as much energy as one would in creating such an
environment from scratch.
For instance, my first love is music theory. Standards of proof are
not the same in the humanities as they are in business or in the hard
sciences; in short, in the face of inadequate evidence, frequently you
need to create a model that works, while others create different,
incompatible models, which nevertheless describe the observed
behavior. This results in a great deal of what you refer to as
"incompetents and other approximators"; this is also compounded by the
fact that there are cases where two contradictory theories may explain
the same set of observations, and so the difference between "That
theory is wrong" and "That theory assumes X, while I prefer theories
that assume Y because Z" can be obscure at first.
I would consider myself "lucky" to find a group of competent,
intellectually rigorous fellow music theorists. To be sure, I could
*assemble* such a thing, in which case the outcome would be that of
hard work rather than luck; but finding such a group already assembled
would save me effort and thus be considered lucky.
EN> I do not think of it as emotional detachment. I think of it
EN> as emotions attached to actually accomplishing your goals.
EN> You want to make things work, and that makes you feel well
EN> about things that help you reach that goal, and less well
EN> about things that detract you from your goals.
EN> Ever noticed how many of those nutjobs who go after me turn
EN> out to be dabblers and hobbyists who do not actually want to
EN> be good at programming in Common Lisp and therefore do not
EN> appreciate accurate information and quality advice relevant to
EN> that task? Ever noticed how many of those who clamor about
EN> etiquette do not actually program in Common Lisp?
I'd concur with this, though I am one of those dabblers and hobbyists.
(My day job pays me to write Perl and be a system administrator, and
the effort it would require me to find a LISP-friendly job is not
worth the additional reward.) Feel-good attitudes are short-term;
difficult work that accomplishes something is long-term. It does take
a certain amount of tenacity and foresight to embark on a difficult
project, however.
Charlton
* Charlton Wilbur
| I think the "luck" is in finding a group of competent people, and an
| environment in which competence is valued over self-esteem, without
| having to invest as much energy as one would in creating such an
| environment from scratch.
Huh? Value competence over self-esteem? The whole point is that
competence produces self-esteem. Your core belief that you can become
competent is what makes professional criticism /useful/ to you. If you
did not believe you could become competent, it would be hurtful to be
criticized. This actually has serious research to back it up. In the
book �Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid�, the various articles discuss
how self-esteem and intelligence are related. In some people, their
belief in their high intelligence can be disproven by their mistakes or
their failure to understand something, so they are mortally afraid of
making mistakes, and never utilize their potential. In some people,
their belief in their high intelligence is confirmed when they correct a
mistake or understand something they previously did not. I have no idea
how these core personal beliefs are shaped, but I have noticed something
quite important about people: Those who believe they are smarter than
they actually are, tend to feel their beliefs can be disproven, and those
who are are smater than they think they are, tend to find confirmation in
grasping complex issues and in making the same mistakes only once.
As far as I have been able to judge my colleagues over the past 20 or so
of having dealt with various people in position where I could judge
competency, those who became the most competent were those who were
somewhat surprised by what they could do. There has to be a reward at
the culmination of every struggle and there has to be a struggle to feel
worth the reward. If you start out thinking "of course I can do this!",
there is no reward when you do, only loss if you do not. People who
approach difficult tasks with "let's see what we can find out about this"
have room for that surprise. In the book �Moment of Proof�,� the author
does a truly excellent job of presenting the reader with the sheer joy of
discovering mathematical solutions. This is valueable to a reader only
if he has an intact sense of wonder. Remember that feeling that kept you
reading science fiction stories, even badly written ones? That feeling
that made you go "I wonder what this does" when you came across new and
unknown things? Have you ever wondered why you laugh out loud when you
finally find a solution to a hard problem? John Allen Paulos has an
answer to that question, including the mathematics of building up for a
good punch line.�
| I would consider myself "lucky" to find a group of competent,
| intellectually rigorous fellow music theorists. To be sure, I could
| *assemble* such a thing, in which case the outcome would be that of hard
| work rather than luck; but finding such a group already assembled would
| save me effort and thus be considered lucky.
This I can easily accept.
| Feel-good attitudes are short-term; difficult work that accomplishes
| something is long-term. It does take a certain amount of tenacity and
| foresight to embark on a difficult project, however.
Good point. I am one of those people who are hard to console with
frivolous entertainment when long-term goals are threatened, and who is
even harder to break when long-term goals are being achieved. I also
note that my main argument that my "style" works is that I can refer to
people who actually come back to me and say it works years down he line,
while those who argue it does not, only look at the immediate effect.
Then again, I have had the same .project file since 1987. "Immortality
in our lifetime." It is the only really worthy life-long project.
-------
� DDC 511.3; ISBN 0-19-511721-2; LCCN 97052139
Donald C. Benson
The Moment of Proof: Mathematical Epiphanes
� DDC 808.7; ISBN 0-226-65025-1; LCCN 80012742
John Allen Paulos
Mathematics and Humor
--
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.
>>>>> "EN" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
me> I think the "luck" is in finding a group of competent people,
me> and an environment in which competence is valued over
me> self-esteem, without having to invest as much energy as one
me> would in creating such an environment from scratch.
EN> Huh? Value competence over self-esteem? The whole point is
EN> that competence produces self-esteem.
I think we're in violent agreement here, perhaps aided by an
infelicitous phrasing on my part.
There's short-term self-esteem and long-term self-esteem. Finding out
or realizing that I did something poorly is painful for my short-term
self-esteem; learning how to do it better is highly beneficial to my
long-term self-esteem. Obviously the appropriate thing to do is to
maximize long-term self-esteem, but one's short-term self-esteem
suffers for that.
I think there may be a better phrasing than short-term versus
long-term self-esteem, but I can't think of it. No doubt someone will
post it, and it will be obvious in retrospect.
EN> There has to be a reward at the culmination of every struggle
EN> and there has to be a struggle to feel worth the reward. If
EN> you start out thinking "of course I can do this!", there is no
EN> reward when you do, only loss if you do not. People who
EN> approach difficult tasks with "let's see what we can find out
EN> about this" have room for that surprise.
There also needs to be some sort of meaningful struggle in the first
place. The jobs I do worst at are the ones where the struggle is
entirely political, or where the technical matters are problems I've
already solved, or where I'm the sole person who is working at a
particular level.
Also, the end result needs to be something I care about, or the
technical issues involved need to be interesting, or there's little
reward in it for me. Money is a tremendously poor motivator for me.
me> Feel-good attitudes are short-term; difficult work that
me> accomplishes something is long-term. It does take a certain
me> amount of tenacity and foresight to embark on a difficult
me> project, however.
EN> Good point. I am one of those people who are hard to console
EN> with frivolous entertainment when long-term goals are
EN> threatened, and who is even harder to break when long-term
EN> goals are being achieved. I also note that my main argument
EN> that my "style" works is that I can refer to people who
EN> actually come back to me and say it works years down he line,
EN> while those who argue it does not, only look at the immediate
EN> effect.
I'm exactly the opposite; I need to remind myself constantly of the
long-term goals, because it is *easier* to take comfort in frivolous
entertainment than to work towards a long-distant goal. If I don't
pay attention, I go for small immediate gratification over long-term
reward every time.
Charlton
* Charlton Wilbur <·······@mithril.chromatico.net>
| I think there may be a better phrasing than short-term versus long-term
| self-esteem, but I can't think of it. No doubt someone will post it, and
| it will be obvious in retrospect.
Perhaps pleasure/pain in the short term and happiness/unhappiness in the
long term. These seem to cover what I think you mean. Self-esteem being
a result of either, in different capacities. It may feel good to win a
battle, but if you see that you will lose the war, it may or may not help.
| The jobs I do worst at are the ones where the struggle is entirely
| political, or where the technical matters are problems I've already
| solved, or where I'm the sole person who is working at a particular
| level.
I have come to believe that politics is usually conducted by stupid and
incompetent people and therefore do not attract smart and competent
people, but if you are a smart and competent person who wants to get
something done, it is a actually game worth knowing well, and you can get
a lot more done with lots of people backing you than you can alone. If
you do not do well in a job where you are the only person at a particular
level, the solution seems to work to get more people up to your level.
(This is partly my motivation for using Usenet, and it works both ways.)
| Also, the end result needs to be something I care about, or the technical
| issues involved need to be interesting, or there's little reward in it
| for me. Money is a tremendously poor motivator for me.
Money seems to be a good motivator only up to a certain level. However,
the news story written by Alfie Kohn and run by Boston Globe 1987-01-19
gives an important perspective. (In Emacs, hit <help> N to get the NEWS
file, then C-x C-f MOTIVATION to get this article. If you do not use
Emacs, your very best option is to start using it now, the second best to
visit <http://naggum.net/motivation.html>.
| If I don't pay attention, I go for small immediate gratification over
| long-term reward every time.
But at least you are aware of it and presumably pay attention when it
matters, which makes it a choice. My cat has a funny way of getting
between immediate gratification and long-term goals. For some reason,
she insists that if the only thing in my line of sight is a newspaper or
a book or even a print-out, that should be rectified immediately with a
purring furball. Her long-term goal is contant immediate gratification,
or so it seems.
--
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:
> * Vassil Nikolov [ quoting Richard Feynman ]
> | I've always lived that way. It's nice, it's pleasant---if you
> | can do it. I'm lucky in my life that I can do this.
>
> I have read all of Feynman's books and those about him, and find that his
> person is quite interesting in addition to his work. I still wonder what
> the "lucky" part refers to.
Being in a position on the social ladder where there were no serious
negative repercussions for his words and actions. [Whether or not you
think there _ought_ to be such negative repercussions is besides the
point; the fact is that he got away with much of what he did because
he was a Nobel prize winner and known eccentric; thus Caltech knew what
it was getting in the package when they hired him.]
Feynman believed something quite akin to what you have been describing; that
his choice of professional career was more important than personal relationships;
he was certainly known to tell dull (by his standards) grad students to f*ck off
and get out of his life, since it was clear that they would never contribute
usefully to physics. Didn't make him popular with some, but endeared him to
many others.
On 06 Oct 2002 01:00:41 -0400, Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> wrote:
> Another great mind who had an encounter with Bohr early in his
> career was Richard Feynman. I read about it in `Los Alamos from
> Below' as published in _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman_ (the
> story occurs about 4-5 pages from the end of that chapter). I will
> quote here just the two final paragraphs of that story (the whole
> chapter, not just that episode, is worth reading; did you know that
The whole book, not just that chapter, is worth reading :)
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Erik Naggum wrote:
>
>> However, it is more correct that I do not think being liked and
>> accepted
>> should take predence to technical matters /in a technical forum/. It
>> would be inconceivable for me to say "I like you as a person, but you
>> post misinformation about Common Lisp in comp.lang.lisp". I think that
>> would be about as likely as a stock broker saying "I like you as a
>> person,
>> but you give your customers really bad stock advice", or a priest
>> saying
>> to another "I really like you as a person, but could you please cut
>> down
>> on murdering abortion doctors?"
>
>
> In fact there is considerable evidence that this way of criticizing
> people is much more effective. <snip>... this always turned out to be _far_ more
> effective than for example the "standard" conference experience where
> people usually just criticize in a blunt negative way.
>
> I myself was very surprised when I first made this experience, because
> it seems illogical at first that these things matter so much in a
> superficially purely technical context. But they do.
What measure do you have on effectiveness?
Not that I disagree. My tai chi teacher would always begin a (highly
technical) form correction by saying "what you do is good" or "i used to
do it that way" or "not bad". even when i knew he was just being nice it
still worked: it made me feel better about (and more receptive to) the
criticism I was about to receive.
kenny
clinisys
Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>
>> Erik Naggum wrote:
>>
>>> However, it is more correct that I do not think being liked and
>>> accepted
>>> should take predence to technical matters /in a technical forum/. It
>>> would be inconceivable for me to say "I like you as a person, but you
>>> post misinformation about Common Lisp in comp.lang.lisp". I think that
>>> would be about as likely as a stock broker saying "I like you as a
>>> person,
>>> but you give your customers really bad stock advice", or a priest
>>> saying
>>> to another "I really like you as a person, but could you please cut
>>> down
>>> on murdering abortion doctors?"
>>
>> In fact there is considerable evidence that this way of criticizing
>> people is much more effective. <snip>... this always turned out to be
>> _far_ more
>> effective than for example the "standard" conference experience where
>> people usually just criticize in a blunt negative way.
>
> What measure do you have on effectiveness?
I don't understand this question. Why do you need a measure?
Pascal
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>>
>>> Erik Naggum wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, it is more correct that I do not think being liked and
>>>> accepted
>>>> should take predence to technical matters /in a technical forum/. It
>>>> would be inconceivable for me to say "I like you as a person, but you
>>>> post misinformation about Common Lisp in comp.lang.lisp". I think
>>>> that
>>>> would be about as likely as a stock broker saying "I like you as a
>>>> person,
>>>> but you give your customers really bad stock advice", or a priest
>>>> saying
>>>> to another "I really like you as a person, but could you please
>>>> cut down
>>>> on murdering abortion doctors?"
>>>
>>>
>>> In fact there is considerable evidence that this way of criticizing
>>> people is much more effective. <snip>... this always turned out to be
>>> _far_ more
>>> effective than for example the "standard" conference experience where
>>> people usually just criticize in a blunt negative way.
>>
>>
>> What measure do you have on effectiveness?
>
>
> I don't understand this question. Why do you need a measure?
>
Sorry for the argumentative phrasing. I was actually wondering what
observables (there I go again) supported the assertion that kindler
gentler (my words) criticism was more effective.
Mind you, I agree! In the example I gave, the teacher's approach made
the student feel better about being criticized (and so continue with
their training) and also be less defensive (hence more open to the ideas
presented).
So I was just wondering what positive changes were observed. Was it much
the same? Speakers more receptive to criticism in that, instead of
arguing defensively, they calmly answered or assented to criticism?
kenny
clinisys
Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>>> What measure do you have on effectiveness?
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't understand this question. Why do you need a measure?
>
> Sorry for the argumentative phrasing. I was actually wondering what
> observables (there I go again) supported the assertion that kindler
> gentler (my words) criticism was more effective.
>
> Mind you, I agree! In the example I gave, the teacher's approach made
> the student feel better about being criticized (and so continue with
> their training) and also be less defensive (hence more open to the ideas
> presented).
>
> So I was just wondering what positive changes were observed. Was it much
> the same? Speakers more receptive to criticism in that, instead of
> arguing defensively, they calmly answered or assented to criticism?
Yes, something along these lines. It's not something you can measure
quantitatively, I think. I have just made the experience that I was more
open to criticism, others were more open to my criticism, and many
people told me about similar experiences.
Thanks for your clarification.
Pascal
* Pascal Costanza
| I don't understand this question. Why do you need a measure?
Because even though people may feel better and rate something very
effective, a person who feels less well and rates it ineffective may in
fact have done better according to more objective measures. This is
actually fairly obvious if you think about it. People who feel well tend
to make positive judgments and people who do not feel well tend to make
negative judgments about the same facts. Look at some of the people in
this newsgroup, for instance. Some people see mostly my contributions
and ignore the noise of the idiotic flame wars. Others see only the
idiotic flame wars and ignore the noise of my other contributions. Which
is correct? If I am responding technically and to the point but use a
"cold" language, some people only feel the "cold" and go bananas without
even seeing the technical contents. (I think it is important to sort
these people out.)
People who feel stronger than they can handle intellectually actually
tend to give wildly inaccurate, even erroneous, data about /everything/
they feel about. Please note that how much emotion we can handle and
still keep thinking straight varies dramatically from person to person.
However, people who need to feel good in order to accomplish anything at
all have a very low threshold above which thinking clearly is not an
option. Data from these people would be completely useless without an
external measure of the qualities they comment on.
Take this "Oleg" character, for instance, who has a very firm image of
what and who I am, and who seeks confirmation of this firm image and who
rejects counter-evidence by laughing hard and claiming I am a fraud. How
did he arrive at his prejudicial view of another person? Clearly, he is
unable to deal intellectually with the emotional responses he has had and
has to rationalize an image of another person that fits his emotions.
This unintelligent process of vilification is found in the other cretins,
too, and there is solid evidence that they do not respond to what I do,
they respond to anything that they feel confirms their image of me and
then they have to speak out. Thus, their own negative prejudice causes
them to act in such a way as to confirm it. This is the same with all
forms of such amazingly unintelligent prejudice and is most visible in
racism, which is a recognized social ill. Expression of racial hatred is
illegal because it would disturb the peace and cause social unrest. The
same property applies to the retarded prejudice of Ray Blaak, Erann Gat,
and Raffael Cavallero, who definitely disturb the peace and cause social
unrest by posting their hate-filled prejudice. They even think they are
civil, and think it is non-inflammatory to describe people "objectively"
in severely derogatory terms. What would happen to these people if they
had used exactly the same language about blacks? Would they survive?
Would anyone for a second doubt that they were engaged in hate crimes?
The task of becoming able to function under the influence of emotions
rests heavily upon all of us. All but a small percentage of the adult
population can handle it and are fully able to function and reason well
whether they feel excellent, good, bad, or terrible. People lose their
parents, their jobs, their homes, and still function, often well. People
pull themselves together and act professionally in the face of the direst
of straits. However, some people cease to function normally when they
are offended and immediately lose track of reasonable means to measure
what they like or dislike. People of this fickle mental stability are
untrustworthy when reporting even simple facts, as they have already
blown some largely irrelevant issues completely out of proportion.
One way to describe mental illness is to regard out intellectual ability
to deal with the flow of emotions and see that people function well and
make correct decisions and produce predictable results when the flow of
emotions is under a certain threshold, and lose it when it reachs that
threshold, at which time their emotions produce more input to their
decision-making than every other source of input. At this point, they
start to see things that do not exist but which /should/ have existed if
the flow of emotions were an accurate signal. This form of psychosis may
be experienced by absolutely everyone under sufficient stress, but I have
not found any evidence of it occuring from outside stress alone. The
"internal" stress produced by anger, moral indignation, reactions to
unfairness and mistreatment, where the main emotional reaction is one of
a serious conflict with what they expect and actually experience which
in most people produce a massive desire to make the world understandable
according to their pre-existing precept, but in some people, or under
some conditions, cause them to become acutely aware of their surroundings
with exceptional clarity. You /really/ want this latter type in crises.
But back to your question: The reason you need measures is mainly to
adjust and monitor your ability to function and reason well under the
influence of emotions. If you lack an accuate method of measurement, you
/will/ believe that what makes you feel good is also the most efficacious
and what makes you feel bad the least, as the whole purpose of emotions
is to provide instantaneous feedback on the effectiveness of what you do,
but if you are in a situation for which you have not (been) trained and
the effectiveness of each of the vast array of possible choices of action
is unknown, you will primarily feel confused and uncertain and anything
that restores a sense of being in control will /feel/ efficacious, but
then the gravest danger is to assume that no other choice would have
produced the exact same result. People who fall into this trap are very
hard to teach other ways of doing things, because they fear the sense of
being out of control more than anything else. That is why they chose the
first action that sprang to mind and which made them feel good. If these
people are corrected, they are implicitly forced to return to a state of
bewildered indecision and lack of efficacy with respect to their choice
of action. For some people, this state produces an acute interest in
finding things out, but for most people it is painful and they want to
get out of it as soon as possible. I tend to assume that people will
want to find out what went wrong when they revert to this state, and have
an interest in debugging themselves when it happens. This does not mean
that what you find out will necessarily help solve the problem -- people
are something simply broken and evil or both, but most things in physical
reality are predictable enough that this can be a rewarding state of mind
-- given sufficiently good methods of measurement of effectiveness.
--
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
> | I don't understand this question. Why do you need a measure?
>
> Because even though people may feel better and rate something very
> effective, a person who feels less well and rates it ineffective may in
> fact have done better according to more objective measures. This is
> actually fairly obvious if you think about it.
No, I don't think it's obvious. Actually I have a hard time to follow
your line of reasoning. Obviously, we both have a very different
background of experiences - I think it's interesting to sort these
differences out. At least I have the feeling that I would learn
something from this discussion.
> If I am responding technically and to the point but use a
> "cold" language, some people only feel the "cold" and go bananas without
> even seeing the technical contents.
I don't get this. Do you _intentionally_ use a "cold" language? What
would be the price to pay for using a "warmer" language? (Until now my
impression was that you just "happen" to use a "cold" language. Please
correct me if I am wrong in this regard.)
> Please note that how much emotion we can handle and
> still keep thinking straight varies dramatically from person to person.
My conclusion would be to take this into account and acknowledge
people's feelings upfront. I don't want to suggest to lower the level to
the lowest common denominator, but something in between is, in my
opinion, quite reasonable. Again, I think this can be accomplished by
some simple rhetoric tricks, so it actually wouldn't take too much
effort. (And I am not specifically suggesting this to you, but also to
everyone else, of course.)
> The task of becoming able to function under the influence of emotions
> rests heavily upon all of us. All but a small percentage of the adult
> population can handle it and are fully able to function and reason well
> whether they feel excellent, good, bad, or terrible. People lose their
> parents, their jobs, their homes, and still function, often well. People
> pull themselves together and act professionally in the face of the direst
> of straits.
I am aware of the fact that people are able to make considerable
personal improvements when faced with loss or other traumatic
experiences. However, I think that these situations are exceptional
cases, and should be. Do you suggest to intentionally create stressful
situations in order to "help" people improve their personality? I think
this is a weird strategy.
> If these
> people are corrected, they are implicitly forced to return to a state of
> bewildered indecision and lack of efficacy with respect to their choice
> of action. For some people, this state produces an acute interest in
> finding things out, but for most people it is painful and they want to
> get out of it as soon as possible. I tend to assume that people will
> want to find out what went wrong when they revert to this state, and have
> an interest in debugging themselves when it happens.
This section seems to support the notion that you suggest to
intentionally create stressful situations for people that need to learn
something. Do I understand you correctly?
> -- given sufficiently good methods of measurement of effectiveness.
Back to my question on measures: I don't think you need a measure.
Qualitative assessments are sufficient, in my opinion.
For example, see the "Positive Feedback First" pattern from the
"Feedback Patterns" paper by Joe Bergin, at
http://csis.pace.edu/~bergin/patterns/FeedbackPatterns.html.
Here are some highlights:
>>>
'If you are negative with your students they may tune you out and not
listen. If they are especially sensitive they may be hurt. If they are
especially arrogant they may take your comments as an attack and attack
back.'
'Therefore, when you give feedback, start and end with positive
feedback. Suggestions for improvement are sandwiched between these
reinforcing comments.
Even if you have largely negative things to say, you can still start
with the things that were well done and should be retained in the future.
Even in the less positive aspects of your feedback you can take a tone
that you are giving suggestions for improvement, not just condemning.
You can say �This might be made better if you think about �,� rather
than �This is bad.� You can also say you don�t understand something,
or something in a presentation doesn�t �work� for you.'
'The patterns community IS a community largely because we use this
technique uniformly in analyzing each other�s work and giving feedback
on it. It is a very powerful community builder.'
<<<
Although Joe Bergin puts this pattern in the context of teaching and
learning between university educators and students, I think it can also
be applied in the context of a newsgroup. (It _is_ in fact also applied
in the Writers' Workshop format.) When you see someone making wrong
claims and want to correct him/her, you are taking on the role of a
teacher - therefore, the pattern can be applied in such a situation.
The "Positive Feedback First" technique has not been invented in the
Patterns community, so I am pretty sure that one can find some
statistical "hard" data that show the effectiveness of this technique.
If you insist, I am willing to do a little research to find some...
Pascal
* Erik Naggum
| Because even though people may feel better and rate something very
| effective, a person who feels less well and rates it ineffective may in
| fact have done better according to more objective measures. This is
| actually fairly obvious if you think about it.
* Pascal Costanza
| No, I don't think it's obvious. Actually I have a hard time to follow
| your line of reasoning.
Perhaps things will improve if you /think/ about it. This really is so
obvious that researchers who want to get useful data from people have to
get rid of how good they feel about the topic. I guess you may have
heard of the placebo effect. "Placebo" actually means "I shall please".
| Obviously, we both have a very different background of experiences - I
| think it's interesting to sort these differences out. At least I have
| the feeling that I would learn something from this discussion.
And I have the exasperated feeling of telling a stubborn and not very
bright child that not everyone is just like himself.
* Erik Naggum
| If I am responding technically and to the point but use a
| "cold" language, some people only feel the "cold" and go bananas without
| even seeing the technical contents.
* Pascal Costanza
| I don't get this. Do you _intentionally_ use a "cold" language?
Yes. It is called technical writing, objective communication, impersonal
reporting, etc. Most publishers want their writers to engage in as few
personal and emotional issues as possible, because their readers should
be able to read the material /without/ having to empathize with the
author and his plight. Unlike you, some people actually write about more
than they personally "think and feel". I should have learned a lesson.
People who think that everything is a personal opinion are nuts.
| What would be the price to pay for using a "warmer" language?
That would be condescending to the adult readers.
* Erik Naggum
| Please note that how much emotion we can handle and still keep thinking
| straight varies dramatically from person to person.
* Pascal Costanza
| My conclusion would be to take this into account and acknowledge people's
| feelings upfront.
Look, is this so fantastically hard to grasp? I use an emotion-free and
impersonal language when I answer people on technical counts because I do
not want them to "share my feelings", but actually find needful things to
learn in what I write. When people do not want to learn, but feel good,
and attack me because there were no emotions their simple minds could
attach to, yes, I do get quite hostile towards such touchy-feely people.
And they have intentionally wanted to hurt my feelings for not having
/pleased/ them. Please try to understand this.
| Again, I think this can be accomplished by some simple rhetoric tricks,
| so it actually wouldn't take too much effort. (And I am not specifically
| suggesting this to you, but also to everyone else, of course.)
It would only make people appear, and often be, condescending because
they would feel, and rightly so, that their readers would not be able to
deal with reality unfiltered. As Vassil Nikolov said, "sugar-coating".
This is just plain /wrong/ in a technical forum, but perfectly reasonable
in a support group. I really suggest people go create alt.support.lisp
if they want a newsgroup for this kind of bullshit.
* Erik Naggum
| The task of becoming able to function under the influence of emotions
| rests heavily upon all of us. All but a small percentage of the adult
| population can handle it and are fully able to function and reason well
| whether they feel excellent, good, bad, or terrible. People lose their
| parents, their jobs, their homes, and still function, often well. People
| pull themselves together and act professionally in the face of the direst
| of straits.
* Pascal Costanza
| I am aware of the fact that people are able to make considerable personal
| improvements when faced with loss or other traumatic experiences.
| However, I think that these situations are exceptional cases, and should
| be. Do you suggest to intentionally create stressful situations in order
| to "help" people improve their personality? I think this is a weird
| strategy.
Fuck you.
| This section seems to support the notion that you suggest to
| intentionally create stressful situations for people that need to learn
| something. Do I understand you correctly?
I am glad that we have now seen that there is something seriously wrong
with you. The becoming calmer from not watching TV thing should have
told me not to respond any further to you.
| Back to my question on measures: I don't think you need a
| measure. Qualitative assessments are sufficient, in my opinion.
Of course you think so. You would be proven wrong if you went about what
you suggest scientifically to actually collect useful information about 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.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Perhaps things will improve if you /think/ about it. This really is so
> obvious that researchers who want to get useful data from people have to
> get rid of how good they feel about the topic. I guess you may have
> heard of the placebo effect. "Placebo" actually means "I shall please".
This analogy works for me. Thanks.
> | Obviously, we both have a very different background of experiences - I
> | think it's interesting to sort these differences out. At least I have
> | the feeling that I would learn something from this discussion.
>
> And I have the exasperated feeling of telling a stubborn and not very
> bright child that not everyone is just like himself.
You don't have to tell me, I know that.
> Unlike you, some people actually write about more
> than they personally "think and feel". I should have learned a lesson.
> People who think that everything is a personal opinion are nuts.
I didn't say that everything is a personal opinion. I said that I take
it for granted that I can only talk about what I think and feel. That's
a totally different thing.
> | Again, I think this can be accomplished by some simple rhetoric tricks,
> | so it actually wouldn't take too much effort. (And I am not specifically
> | suggesting this to you, but also to everyone else, of course.)
>
> It would only make people appear, and often be, condescending because
> they would feel, and rightly so, that their readers would not be able to
> deal with reality unfiltered.
No, I have made the experience that this is not the case.
> * Erik Naggum
> | The task of becoming able to function under the influence of emotions
> | rests heavily upon all of us. All but a small percentage of the adult
> | population can handle it and are fully able to function and reason well
> | whether they feel excellent, good, bad, or terrible. People lose their
> | parents, their jobs, their homes, and still function, often well. People
> | pull themselves together and act professionally in the face of the direst
> | of straits.
>
> * Pascal Costanza
> | I am aware of the fact that people are able to make considerable personal
> | improvements when faced with loss or other traumatic experiences.
> | However, I think that these situations are exceptional cases, and should
> | be. Do you suggest to intentionally create stressful situations in order
> | to "help" people improve their personality? I think this is a weird
> | strategy.
>
> Fuck you.
What?!? What did I do to you that you try to insult me like this?
> | This section seems to support the notion that you suggest to
> | intentionally create stressful situations for people that need to learn
> | something. Do I understand you correctly?
>
> I am glad that we have now seen that there is something seriously wrong
> with you. The becoming calmer from not watching TV thing should have
> told me not to respond any further to you.
What?
> | Back to my question on measures: I don't think you need a
> | measure. Qualitative assessments are sufficient, in my opinion.
>
> Of course you think so. You would be proven wrong if you went about what
> you suggest scientifically to actually collect useful information about it.
I have provided some pointers - what else can I do? Maybe it's your turn
to provide some factual evidence...
Pascal
* Pascal Costanza
| What?!? What did I do to you that you try to insult me like this?
Do you really need to be explained? Jesus Christ, you are unbelievable!
--
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 06 Oct 2002 17:54:45 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
>* Pascal Costanza
>| What?!? What did I do to you that you try to insult me like this?
>
> Do you really need to be explained? Jesus Christ, you are unbelievable!
Erik, I would suggest you take a vacation. A long one. To
the south sea if you can afford it (or know where that is). Swim
there in the sea. If by chance you get eaten by sharks it will save
me the trouble of coming all the way to Oslo, Norway to give you a
/very/ hard spanking which you so richly deserve.
You must be thinking this is comp.lang.erik the way you act.
Don't let the few suck ups here make you feel that you are king.
However supremely intelligent & knowledgable you may be, it is no use
to humanity if you cause more destruction than construction. The suck
ups would rather eat dirt and exploit your knowledge than be honest to
you.
Your arrogance in front of public opinion is appalling.
The thickness of your skull (in non-technical matters) must be inches.
Your rudeness is tremendous.
You disrespect your own intelligence and knowledge by your unwise
rants.
Even with the above mentioned qualities, I really like you.
Really. So I have one advice for you. /Really/ hope you take it.
Don't end up the guy who everyone talks nice to because he is very
rich and they want a piece of his pile and then hate him behind his
back. Stop fucking burning your own blood for who you think are
fools. Stop fucking responding to who you think are assholes and
concentrate on what you are /excellent/ at. Lisp.
quasi
--
What?
* quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
| Erik, I would suggest you take a vacation. A long one.
I would suggest that you shut the fuck 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.
The world rejoiced as Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> * quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
> | Erik, I would suggest you take a vacation. A long one.
>
> I would suggest that you shut the fuck up.
Naughty, naughty; that's not in keeping with the "positive
reinforcement" methodology.
The "positive reinforcement" methodology would go something along the
following lines:
"I think that a vacation is an /excellent/ idea, and I thank you for
your kind suggestion.
The idea would be made even better, of course, if you were to send
your girlfriend to the appropriate South Sea island, along with a
$1000 gift certificate for <http://www.victoriassecret.com/>.
You are too kind, and I thank you in advance, and promise to send
lots of pictures..."
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@ntlug.org")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/oses.html
"If the future navigation system [for interactive networked services
on the NII] looks like something from Microsoft, it will never work."
-- Chairman of Walt Disney Television & Telecommunications
* Christopher Browne
| Naughty, naughty; that's not in keeping with the "positive reinforcement"
| methodology.
Actually, I think the whole "positive reinforcement methodology" is
really a manipulative name for a manipulative and dishonest methodology
that causes people to lose touch with reality and live in a cocoon of
good feelings when they really should wake the hell up and deal with it.
It appears that proponents for this "methodology" are pretty incompetent
at reading what people actually write, too, preferring to blather on with
their own agenda. Actually /listening/ is hard work. It is made harder
by mind games and multiple wrappers around the real meat, and it appears
that those who prefer nice wrapping paper are quite happy not to open the
packages.
| The "positive reinforcement" methodology would go something along the
| following lines:
While humorous, I find it much more disrespectful than a direct approach,
which at the very least retains the ability for the victim to respond.
The snotty arrogance that some people seem to prefer over directness has
as its primary result that the victim has no recourse. This is useful if
you have no intention of letting the other guy learn anything and no
intention of letting him recover from his mistake by actually improving.
One of my old signatures might be apropos.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Sufficiently advanced political correctness is indistinguishable from sarcasm.
Quoth Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no>:
> * Christopher Browne
> | Naughty, naughty; that's not in keeping with the "positive reinforcement"
> | methodology.
>
> Actually, I think the whole "positive reinforcement methodology"
> is really a manipulative name for a manipulative and dishonest
> methodology that causes people to lose touch with reality and live
> in a cocoon of good feelings when they really should wake the hell
> up and deal with it. It appears that proponents for this
> "methodology" are pretty incompetent at reading what people
> actually write, too, preferring to blather on with their own
> agenda. Actually /listening/ is hard work. It is made harder by
> mind games and multiple wrappers around the real meat, and it
> appears that those who prefer nice wrapping paper are quite happy
> not to open the packages.
>
> | The "positive reinforcement" methodology would go something along the
> | following lines:
>
> While humorous, I find it much more disrespectful than a direct approach,
> which at the very least retains the ability for the victim to respond.
> The snotty arrogance that some people seem to prefer over directness has
> as its primary result that the victim has no recourse. This is useful if
> you have no intention of letting the other guy learn anything and no
> intention of letting him recover from his mistake by actually improving.
I don't see the value in "retaining the ability for the victim to
respond." It only seems, in practice, to head in two directions,
where either:
a) The the individual that gets excreted upon decides to shut up, or
b) They get mad, and head into "monkeys, dung-flinging" mode. Which
leads to a big long stream of messages that are, well, the Usenet
equivalent to excrement, and which is what irritates everyone no
end about the sorts of threads that get entitled with your name.
Just about anything that encourages these sorts threads to end early
(that falls well short of "9mm in the head") seems a good idea.
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@acm.org")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/sap.html
"Support your local medical examiner - die strangely."
-- Blake Bowers
* Christopher Browne <········@acm.org>
| I don't see the value in "retaining the ability for the victim to
| respond."
Then your purpose is /only/ destructive. Sorry, I do not accept that.
| It only seems, in practice, to head in two directions, where either:
The smarter ones learn. This actually happens quite frequently. It
largely goes unnoticed because it is the normal, rational thing to do.
That does not mean the unnoticed is not more important than that which
stands out as irritating or annoying.
--
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 6 Oct 2002 20:22:57 GMT, Christopher Browne <········@acm.org>
wrote:
> "I think that a vacation is an /excellent/ idea, and I thank you for
> your kind suggestion.
>
> The idea would be made even better, of course, if you were to send
> your girlfriend to the appropriate South Sea island, along with a
> $1000 gift certificate for <http://www.victoriassecret.com/>.
You think this is a good response? Passing derogatory
comments about someone's family, yeah way to go dude. This is as good
as it can get at c.l.l, I suppose. I have posted /once/ in all this
mess. Apart from our vast differences (technical or otherwise) we are
both equivalent in the sense that we are both denizens of this virtual
community. I have been sitting in for well over a year. And it
speaks well that I have taken so much time before commenting on
someone.
My post to Erik, though strange, was accurate in its content.
Don't tell me that I don't have any right to comment, because I have -
at least in my country.
Eriks supreme technical excellence does /not/ give him
complete freedom of misbehavior. So please don't take it as if
someone is attacking /your/ friend Erik. I am not attacking anyone.
Just /requesting/ him to stop attacking people.
If he has personal wars against anyone, why make c.l.l the
battleground? It gives c.l.l a bad name.
At least have the guts to be honest. Bah. Inspite of his
thick skull, Erik is at least honest.
quasi
--
What?
* quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
| And it speaks well that I have taken so much time before commenting on
| someone.
No, it does not. The pus oozes from your wounded psyche.
| My post to Erik, though strange, was accurate in its content.
That you believe this is quite alarming.
| Don't tell me that I don't have any right to comment, because I have - at
| least in my country.
Oh, Christ. He has a "right" to comment. Lord, take me now!
| Eriks supreme technical excellence does /not/ give him complete freedom
| of misbehavior.
Actually, it is people like you who cause the "misbehavior".
| So please don't take it as if someone is attacking /your/ friend Erik.
Oh, Christ. He has a "right" to attack people. Lord, take me now!
| I am not attacking anyone. Just /requesting/ him to stop attacking
| people.
Riiiiight.
| If he has personal wars against anyone, why make c.l.l the battleground?
I do not have personal wars against anyone. Shitheads like you think you
have a right to comment on me and attack me. It is your wars, not mine.
| It gives c.l.l a bad name.
Why do you stay in places with bad names?
| At least have the guts to be honest.
If you were honest, you would die of shame.
--
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 07 Oct 2002 12:13:45 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
>* quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
>| And it speaks well that I have taken so much time before commenting on
>| someone.
>
> No, it does not. The pus oozes from your wounded psyche.
I am not at all wounded.
>| My post to Erik, though strange, was accurate in its content.
>
> That you believe this is quite alarming.
Truth often is.
>| Don't tell me that I don't have any right to comment, because I have - at
>| least in my country.
>
> Oh, Christ. He has a "right" to comment. Lord, take me now!
Lord will not take you till your time comes. Dont be impatient. Of
course I have the right. This is a public forum. The other people
whom you abused might be good people. I cannot sit in a public place
and see people abused by shitheads (your word, I, actually, am
learning) like you who have an alpha male act.
>| Eriks supreme technical excellence does /not/ give him complete freedom
>| of misbehavior.
>
> Actually, it is people like you who cause the "misbehavior".
You should consider relearning basic english usage. My current
behavious was toatlly based on yours. You initiate it. So all the
blame of later misbehaviour goes to you solely.
>| So please don't take it as if someone is attacking /your/ friend Erik.
>
> Oh, Christ. He has a "right" to attack people. Lord, take me now!
so impatient (in typical Erik style)
>| I am not attacking anyone. Just /requesting/ him to stop attacking
>| people.
>
> Riiiiight.
Lor, take me now! He is actually agreeing.
>| If he has personal wars against anyone, why make c.l.l the battleground?
>
> I do not have personal wars against anyone. Shitheads like you think you
> have a right to comment on me and attack me. It is your wars, not mine.
Sorry, I disagree. It is your "percieved threats" which are the
problem. You attack people for absolutely minimal reasons. Stop that
and the Lord may forgive and take you. Else the people from the
underground may be tempted. ;-)
>| It gives c.l.l a bad name.
>
> Why do you stay in places with bad names?
I am bad. Real bad. Besides, inspite of you trying your level best
to give c.l.l a bad name, it still is populated by other /nice/
people.
>| At least have the guts to be honest.
> If you were honest, you would die of shame.
Your logical thinking unit must be off. Or under repair. Or maybe
even terminally ill.
--
What?
* quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
| Of course I have the right. This is a public forum.
*LAUGH*
| You should consider relearning basic english usage. My current behavious
| was toatlly based on yours. You initiate it. So all the blame of later
| misbehaviour goes to you solely.
*LAUGH*
| > Riiiiight.
|
| Lor, take me now! He is actually agreeing.
*LAUGH*
My goodness, you crack me 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.
On 07 Oct 2002 15:54:10 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
>
> My goodness, you crack me up!
:-)
good. Another good deed chalked up for me.
--
What?
* quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
| Swim there in the sea. If by chance you get eaten by sharks it will save
| me the trouble of coming all the way to Oslo, Norway to give you a /very/
| hard spanking which you so richly deserve.
I was going to give you a second chance and actually read your pathetic
excuse for a public post in the spirit of positive reinforcement, but I
consider this a threat. Had you been brave enough to back that threat up
with a real name and verifiable mail address instead of the chicken-shit
illiterate scrawl you sign your articles with, you could be feeling the
consequences of /your/ threatening, abusive behavior. However, since you
are such a yellow belly that you cannot even have a real name, a threat
from such a pathetic loser only means that the futility of his massive
failure to cope with the world he lives in has found yet another outlet.
| You must be thinking this is comp.lang.erik the way you act.
Dear "quasi",
Your command of the English language is quite good. I would say it is
much better than the 25% most illiterate native users of English, but
when it comes to actually grasping what you read, you /feel/ far too much
for your own good and your ability to actually understand anything in
your emotional state is probably limited to primitive emotional reactions
to individual words out of context. I throw them in to smoke out idiots
like yourself, you see. All the same, I would suggest that you take a
closer look at the Subject header, or whatever it is called in your user-
friendly interface, and perhaps you will see that it reads "Understanding
Erik Naggum". Do you think this is in any way related to what I write in
this thread? Or, considering your mental state, make that: Do you /feel/
that this is in any way related to what I write? Can you manage to get
anything through your input channels that would make you grasp that this
is thread is indeed about me? If you cannot grasp that, then perhaps you
should ease up on the tough guy routine, lest people think you are one of
those muscle-men without any brains, and find a better role model than
Steven Segal or Dolph Lundgren?
| Don't let the few suck ups here make you feel that you are king. However
| supremely intelligent & knowledgable you may be, it is no use to humanity
| if you cause more destruction than construction. The suck ups would
| rather eat dirt and exploit your knowledge than be honest to you.
You are so offensive and yet so impotent. Nameless, identity-less, too
feeble-minded to understand a Subject header, and yet so repulsive. And
all this in reaction to something you do not like, including, evidently,
foul language, which you have still not quite mastered so it sounds quite
ridiculous and pathetic, really. Clearly, what we have here a specimen
of the lower primates that has learned to use a keyboard. Say, have you
tried to get your friends together and produce the collected works of
Shakespeare yet?
| Your arrogance in front of public opinion is appalling. The thickness of
| your skull (in non-technical matters) must be inches. Your rudeness is
| tremendous.
Wow! Look who forgot their chill pill this morning. *laugh*
| You disrespect your own intelligence and knowledge by your unwise rants.
Luckily, I have something to disrespect. You can only dream about that.
| Even with the above mentioned qualities, I really like you. Really.
Not done with the offensiveness, yet? You do not know enough to like
me. That presume you do, must either mean that you are so shallow that
you can actually like or dislike people based on the extremely limited
exposure you get to somebody in a written medium. Reasonably smart
people hold off on the like/dislike thing and instead like or dislike
what they actually read, such as individual articles or even expressions
or images. The need you have to extrapolate and create personas that you
can feel like or dislike towards places you in the group of people who
want to emulate characters in TV series.
| So I have one advice for you.
You think I take advice from people who tell me they like me? You are
one of the touchy-feely guys who think positive reinforcement is a good
idea, right? Do you really think your behavior says anything other than
that you lack the prerequisite mental qualities to be able to /actually/
like someone? Again, you are nameless, identity-less, chicken-shit fool
and you think people of your caliber can /like/ people? You do not even
have the mental capacity to empathize with /yourself/, yet. Get a dog if
you need a role model you can strive to live up to.
| Don't end up the guy who everyone talks nice to because he is very rich
| and they want a piece of his pile and then hate him behind his back.
You know, for someone who hates me behind my back, your knowledge of
anatomy leaves something to be desired.
| Stop fucking burning your own blood for who you think are fools.
You touchy-feely people are so unable to realize when people are not like
you. That is probably because those of you who inabit the middle of the
Gauss curve have a pretty good chance of meeting people like yourself and
a low probability of encountering anyone dissimilar from yourself because
you are so repulsive to people a couple standard deviations off to the
right of you. I'll bet your favorite American actor is Jim Carrey, but
you didn't understand where to laugh in �The Majestic� so you told your
friends to rent �Cable Guy�, instead.
| Stop fucking responding to who you think are assholes and concentrate on
| what you are /excellent/ at. Lisp.
The saddest part of this false praise is that you do not have the ability
to judge excellence. The best you can do is "better than quasi", which
is about as insulting as "smarter than ilias" or "you have an excellent
career opportunity as seeying-eye man for blind dogs".
--
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 06 Oct 2002 23:30:48 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
>* quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
>| Swim there in the sea. If by chance you get eaten by sharks it will save
>| me the trouble of coming all the way to Oslo, Norway to give you a /very/
>| hard spanking which you so richly deserve.
>
> I was going to give you a second chance and actually read your pathetic
> excuse for a public post in the spirit of positive reinforcement, but I
> consider this a threat. Had you been brave enough to back that threat up
> with a real name and verifiable mail address instead of the chicken-shit
> illiterate scrawl you sign your articles with, you could be feeling the
> consequences of /your/ threatening, abusive behavior. However, since you
> are such a yellow belly that you cannot even have a real name, a threat
> from such a pathetic loser only means that the futility of his massive
> failure to cope with the world he lives in has found yet another outlet.
So smart, are you not? I have replied to both your "don't be an
asshole" emails you sent me. I have sent you my Name, my City and
also an invitation, in good spirit, to tea at my house, if you were to
drop by. More than that, you have my website address where, I am
sure, you can find all the details about me for the "consequences" you
promise me.
Erik, stop pretending. I fail to understand your having to bring up
such contrived and actually childish rants. Anyway it is quite clear
that it is impossible to reason with you. It is beyond your
capabilities. So I will not even ask you to listen.
But I can tell you one thing. I am part of this community as you are
- and unlike some here, I will speak out if you overdo your "angry old
man" act. The previous post was the last "bad" post from me to c.l.l.
But not the last one.
>| Don't let the few suck ups here make you feel that you are king. However
>| supremely intelligent & knowledgable you may be, it is no use to humanity
>| if you cause more destruction than construction. The suck ups would
>| rather eat dirt and exploit your knowledge than be honest to you.
>
> You are so offensive and yet so impotent. Nameless, identity-less, too
> feeble-minded to understand a Subject header, and yet so repulsive. And
> all this in reaction to something you do not like, including, evidently,
> foul language, which you have still not quite mastered so it sounds quite
> ridiculous and pathetic, really. Clearly, what we have here a specimen
> of the lower primates that has learned to use a keyboard. Say, have you
> tried to get your friends together and produce the collected works of
> Shakespeare yet?
You are actually hilarious. And now I am thinking that I wrote in
haste, because I seem to understand the others reluctance to ask you
to ease up. That would deprive them of their daily dose of humour.
But wait.. I made you write all that. And it must have made a few
laugh. So one good deed crossed up for me. wOw. Thanks Erik.
>
>| Your arrogance in front of public opinion is appalling. The thickness of
>| your skull (in non-technical matters) must be inches. Your rudeness is
>| tremendous.
>
> Wow! Look who forgot their chill pill this morning. *laugh*
I am happy you find humour in that. Because I meant it to be only
quasihostile anyway.
>| You disrespect your own intelligence and knowledge by your unwise rants.
>
> Luckily, I have something to disrespect. You can only dream about that.
ROTF, I like you all the more.
>| Even with the above mentioned qualities, I really like you. Really.
>
> Not done with the offensiveness, yet? You do not know enough to like
> me. That presume you do, must either mean that you are so shallow that
> you can actually like or dislike people based on the extremely limited
> exposure you get to somebody in a written medium. Reasonably smart
> people hold off on the like/dislike thing and instead like or dislike
> what they actually read, such as individual articles or even expressions
> or images. The need you have to extrapolate and create personas that you
> can feel like or dislike towards places you in the group of people who
> want to emulate characters in TV series.
You are such a dickhead. You like/dislike people instantaneous the
moment you are in contact with them. But that like/dislike is not
absolute. It incrementally evolves with more and more contact.
>| So I have one advice for you.
>
> You think I take advice from people who tell me they like me?
no. It is because I like you that I take the trouble to advice you.
> Do you really think your behavior says anything other than
> that you lack the prerequisite mental qualities to be able to /actually/
> like someone? Again, you are nameless, identity-less, chicken-shit fool
> and you think people of your caliber can /like/ people? You do not even
> have the mental capacity to empathize with /yourself/, yet. Get a dog if
> you need a role model you can strive to live up to.
See what I mean? Pathetic is the only word for you. If calling me
lower than a dog makes your arguments and makes you happy, you should
look in the mirror.
>| Don't end up the guy who everyone talks nice to because he is very rich
>| and they want a piece of his pile and then hate him behind his back.
>
> You know, for someone who hates me behind my back, your knowledge of
> anatomy leaves something to be desired.
I don't hate you. I never liked you enough to hate you. You are just
a pathetic person.
>| Stop fucking burning your own blood for who you think are fools.
>
> You touchy-feely people are so unable to realize when people are not like
> you.
I realise that. Probably you are one of those who actually enjoy
these kind of verbal exchanges. But other don't. You drive away
other people from a community which is /not/ your ownership. Think
about that, if you can.
> That is probably because those of you who inabit the middle of the
> Gauss curve have a pretty good chance of meeting people like yourself and
> a low probability of encountering anyone dissimilar from yourself because
> you are so repulsive to people a couple standard deviations off to the
> right of you. I'll bet your favorite American actor is Jim Carrey, but
> you didn't understand where to laugh in �The Majestic� so you told your
> friends to rent �Cable Guy�, instead.
Pathetic. All you have in your armory is personal attacks and
slander?
>| Stop fucking responding to who you think are assholes and concentrate on
>| what you are /excellent/ at. Lisp.
>
> The saddest part of this false praise is that you do not have the ability
> to judge excellence. The best you can do is "better than quasi", which
> is about as insulting as "smarter than ilias" or "you have an excellent
> career opportunity as seeying-eye man for blind dogs".
I will accept if the top dog pays top dollar.
--
What?
* quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
| So smart, are you not?
Your hangup with it amuses me.
| I have replied to both your "don't be an asshole" emails you sent me.
No separation of private from public space.
| More than that, you have my website address where, I am sure, you can
| find all the details about me for the "consequences" you promise me.
The point is how you present yourself to this forum, not to me.
| Erik, stop pretending.
I never pretend. I do not need to. Really.
| I fail to understand your having to bring up such contrived and actually
| childish rants.
The four first words are the key.
| Anyway it is quite clear that it is impossible to reason with you.
Oh, you were /reasoning/ with me. I am so pleased to learn this.
| It is beyond your capabilities.
Is it not quite curious how other people come to different conclusions
that sort of, if not entirely, contradict your conclusions? What do you
think that says about you?
| So I will not even ask you to listen.
Good. I would not listen if you asked me to.
| But I can tell you one thing.
Amazing!
| I am part of this community as you are - and unlike some here, I will
| speak out if you overdo your "angry old man" act.
Yes, all good communities need nutjobs that "will speak out".
| The previous post was the last "bad" post from me to c.l.l.
Promises, promises.
| You are actually hilarious.
You may be surprised to learn this, but the intent is to make people
laugh. At you.
| But wait.. I made you write all that.
You are probably the only one who flatter yourself.
| And it must have made a few laugh.
You sound like you think this is an insult or something.
| So one good deed crossed up for me. wOw. Thanks Erik.
You sound even more like you are deeply hurt. Good. I think people who
behave the way you do /when they have only been bystanders/ need to get
seriously wounded, so perhaps they learn not to intervene.
| Because I meant it to be only quasihostile anyway.
Ah, your chosen nickname explained.
| You are such a dickhead.
Promises, promises.
| You like/dislike people instantaneous the moment you are in contact with
| them.
No. I do not. I am not interested in people. Some people can actually
focus on their work and on learning something from other people, not on
the people. This actually means treating people with the fundamental
respect you find in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If you
take too much interest in people, you will, out of necessity, dislike
some people so much that you /will/ feel an urge to mistreat them. Such
as shitheads like you. But you have pre-approved your treatment by the
way you choose to attack me from being a bystander. Your lack of ability
to curtail your revengeful urges is what makes you less than a human.
| But that like/dislike is not absolute. It incrementally evolves with
| more and more contact.
People who like/dislike others prematurely tend to want only to reinforce
their impressions and go overboard with emotions when people turn out to
be different than they expected. I do not expect much from individuals,
but I expect a lot from their function in public. Some people never seem
to grasp that they are in a public space. I do not like the behavior of
such people as they make public discussion impossible for adults.
| no. It is because I like you that I take the trouble to advice you.
Stop pretending. You do not have the mental capacity to like me.
| See what I mean?
No.
| Pathetic is the only word for you.
Funny how many words are "the only word".
| If calling me lower than a dog makes your arguments and makes you happy,
| you should look in the mirror.
I am pleased that I have hurt you. You deserve that. I do not wish to,
nor actually, spank people, but I am overly delighted that I can reach
down into the heart of some shithead like you and cause you pain after
what you have done to me. It may actually teach you something.
| I don't hate you. I never liked you enough to hate you. You are just a
| pathetic person.
So you like pathetic people, then? Does this in any way relate to your
inability to reason with people?
| I realise that.
No, you do not.
| Probably you are one of those who actually enjoy these kind of verbal
| exchanges.
With shitheads like you who were bystandards but choose to attack me? Of
course I do. The more people like you I can hurt the better, because
/maybe/ you will realize that I take pleasure in hurting people who
attack me the way shitheads like you do. It works wonders. It causes
the more retarded ones to hate me and make a spectacle of themselves so
nobody would ever hire them. It causes the smarter ones to want to avoid
being hurt more. Shitheads like you who go from bystander to attacker
need to have your heads examined. Somewhere in your miserable lives, you
thought that you should attack one person in what you think is a fight.
That is the most base, the most vile, the most evil, of all behaviors.
Intelligent, decent people respect due process and do not take the law
into their own hands. You are the kind of person who take it upon
yourself to punish what you think are wrongdoers. That marks you as a
seriously dysfunctional person, probably one of a criminal mind, one who
has no /respect/ for or even /understanding/ of justice. People like you
are much worse threats to society than any ills you want to fight because
you destroy the very concept of justice.
| But other don't.
You engage in them of your own free will, dude.
| You drive away other people from a community which is /not/ your
| ownership.
No, I do not. I drive away shitheads who attack me out of the blue, like
you do.
| Think about that, if you can.
Unlike you, I think all the time and do not need to be told when to.
| All you have in your armory is personal attacks and slander?
If it works to make you suffer, it works to make you suffer.
Have you ever noticed how stupid people in movies always attack the
strongest person in the scene one by one and do not understand when to
quit their stupid fights? You little wimps keep doing that in this
newsgroup, too.
| I will accept if the top dog pays top dollar.
You reveal so much of yourself in public it becomes pornographic.
--
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 07 Oct 2002 12:05:38 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
>* quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
>| So smart, are you not?
> Your hangup with it amuses me.
Good.
>| I have replied to both your "don't be an asshole" emails you sent me.
> No separation of private from public space.
You brought up the subject with your moronic (your word, I, actually
am learning) attack. You had my name & address. And you lied here.
Naughty naughty.
>| More than that, you have my website address where, I am sure, you can
>| find all the details about me for the "consequences" you promise me.
> The point is how you present yourself to this forum, not to me.
that was not the point. I will not be sidetracked.
>| Erik, stop pretending.
>
> I never pretend. I do not need to. Really.
well, than tell your alter ego to stop pretending. Because one of you
really does.
>| I fail to understand your having to bring up such contrived and actually
>| childish rants.
>
> The four first words are the key.
The rest are more important.
>| Anyway it is quite clear that it is impossible to reason with you.
>
> Oh, you were /reasoning/ with me. I am so pleased to learn this.
Good. You are finally learning something.
>| It is beyond your capabilities.
>
> Is it not quite curious how other people come to different conclusions
> that sort of, if not entirely, contradict your conclusions? What do you
> think that says about you?
well, if you want me to blow my own trumpet. OK. Here goes. I am a
balanced, intelligent, smart, logical, eco-friendly, new &
extra-strong, friendly neighbourhood person.
>| So I will not even ask you to listen.
>
> Good. I would not listen if you asked me to.
so you see? I can predict you. Episode I to me. hip hip horeee!
Darth Erik and quasi skywalker shall meet again in the Episode II.
>| But I can tell you one thing.
>
> Amazing!
isn't it?
>| I am part of this community as you are - and unlike some here, I will
>| speak out if you overdo your "angry old man" act.
>
> Yes, all good communities need nutjobs that "will speak out".
At last!!! Justifies my presence here from King Solomon hisself. I
gives me new zeal and purpose to pursue my new career. Thank you for
showing me the way. You are the one.
>| The previous post was the last "bad" post from me to c.l.l.
> Promises, promises.
Promises kept. This one is a good one. All following will be good
ones.
>| You are actually hilarious.
>
> You may be surprised to learn this, but the intent is to make people
> laugh. At you.
I do not mind that. If the joke is good 'nuff, all should laugh. In
fact I laugh too.
>
>| So one good deed crossed up for me. wOw. Thanks Erik.
>
> You sound even more like you are deeply hurt. Good. I think people who
> behave the way you do /when they have only been bystanders/ need to get
> seriously wounded, so perhaps they learn not to intervene.
Look at you drawing grossly incorrect conclusions. ROTFL. I was hurt
when you bit me initially about my website. Compare my reaction there
with this one. Yes, I was a bystander. But no more. I have awoken.
I shall be your best friend for years to come.
>| Because I meant it to be only quasihostile anyway.
> Ah, your chosen nickname explained.
Good.
>| You are such a dickhead.
> Promises, promises.
eh? No squire, that was not a promise, it was a compliment.
>| You like/dislike people instantaneous the moment you are in contact with
>| them.
>
> No. I do not. I am not interested in people. Some people can actually
> focus on their work and on learning something from other people, not on
> the people. This actually means treating people with the fundamental
> respect you find in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If you
> take too much interest in people, you will, out of necessity, dislike
> some people so much that you /will/ feel an urge to mistreat them. Such
> as shitheads like you. But you have pre-approved your treatment by the
> way you choose to attack me from being a bystander. Your lack of ability
> to curtail your revengeful urges is what makes you less than a human.
Aaah! The spirit of free speech. If you call someone a shithead be
prepared to be called one yourself. And then don't go all high &
mighty with long speeches.
>| But that like/dislike is not absolute. It incrementally evolves with
>| more and more contact.
>
> People who like/dislike others prematurely tend to want only to reinforce
> their impressions and go overboard with emotions when people turn out to
> be different than they expected. I do not expect much from individuals,
> but I expect a lot from their function in public. Some people never seem
> to grasp that they are in a public space. I do not like the behavior of
> such people as they make public discussion impossible for adults.
Have you by any chance, heard about a hypocrite? Your behaviour in a
/public/ place is that of an intelligent adult? Pathetic. Your
should consider that vacation.
>| no. It is because I like you that I take the trouble to advice you.
>
> Stop pretending. You do not have the mental capacity to like me.
you playing the goat is not going to affect me in any way. My likes
and dislikes do not depend on what others think.
>| Pathetic is the only word for you.
>
> Funny how many words are "the only word".
it is funny. But I shall stick with pathetic in the future. It seems
to fit the Erikiod curve best.
>| If calling me lower than a dog makes your arguments and makes you happy,
>| you should look in the mirror.
>
> I am pleased that I have hurt you. You deserve that. I do not wish to,
> nor actually, spank people, but I am overly delighted that I can reach
> down into the heart of some shithead like you and cause you pain after
> what you have done to me. It may actually teach you something.
Ouch! :-) This hurts me. To find my dear friend Erik is a malevolent
person. But I know he is not really bad hearted. He is just a tough
acting idiot.
>| I don't hate you. I never liked you enough to hate you. You are just a
>| pathetic person.
>
> So you like pathetic people, then? Does this in any way relate to your
> inability to reason with people?
Yes sometimes I like pathetic people. My liking of people is not
based on how smart of stupid they are. My brain does not like people,
my heart does. But of course you would not understand that. You take
such pleasure in being a intelligent machine.
>| I realise that.
>
> No, you do not.
Do too.
>| Probably you are one of those who actually enjoy these kind of verbal
>| exchanges.
>
> [...] Somewhere in your miserable lives, you
> thought that you should attack one person in what you think is a fight.
> That is the most base, the most vile, the most evil, of all behaviors.
Then why do you do it?
> Intelligent, decent people respect due process and do not take the law
> into their own hands. You are the kind of person who take it upon
> yourself to punish what you think are wrongdoers. That marks you as a
> seriously dysfunctional person, probably one of a criminal mind, one who
> has no /respect/ for or even /understanding/ of justice. People like you
> are much worse threats to society than any ills you want to fight because
> you destroy the very concept of justice.
More smart talk to hide behind? Long justifications to obscure what
you did wrong? Pathetic.
>| You drive away other people from a community which is /not/ your
>| ownership.
>
> No, I do not. I drive away shitheads who attack me out of the blue, like
> you do.
To cite a very recent example you asked Pascal C to fuck off. He was
not attacking you. Because of that absurd behaviour of yours I had to
take up pen... err.. bang the keyboard. Before that you needlessly
attacked Ernn Gat. Whatever your history at least in that article you
were the initiator of an "attack".
You are such a pathetic hypocrite. Many time (note: not all) you
initiate "attacks". Then many times other so. But the hue and cry
/you/ make, nobody else makes. Which is the reason why you draw so
much attention. But maybe that is the end purpose? Been watching too
much Hollywood news?
>| Think about that, if you can.
>
> Unlike you, I think all the time and do not need to be told when to.
You do, do you? Funny we cannot see any results.
>| All you have in your armory is personal attacks and slander?
>
> If it works to make you suffer, it works to make you suffer.
You will have to work much more to make /me/ suffer. And even then I
doubt it. I can go on for years, you will shrivel and die and still I
will go on. Do you think, you ego maniac, that you are /that/
important?
> Have you ever noticed how stupid people in movies always attack the
> strongest person in the scene one by one and do not understand when to
> quit their stupid fights? You little wimps keep doing that in this
> newsgroup, too.
hahaha. Erik Stallone.
>| I will accept if the top dog pays top dollar.
>
> You reveal so much of yourself in public it becomes pornographic.
[I am still thinking up a good reply...]
But this is gone too far. Let me propose a ceasefire. (note I am the
first to do so). You back down, and I will.
I completely respect your techinical supremacy. You are King
Thinkgabung. I bow to thee. Let us stick to that as this is a
technical forum first.
--
What?
>> No separation of private from public space.
> You brought up the subject with your moronic (your word, I, actually
> am learning) attack. You had my name & address. And you lied here.
> Naughty naughty.
I don't know if it helps to get an opinion from a third party here.
EN noted that you were "hiding behind an alias", or words to that
effect. Disclosing your name etc to *him* does not mean that you have
identified yourself *in the public space*. I still don't know who you
are, nor do the other readers of cll, so as far as we are concerned,
you're still hiding.
Now, a Google search for "quasiabhi yahoo" gave me the name "Abhijit
Rao", and another search on that name brought me to <URL:
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/> (a very nice-looking page, btw).
If that really is you, it is obviously very easy to bypass your alias if
one really wants to. I'd say your both right on this particular count:
EN is correct in that you haven't disclosed your identity in the public
space, and you are right that your identity is not a secret.
Can't you just let this matter drop? EN *is* an acquired taste, but
consider this:
- he *is* in cll, and he won't go away.
- stay technical with him, and he will gladly post lengthy and
accurate articles in reply to your questions.
- fight with him, and *you* are going to suffer.
Tough, I know, but I think not impossible to live with.
disclaimer: I'm not taking sides here, or stating personal preference.
I'm simply trying to dissuade you from continuing a hopeless battle.
best,
Peter Lewerin wrote:
(too much)
Oh horror. That was of course meant to be a private email, as I see no
need to further extend the mayhem here.
I'll go wear my dunce cap now.
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:30:54 +0200, Peter Lewerin
<·············@swipnet.se> wrote:
>EN noted that you were "hiding behind an alias", or words to that
>effect. Disclosing your name etc to *him* does not mean that you have
>identified yourself *in the public space*. I still don't know who you
>are, nor do the other readers of cll, so as far as we are concerned,
>you're still hiding.
What does Peter Lewerin tell me about you? Or for that matter, Joe
Marshall, Edi Weitz? They are names. They are used for
identification. They do not /mean/ anything directly - unless you are
looking at where the person may come from and what (probable)
community he belongs to. Probably if I wanted to know more about you,
I could search the WWW. As you tell, you did the same about me. I
may find more about all the ones I mentioned and you may find precious
little about me. Because I have written no books, taken no part in
anything important. Most of what I do I sign as "quasi". Here on cll
there is no other "quasi" so there is no question about ambiguity.
And I have already posted my WWW URL here. I have avoided no
questions about myself. Does this still make you think I am "still
hiding"?
>Now, a Google search for "quasiabhi yahoo" gave me the name "Abhijit
>Rao", and another search on that name brought me to <URL:
>http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/> (a very nice-looking page, btw).
Thank you.
>If that really is you,
It is indeed me. I have posted that URL here before. I will include
it in my signature, I think, now.
> - fight with him, and *you* are going to suffer.
'-)
>Tough, I know, but I think not impossible to live with.
Yes, I agree.
>I'm simply trying to dissuade you from continuing a hopeless battle.
'-)
quasi
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/
* quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
| What does Peter Lewerin tell me about you? Or for that matter, Joe
| Marshall, Edi Weitz? They are names. They are used for identification.
The point is that it is the same identification everywhere. You choose
to be "quasi" here, but and your real life something else. Some people
find this annoying. The whole point of this exercise is to see if you
can see how other people see you, not whether you can defend 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.
On 11 Oct 2002 12:12:32 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
>* quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
>| What does Peter Lewerin tell me about you? Or for that matter, Joe
>| Marshall, Edi Weitz? They are names. They are used for identification.
>
> The point is that it is the same identification everywhere. You choose
> to be "quasi" here, but and your real life something else. Some people
> find this annoying. The whole point of this exercise is to see if you
> can see how other people see you, not whether you can defend yourself.
Looking at your "argument" only, it does not hold water. How can you
be sure that Abhijit Rao is actually my name in real life. I
consistently use one psudonium/nickname/handle (whatever you call it).
Then I have a legal name. That is about it. And about people seeing
me, it is their business. And about defending myself, no. I was
defending my "argument", which of far remains unanswered.
But I will make a friendly pact with you. I will stop using "quasi"
for "Abhijit Rao", if you stop using "Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway" for
"Erik the Exterminator" (or something similarly interesting.
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/
* quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
| Looking at your "argument" only, it does not hold water.
You are still defending yourself instead of getting the point. Why?
| How can you be sure that Abhijit Rao is actually my name in real life.
You can produce any number of idiotic "problems" in your own defense.
Until you demonstrate that you /understand the point/, your defense means
exactly nothing, however. In this case, the point is that we can be very
certain that your full, legal name is /not/ "quasi". This is why you are
asked to discontinue it.
| And about defending myself, no. I was defending my "argument", which of
| far remains unanswered.
Will all due respect, the person who refuses to understand the position
of his opponent cannot possibly defend his argument. When you invent
problems with an approach that people actually prefer, you demonstrate
only one thing: that you do not get the point.
| But I will make a friendly pact with you. I will stop using "quasi" for
| "Abhijit Rao", if you stop using "Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway" for "Erik
| the Exterminator" (or something similarly interesting. --
There were a lot of people here who thought you were not insane. They
have lost some of their reason to believe that and who now have reason to
believe that you are a mental case. They had reason to suspect this when
you refused to use your full name and went by a nickname, but suspicion
is not sufficient. You have provided sound evidence that you should
enter a lot of people's kill-files with the last idiotic comment.
Why do you guys work so hard to make yourself look so goddamn screwed-up
when you could simply have gotten the point and said something more
honest like "I don' wanna!" instead of trying to poke holes in the basis
for the request, which just looks really, really retarded. *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.
On 12 Oct 2002 00:32:13 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> In this case, the point is that we can be very certain that your full,
> legal name is /not/ "quasi". This is why you are asked to discontinue it.
And my point what(why) does it matter by what I sign myself. When
anyone, if they are so interested, can know my real name. You have
bypassed my question that even if I sign with a /seemingly/ legal
name, you have no way to acertain if it indeed is my legal name.
Which beats your point above.
Can you, for example only, tell me if you are certain that Pascal
Costanza is the legal name of the person who uses it here? Or is it
just because it /seems/ legal you are satisfied? Bah.
One's judgment of others affect one's own self. If people want to add
me to their killfiles I have no control over it nor any interest in
it.
And regarding me being insane, well, I guess we all could be called
that...
regards
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/
* quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
| And my point what(why) does it matter by what I sign myself.
It is a matter of politeness to you fellow travelers. I find it quite
odd that you do not understand this. Some newsgroups do not seem to need
full names, but others do. Look around you. There is no need to stand
out as the one who does not sign with his real name. The others who do
this are morons. That you demand the right to continue, does you no
good.
| You have bypassed my question that even if I sign with a /seemingly/
| legal name, you have no way to acertain if it indeed is my legal name.
| Which beats your point above.
No, it does not. It is a non-issue. The fact is that you make things
/worse/ than they need be. Just because you cannot obtain perfection is
no excuse to violate every moral precept in existence. It is, however,
the typical response of people who /want/ to do something wrong. The
question is not: Would it be perfect? The question is: Would it make
things better. You do not seem to understand this simple idea, and you
do not argue that it would not be better, only that it would not be
perfect, as if anyone could possibly disagree with that or think it would
be perfect.
| Can you, for example only, tell me if you are certain that Pascal
| Costanza is the legal name of the person who uses it here?
You are not listening. I /am/ certain that your legal name is /not/
"quasi". It is much easier to be able to ascertain that something is
/not/ true than that it /is/ true. When people publish misinformation,
it can be corrected without having perfect omniscience. Some people
believe that since you cannot know everything (the typical phrase is
"have monopoly on truth"), you should not correct other people, because
everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's. Note that Pascal
Costanza has made several arguments in that direction, too. Lots of
people believe in nutty things because they do not accept that it is
possible to know with absolute certainty what is wrong without knowing
with any certainty at all what is right -- all one knows is that all the
crap that has been disproven, that does not follow, that has been tested
and failed, etc, are /not/ right. Weed out the wrong for an extended
period of time, and you will most probably hold a lot of real truths.
Some people think that if you weed out the wrong and that hurts people,
the community is served by pretending people should not have known better
to begin with and should be respected for telling lies and spreading myth
and misinformation. This only slows people and the community down.
Likewise, having to prove to you that a full name is better than a fake
name is a waste of time. Therefore, what I try to do is see if you are
able to understand this on your own without going down the idiotic path
of criminals and the mentally deranged who reject the community-view that
something is wrong and believe it anyway and typically insist on doing it
like some fanatic.
| Or is it just because it /seems/ legal you are satisfied? Bah.
Actually, yes. Just at some people seem to believe that it is OK if you
seem to be polite and respectful even when you are neither. You do not
seem to reject this idea, do you? Why not? Do you only respect others
when they agree with you?
| One's judgment of others affect one's own self. If people want to add me
| to their killfiles I have no control over it nor any interest in it.
Yes, you have control over 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.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Some people
> believe that since you cannot know everything (the typical phrase is
> "have monopoly on truth"), you should not correct other people, because
> everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's. Note that Pascal
> Costanza has made several arguments in that direction, too.
I have never stated any such thing. Would you please pay more attention
to my actual arguments and stop spreading misinformation about me.
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
| Some people believe that since you cannot know everything (the typical
| phrase is "have monopoly on truth"), you should not correct other people,
| because everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's. Note that
| Pascal Costanza has made several arguments in that direction, too.
* Pascal Costanza
| I have never stated any such thing. Would you please pay more attention to
| my actual arguments and stop spreading misinformation about me.
What specifically were you objecting to? What had you never stated?
You ara again condescending and arrogant. Where is your positive
reinforcement first policy or is this it? I pay more attention than you
will ever feel is possible. Stop imputing your own shortcomings to me.
--
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 12 Oct 2002 12:37:42 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> Likewise, having to prove to you that a full name is better than a fake
> name is a waste of time.
Tt is /not/ a fake name!! It is a nick name. An alternative. A
handle.
This is my last say on this issue. I do not do something /just/
because the others are doing it. What I do has to "light my fire" as
well as satisfy my conscience. That is the reason I am doing my
project in Lisp where /all/ the other 84 people chose C++ or Java
(www.ncst.ernet.in). I have to slog it out alone while the other have
groups of 4-5 working together. There were "good" thinking folks who
said I was a fool to stand out like a nut. That I was insane.
I will live with it.
quasi
--
Abhijit Rao, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai, India, Asia, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Local Cluster, Local Super Cluster, Local String, Local Universe, ?...
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/lisp.html
* quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
| This is my last say on this issue. I do not do something /just/ because
| the others are doing it.
My point has not been to change your annoying behavior, but to make you
think. about something you do not agree with. You show a characteristic
unwillingness to consider that your opponent's position may be good, and
instead devote nearly all your effort to defend yourself and claim that
your opponent's position is no good. This is fantastically stupid.
I really wonder why people do such things. Grasping your opponent's
position is the first order of business when you wish to understand
something -- /anything/ that you do not already know. Instead of
devoting a modicum of time to realize what your opponent is saying, so
many stupid people spend all their time distorting their opponent's views
and if their opponent accurately summarizes their own position as it has
been exhibited, they attack, that, too, instead of trying to /understand/
how things work. Neither are they willing to engage in an intellectual
exercise in actually understanding what is going on. Fucking annoying.
| What I do has to "light my fire" as well as satisfy my conscience.
It is important to follow one's conscience, but those who find that there
is value in submitting to the will of the community and still work to
achieve their goals often find that the community is able to sustain and
accept their efforts. For some weird reason, people who criticize others
for things that they clearly succeed with never seem able to /understand/
the position of their opponent, either. They behave in the same way you
do: It is more important to them to satisfy their conscience than to
accomplishg anything actually /productive/ and /constructive/. The lack
of focus on the tasks at hand is quite alarming, actually. This is what
I want to know about people I comment on and primarily want to /think/.
Some people seem unable to think about what somebody else says without
believing they agree or even "condone" the opponent in a large number of
other dimensions. This, too, is very important to know about people.
| That is the reason I am doing my project in Lisp where /all/ the other 84
| people chose C++ or Java (www.ncst.ernet.in). I have to slog it out
| alone while the other have groups of 4-5 working together. There were
| "good" thinking folks who said I was a fool to stand out like a nut.
| That I was insane.
Going alone for its own sake is as wrong as going along for its own sake.
--
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 12 Oct 2002 17:21:45 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> [...] You show a characteristic
> unwillingness to consider that your opponent's position may be good, and
> instead devote nearly all your effort to defend yourself and claim that
> your opponent's position is no good. This is fantastically stupid.
> Fucking annoying.
annoying, yes.
All the more annoying so when the person who says the above thing is
also exactly doing the same thing.
> Going alone for its own sake is as wrong as going along for its own sake.
I am going alone, not because of choice, but necessity. No one else
wants to do Lisp.
--
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
* Erik Naggum
| You show a characteristic unwillingness to consider that your opponent's
| position may be good, and instead devote nearly all your effort to
| defend yourself and claim that your opponent's position is no good.
| This is fantastically stupid.
* Abhijit Rao
| All the more annoying so when the person who says the above thing is
| also exactly doing the same thing.
Well, first of all, you show me here that you understand the argument and
think it is a valid point, but still defend yourself instead of grasping
its applicability to yourself.
And no, Abhijit Rao, I do not. I spend considerable time and effort when
I reply to people who stumble through the language and fumble through
their thoughts to understand precisely what they are saying and meaning.
That you use it as a cheap retort says something about your ability to
reason to which you still should listen carefully.
It is /such/ a cheap shot and so indicative of your playing a stupid game
of one-upmanship, where the point with what you feel are "arguments" is
not to understand anything your opponent says, but to use any stupid
trick in the book to get "ahead" your opponent, even by a dirty trick
that shows that you are unable to participate in an adult discussion.
Just realize that I sprinkle my articles with "bait" that I people would
ignore if they knew what they were doing, but would take, hook, line, and
sinker, if they do not know what they are doing and want to make fools of
themselves in public, instead. So if this is the best you can do, please
read up on argumentation, rhetoric, and logic. This is a newsgroup where
/discussion/ is the key, not stupid game-playing. It may make you feel
better in the very short-term to feel you beat someone with a dirty trick
or a fancy rhetorical device, but when you lose long-term and do not hang
around because you felt you made an ass of yourself, it really does you
worse than no good. Many people sacrifice the long-term for a quick and
easy gain. I want to learn this about people: It tells me that they do
not think they can win in the long term, so they have nothing to lose.
| I am going alone, not because of choice, but necessity. No one else
| wants to do Lisp.
Thanks for using your full name. Going it alone has a high price, no
matter what you do. You seem to be unaware of it as of yet. It is only
sometimes worth paying. Lisp seems like a good choice.
--
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 13 Oct 2002 12:07:15 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> [...]
We have an potentially infinitely recursive situation here. I think I
will /have/ to let you have a last word here and (return).
--
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
Abhijit Rao wrote:
> I am going alone, not because of choice, but necessity.
> No one else wants to do Lisp.
Going you own way is dangerous, as Nietsche put it:
"In der That, meine geduldigen Freunde, ich will es euch
sagen,
was ich da unten wollte, hier in dieser sp�ten Vorrede,
welche
leicht h�tte ein Nachruf, eine Leichenrede werden k�nnen:
denn ich bin zur�ck gekommen und - ich bin davon gekommen.
Glaubt ja nicht, dass ich euch zu dem gleichen Wagnisse
auffordern
werde! Oder auch nur zur gleichen Einsamkeit! Denn wer auf
solchen
eignen Wegen geht, begegnet Niemandem: das bringen die
"eignen
Wege" mit sich. Niemand kommt, ihm dabei zu helfen; mit
Allem,
was ihm von Gefahr, Zufall, Bosheit und schlechtem Wetter
zust�sst,
muss er allein fertig werden. Er hat eben seinen Weg f�r
sich - und, wie billig, seine Bitterkeit, seinen
gelegentlichen
Verdruss an diesem "f�r sich": wozu es zum Beispiel
geh�rt, zu wissen, dass selbst seine Freunde nicht errathen
k�nnen, wo er ist, wohin er geht, dass sie sich bisweilen
fragen werden "wie? geht er �berhaupt? hat er noch -
einen Weg?"
This, of cource, cannot be translated into any other
language but if you had some German at school, you will
understand it.
--
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:
> This, of cource, cannot be translated into any other
> language but if you had some German at school, you will
> understand it.
To quote Janis Joplin: "Freedom is just another word for nothing left
to lose."
--
Hai koe, zei de stier,
Kom mee met mij in de wei,
Dan zijn we tweezaam.
Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be>
Lieven Marchand wrote:
> JB <··@yahoo.de> writes:
>
>> This, of cource, cannot be translated into any other
>> language but if you had some German at school, you will
>> understand it.
>
> To quote Janis Joplin: "Freedom is just another word for
> nothing left to lose."
>
I thought as Lisp is a programming language for AI and
nothing else (as everybody knows), it would do you no harm
to /real/ /intelligence/.
Now I am probably a troll.
--
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 <··············@wyrd.be>, Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be> wrote:
>To quote Janis Joplin: "Freedom is just another word for nothing left
>to lose."
I learned recently a fact which spund my world upside down for a
few minutes: "Me and Bobby McGee" was written by Kris Kristofferson.
See:
http://www.janisjoplin.net/friends/kris/kristofferson.html
Abhijit Rao <·········@yahoo.com> writes:
[whatever]
Balls, man! Whatever happened to the quasi handle?
Just because Erik bitches at you doesn't mean you have to listen to him.
Use whatever handle you wish to be known as. People will converse with you or
they won't.
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
* Ray Blaak <·····@telus.net>
| Just because Erik bitches at you doesn't mean you have to listen to him.
Ain't he lucky to have you to listen to that he not to listen to 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.
On 12 Oct 2002 00:32:13 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> There were a lot of people here who thought you were not insane. They
> have lost some of their reason to believe that and who now have reason to
> believe that you are a mental case.
...
...
if the insane humour goes from the eyes
you can see the stark emptiness that lies
in the vast void behind
called the cave of my mind...
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/
Well, now that I've gotten myself into this...
> anything important. Most of what I do I sign as "quasi". Here on cll
> there is no other "quasi" so there is no question about ambiguity.
Ambiguity isn't the issue.
> And I have already posted my WWW URL here.
Once? Twice? Occasional postings aren't enough, IMHO.
> I have avoided no questions about myself.
Commendable, but doesn't in itself make you "open-identity".
> Does this still make you think I am "still hiding"?
In principle, *yes*. OTOH, as already established, you aren't really
trying to stay hidden. And...
> It is indeed me. I have posted that URL here before. I will include
> it in my signature, I think, now.
...for me, that's enough. I have no problem with you being "quasi",
"pseudo", or whatever if I can find out more about you by following that
reference.
--
Nobody expects the Swedish Inquisition!
quasi wrote:
> Don't let the few suck ups here make you feel that you are king.
Ah, you have fallen into the Trap of Ilias. Just because youse guys
can't figure out why others do not share your assessment of someone else
you start calling them names. Who is the anti-social one now?
And who the blight on c.l.l? You concede your target brings much to
c.l.l. in re Lisp (hint: the topic of the ng)... get back us to when you
can say the same. As it stands you come across like drunk fans jumping
onto the field to attack a ball player (or coach as happened last week).
kenny
clinisys
On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:40:32 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
>quasi wrote:
>> Don't let the few suck ups here make you feel that you are king.
>
>Ah, you have fallen into the Trap of Ilias. Just because youse guys
>can't figure out why others do not share your assessment of someone else
>you start calling them names. Who is the anti-social one now?
I accept that my continued arguments with Erik are completely useless,
but Erik is 50% party to them. They are partly in jest as I do not
really hate Erik or am angry. But he acts like a child sometimes.
I did not use such language other than responding to Erik. He uses
it, so I do. There are a few here who appreciate what he does. One
even mentioned that it is good that Erik takes care of lamers. I was
not being antisocial. I just let off a bit of steam at people who
have double standards. They jump on people unnecessarily and I dont
see even one "please stop that Erik". Those need not include you.
You have seen me say sorry promptly to Erik earlier when my
inapropriate actions were pointed out.
>And who the blight on c.l.l? You concede your target brings much to
>c.l.l. in re Lisp (hint: the topic of the ng)... get back us to when you
>can say the same. As it stands you come across like drunk fans jumping
>onto the field to attack a ball player (or coach as happened last week).
I see now, what some have mentioned (to me) about this topic. You are
ready to accept any behaviour if the proponant is an expert. Of
course he has a lot to give to you (maybe) and I am of no consequence.
Unfortunately I do not share you morals. Please note that I only
commented after Erik had crosses my limit of tolerance with his
bullshit. Everyone has a limit, even you. >15 months, I am hanging
out here. I comment only after that. I see people getting fed up and
going away. Not everyone is as "nice" as you to
forgive/forget/ignore. This is bad for the community. My community
too. My knowledge of Lisp is in the starting phases. You all have
had an head start. That does not mean I or other newcomers have no
right to speak out. We (newcomers) very much respect and appreciate
the time you people spend here in explaining things to us. Most have
said so in more words. If this is a forum for Lisp experts then they
do not need a public forum. I am sure they are rich enouch to have
email addresses.
Justifying Eriks behaviour makes you party to it. Expert or no expert
he was /plain/ wrong. That is about all of it.
--
What?
* quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
| I accept that my continued arguments with Erik are completely useless,
| but Erik is 50% party to them.
Those are the words of a person who is unable accept responsibility for
his own actions.
| They are partly in jest as I do not really hate Erik or am angry.
Jest elsewhere.
| But he acts like a child sometimes.
It is the only thing you know to compare with.
| I did not use such language other than responding to Erik. He uses it,
| so I do.
Shirking responsibility for your own actions, again.
| There are a few here who appreciate what he does.
Those who are able to focus on their job.
| I was not being antisocial.
Yes, you are. You are the epitome of anti-social. Complete with blaming
me for your own actions.
| I just let off a bit of steam at people who have double standards.
You are the one with double standards here.
| They jump on people unnecessarily and I dont see even one "please stop
| that Erik".
But now that you see someone ask you to stop, you refuse to do so because
nobody aske me to stop? That is the anti-social personality disorder
right there.
| I see now, what some have mentioned (to me) about this topic. You are
| ready to accept any behaviour if the proponant is an expert.
Your inferiority complex is /really/ disgusting and repulsive to behold.
| Of course he has a lot to give to you (maybe) and I am of no consequence.
You are truly of no consequence.
| Unfortunately I do not share you morals.
You do not any morals.
| Please note that I only commented after Erik had crosses my limit of
| tolerance with his bullshit.
Once again a failure to accept responsibility for your own actions.
| Everyone has a limit, even you. >15 months, I am hanging out here. I
| comment only after that.
Do you expect praise because it took you a long time to go mad?
| I see people getting fed up and going away.
No, you do not.
| This is bad for the community. My community too.
A community of whining losers who want to feel good will quickly die.
| My knowledge of Lisp is in the starting phases.
No shit, Sherlock. Yet you have lots of opinions and think you should
castigate those who can help you. Are you fucking nuts? What do you want
to gain from reading articles in this forum now that you have proved to
have an anti-social personality disorder?
| You all have had an head start.
Oh, Christ. One of those.
| That does not mean I or other newcomers have no right to speak out.
You have no right to speak out. Nobody has any such "right".
| We (newcomers) very much respect and appreciate the time you people spend
| here in explaining things to us.
No, you do not.
| Most have said so in more words.
And you were the one who came up with the idea that people would be nice
only because they wanted a piece of the rich man's pile, was it not?
What makes you think that anyone should /not/ believe that you are nice
only because you want something from others?
| If this is a forum for Lisp experts then they do not need a public forum.
This is not for you to decide.
| I am sure they are rich enouch to have email addresses.
Be happy that the experts are still using a medium you can read.
| Justifying Eriks behaviour makes you party to it.
You /really/ are quite insane.
| Expert or no expert he was /plain/ wrong.
You are not the judge of these things.
You snotty little fuck, you need to realize that this is a meritocracy.
You have no rights to speak out. You either help people achieve their
goals for which this newsgroup was designed to help people, or you are a
serious detraction from other people's achievement of such goals. You
are not in the category who can really help anyone with anything, yet.
Yet you make a lot of noise along with the other evil retards who gang up
on me because you have serious emotional coping problems.
You make things /worse/, you dumbfuck. Take responsibility for that.
--
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 07 Oct 2002 20:41:26 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
Respecting Mr.Kinley's point and to avoid adding to the noise I will
stop here.
But that does not mean I have backed down. If you want to continue
and try to make me suffer, you have my email id.
--
What?
* quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
| Respecting Mr.Kinley's point and to avoid adding to the noise I will
| stop here.
That you need to tell people you stop is /really/ pathological.
| But that does not mean I have backed down.
Not to worry. I know you never would.
--
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.
quasi wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:40:32 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>And who the blight on c.l.l? You concede your target brings much to
>>c.l.l. in re Lisp (hint: the topic of the ng)... get back us to when you
>>can say the same. As it stands you come across like drunk fans jumping
>>onto the field to attack a ball player (or coach as happened last week).
>
>
> I see now, what some have mentioned (to me) about this topic. You are
> ready to accept any behaviour if the proponant is an expert.
No, I should have been more explicit in my math. In one case I see:
(+ superb-lisp-commentator flamewarrior)
...and in the other I see:
flamewarrior
The rhetorical "who is the blight on cll?" was meant not to defend the
former but to condemn the latter as certainly falling short of the
former's status, whatever mitigating value (including nil) one finds in
the former's lisp commentary.
You noted earlier: "I accept that my continued arguments with Erik are
completely useless, but Erik is 50% party to them." Please consider that
/any/ flamewarrior is party only to 50% of the traffic. ie, It takes two
to tango.(tm) It is simply not mandatory for any party to continue
flamewars beyond a punch or two, because it just ends up as endless
point-by-point rebuttal word quibbling escalating yada yada yada. So I
have no sympathy for either combatant, who in fact seem to be enjoying
themselves greatly, but for the increasing frustration of not being able
to get the other fellow to cry touche!
On very rare occasions living lisp legends descend from olympus to break
up these flamewars, and it goes well when they do. Partly because they
do not take sides. For you to think an "in-your-face" attack on EN would
have a positive outcome on cll was a grave error.
And, sorry to harp on this, but to join then with ilias in condemning
those of us who do not join in your attack (sheep? suck-ups? I do not
know whether to slurp or bleat (or woof, come to think of it)) is really
over the top.
Ask not how cll can be improved by EN changing, ask how you can change
to improve cll.(tm) If you think the arguments are completely useless,
stop. Just stop. Come back as your real self and just talk lisp. (My two
cents.)
kenny
clinisys
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: Understanding c.l.l. (was Re: Understanding Erik Naggum)
Date:
Message-ID: <ansusc$8uk$1@paris.btinternet.com>
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> If you think the arguments are completely useless, stop. Just stop.
> Come back as your real self and just talk lisp.
Yes. (I've bitten my tongue sufficiently hard so far that it probably
requires emergency treatment).
> (My two cents.)
With me adding my tuppence at current exchange rates I make that a nickel...
:)w
On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 21:16:40 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
>
>And, sorry to harp on this, but to join then with ilias in condemning
>those of us who do not join in your attack (sheep? suck-ups? I do not
>know whether to slurp or bleat (or woof, come to think of it)) is really
>over the top.
You post this because you are "fed up" with me. I posted that one to
EN because I was "fed up" with him.
>Ask not how cll can be improved by EN changing, ask how you can change
>to improve cll.(tm)
Yes, I constantly do that. That was why the effort. The motivation
was not to change EN. Anyway even if the motivation was correct the
method was not. I ofcourse, like a good human being, will change my
approach next time.
> If you think the arguments are completely useless,
>stop. Just stop.
That is sound thinking indeed. I have already done that.
>Come back as your real self and just talk lisp. (My two cents.)
Please stop that talk about me hiding behind anonomity. I have posted
my personal website address on this forum. That does not indicate my
eagerness to hide. I have been using this handle for a long time and
I like it. Abhijit instead of quasi would not have added anything
more. I /am/ my real self. And I did start out with /only/ Lisp.
And BTW I am not going anywhere.
quasi
p.s.
I mention EN here only as reference. This is not against/for him.
p.p.s.
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com
--
What?
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Understanding c.l.l. (was Re: Understanding Erik Naggum)
Date:
Message-ID: <3243080001838402@naggum.no>
* quasi <·········@yahoo.com>
| You post this because you are "fed up" with me. I posted that one to
| EN because I was "fed up" with him.
Nobody cares that you are fed up with anything. A reaction to such a
stupid article is indeed relevant. If you are fed up, you deal with it
on a personal level. Take a hike.
| Please stop that talk about me hiding behind anonomity.
People tend to assume that other people who use only their first name are
either royalty or children. People tend to assume that other people who
use only a nickname are either boxers, violent criminals, gang members,
or newspaper columnists. If you are none of these, a full name is highly
preferred.
| I have been using this handle for a long time and I like it.
That does not mean you should use it here.
--
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.
quasi <·········@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<··································@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 21:16:40 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
> wrote:
> > If you think the arguments are completely useless,
> >stop. Just stop.
>
> That is sound thinking indeed. I have already done that.
Right. My ISP's NG server must be dead, I had to switch to google to
read NGs. The parting shot at EN made it a non-stopping stop, but I
wager you'll get a second chance at a full stop. :)
>
> >Come back as your real self and just talk lisp. (My two cents.)
>
> Please stop that talk about me hiding behind anonomity.
Ah, no, actually I have no problem with the anonymous thing, though I
can see how it could be read that way, and esp. since others had
already picked on you for that. I was thinking "fresh start" if you
wanted one and I see you do not, which is fine. Plz forgive my
presumption.
kenny
clinisys
On 8 Oct 2002 16:29:53 -0700, ·······@nyc.rr.com (Kenny Tilton) wrote:
>I was thinking "fresh start" if you wanted one and I see you do not, which is fine.
Thank you for your kind consideration. A "fresh start" may be the way
if someone thinks he has done something terribly wrong and does not
want to face consequences (in the context of changing name and coming
back). In my opinion, I have done nothing terribly wrong - maybe only
stupid. Anyway I am ready to accept consequences for my own stupidity
& mistakes.
regards,
quasi
--
What?
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> The "Positive Feedback First" technique has not been invented in the
> Patterns community, so I am pretty sure that one can find some
> statistical "hard" data that show the effectiveness of this technique.
> If you insist, I am willing to do a little research to find some...
Don't bother with Bryan Milling's classic "The Five Minute Manager". His
prescription is: (1) blast subordinates first (2) praise second.
Come to think of it, that was my approach with the worst kids in class
(when they crossed a line which in my day would have had me suspended
for a week): explode first, finishing with a positive message directed
at the malefactor specifically.
kenny
clinisys
* Pascal Costanza
| In fact there is considerable evidence that this way of criticizing people
| is much more effective.
You talk about something entirely different. People who commit crimes
and cause people real loss, are /not/ met with with what you suggest.
I am somewhat surprised that you think this is the same thing.
Have you read any of these fights at all? Have you actually /read/ the
article I write that causes the morons to attack me? Or do you not
remember it because it was precisely what people here favor?
The fact of the matter is, some people here continue to fight me
regardless of what I do. I am always blamed when someone feels bad,
regardless of whether it is reasonable or not. Take a close look at
these two articles and /try/ to reach a conclusion that does not depend
on prejudice:
<···············@suspiria.ai.mit.edu>
in which Jeremy H. Brown fueled the current feud with this moronic
comment: "PS Is Erik Naggum always so full of poisonous bile?" which he
apparently thought was an OK thing to "ask" in this forum because of the
shitheads that hang around here and talk about me all the time.
<················@naggum.no>
in which I respond to his "religious" argument among others. That is
what he rates as "poisonous bile" because the other article I wrote to
him, elicited no such response.
<················@naggum.no>
is a simple response to a silly question like "Where's the harm?"
Now tell me, where did this guy get the idea that I was full of poisonous
bile? What I had I /done/ to him? How rational and reasonable was his
response to what I had written?
Am I the only person on this planet who considers the /irrationality/ of
people who have nothing whatsoever to offer but hate messages directed at
me? I ask you people, and especially the bastards whose sense of justice
is so warped they /encourage/ Erann Gat, had this person been able to
think I was full of poisonous bile based on his /own/ observations, or
did he need community approval of his hatred before he could lower
himself to such a depth that he could ask that "question"? In light of
his brief experience with the forum, I should say it was an innocent
question asked because others had already validated it with their
constant harrassment of me.
I DO NOT ATTACK PEOPLE FOR NO REASON! I do not attack people at all, in
fact. What had I /done/ to Jeremy H. Brown to deserve his response?
What had I /done/ to Erann Gat, Ray Blaak, and Raffael Cavallero, our
resident evil, this time to warrant their hateful, destructive messages?
| I also have to admit that I don't know a lot about the "history" of the
| arguments in c.l.l. So maybe my point is not so relevant in this
| context. (Sorry in advance if that's the case.)
Our resident evil bastards attack me for their own hurt feelings in feuds
past, not because of anything I do. Read what I write, for God's sake,
and you will see that I am /not/ attacking those who do not badmouth me
first. If they do not like how I try to help and correct them, tell me,
but do they /have/ to engage in all-out hate campaigns against me?
And to think that some people are so /indecent/ as to encourage Erann
Gat. /That/ will truly take me some time to get over. Presuming that
shithead is not lying, of course.
--
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
> | In fact there is considerable evidence that this way of criticizing people
> | is much more effective.
>
> You talk about something entirely different. People who commit crimes
> and cause people real loss, are /not/ met with with what you suggest.
?!? Yes, they are. Criminals and even murderers are treated by
psychotherapists like that (at least in Germany, but I guess also
elsewhere). I think there's a reason for that.
> regardless of whether it is reasonable or not. Take a close look at
> these two articles and /try/ to reach a conclusion that does not depend
> on prejudice:
>
> <···············@suspiria.ai.mit.edu>
> in which Jeremy H. Brown fueled the current feud with this moronic
> comment: "PS Is Erik Naggum always so full of poisonous bile?" which he
> apparently thought was an OK thing to "ask" in this forum because of the
> shitheads that hang around here and talk about me all the time.
[...]
> Now tell me, where did this guy get the idea that I was full of poisonous
> bile? What I had I /done/ to him? How rational and reasonable was his
> response to what I had written?
Your response started with a very good suggestion. You have strongly
suggested to him to read Keene's book and reassured him by saying how
rewarding this would turn out to be. I think this was a very positive
and constructive way of dealing with the issue.
However, after that, in the same message, you have also diminished your
efforts. In this very example, Jeremy has previously made some
statements about why CLOS can be hard to grasp and can be perceived as
being very complex. I can relate to this statement, it _is_ hard for a
beginner to understand CLOS, especially when you have been misdirected
by other OO languages. In your reply you started to use the swear word
"bullshit"; several of your statements about the simplicity and elegance
of CLOS can be perceived to have the subtext that you think that Jeremy
is just not intelligent enough to understand them; especially the
statement "It is just complex, and you have decided not to deal with
it." can be regarded as a personal attack. I guess that Jeremy has the
general feeling that he is capable of dealing with complexity and that
he has not "just given up".
In this example, I think that concentrating purely on positive
reinforcement and suggestions for improvement would have been more
effective. Especially, I think that the first paragraph of your reply
would have done the job if it would have been your only response. I
don't think your statements where intended to be insulting, but they can
be perceived as such. I am convinced that, when in doubt, it's better to
omit statements that are ambiguous on this level (with regard to
possibly being perceived as insults or not).
> I DO NOT ATTACK PEOPLE FOR NO REASON! I do not attack people at all, in
> fact. What had I /done/ to Jeremy H. Brown to deserve his response?
> What had I /done/ to Erann Gat, Ray Blaak, and Raffael Cavallero, our
> resident evil, this time to warrant their hateful, destructive messages?
I have only reread the thread that involves Jeremy. I don't know about
the others.
> | I also have to admit that I don't know a lot about the "history" of the
> | arguments in c.l.l. So maybe my point is not so relevant in this
> | context. (Sorry in advance if that's the case.)
>
> Our resident evil bastards attack me for their own hurt feelings in feuds
> past, not because of anything I do. Read what I write, for God's sake,
> and you will see that I am /not/ attacking those who do not badmouth me
> first. If they do not like how I try to help and correct them, tell me,
> but do they /have/ to engage in all-out hate campaigns against me?
Well, from what I have read so far I have the impression that your way
of argueing is pretty non-standard. All non-standard behavior causes
irritations in people just and purely because it is non-standard, but
for no other reason at all. This is a natural reaction of people and you
can't do anything against it, in my opinion.
> And to think that some people are so /indecent/ as to encourage Erann
> Gat. /That/ will truly take me some time to get over. Presuming that
> shithead is not lying, of course.
I am not sure if you are talking about me here?!? I don't encourage
anyone to involve in arguments. I haven't had any problems with Erann so
far - to the contrary, I have perceived him as being very helpful, for
example with my Lisp guide. So I would really like to see him continue
to participate in c.l.l.
Pascal
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> I guess that Jeremy has the
> general feeling that he is capable of dealing with complexity and that
> he has not "just given up".
Well, he /did/ make the rather funny "CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping"
subject change.
And he /did/ pen: "I've always gotten frustrated with its complexity
while reading the spec and wound up ignoring most of it.", kind of a
smoking gun on the "giving up" charge.
Me, I find specs hard to read, but Jeremy also in sum admitted to making
his assessment without having read Keene, so....
You know, I just noticed today that JB owned the "let's go shopping"
line. Was he poking fun at his own laziness, or was the whole article a
satire? hmmm....
>
> In this example, I think that concentrating purely on positive
> reinforcement and suggestions for improvement would have been more
> effective.
A number of folks, myself included, indeed made kindler gentler
responses. Jeremy responded only to quibble with one bit of one article
and take a swipe at Erik. Until then I thought EN's tone had been a
little harsh. Not after. Maybe he read JB more quickly/accurately than
the rest of us?
kenny
clinisys
Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>
>> I guess that Jeremy has the general feeling that he is capable of
>> dealing with complexity and that he has not "just given up".
>
> Well, he /did/ make the rather funny "CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping"
> subject change.
>
> And he /did/ pen: "I've always gotten frustrated with its complexity
> while reading the spec and wound up ignoring most of it.", kind of a
> smoking gun on the "giving up" charge.
OK, you're right - when taking the message into account Jeremy responded
to, it seems to be more likely that he thinks that CLOS is too hard and
too complex, and that it's better to not deal with CLOS. It's quite
adequate to refute this notion.
>> In this example, I think that concentrating purely on positive
>> reinforcement and suggestions for improvement would have been more
>> effective.
>
> A number of folks, myself included, indeed made kindler gentler
> responses. Jeremy responded only to quibble with one bit of one article
> and take a swipe at Erik. Until then I thought EN's tone had been a
> little harsh. Not after. Maybe he read JB more quickly/accurately than
> the rest of us?
Perhaps. A little googling reveals that Jeremy actually seems to be a
Scheme supporter. Participating in a newsgroup for a language I don't
like and complaining about this language is impolite, to say the least.
But even then I think that a more "positive" approach would have been
more effective, at least for those who pay less attention. (But you're
right, my argument gets weaker in the given context.)
Pascal
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in news:ann3al$5vf$1
@newsreader2.netcologne.de:
> But even then I think that a more "positive" approach would have been
> more effective, at least for those who pay less attention. (But you're
> right, my argument gets weaker in the given context.)
>
With children I would agree with you. But with an adult this is at best
a false kindness, in many cases I think it actualy does harm to the
person you are being "nice" to. Remember a big part of being an adult is
to accept responability for your actions, personal and professional. Not
bust the chops of people who are kind enough to debug(or debunk) my work
in a useful way. By useful way I mean your code/design/haircut sucks
_and here is why_, so I get a list of my mistakes and can correct them if
I feel they are accurate. Now if I required people to be "nice" to me
when they point this out I am harming myself by pissing off the people
who provide me with very useful info. This is really fuckking stupid,
yes it goes beyond very stupid. Furthermore I would consider it a
hostile act if some 3rd party started telling people to be "nice" when
correcting me and thereby causing my errors to not be exposed and then
fixed.
I like to be right and the only way to be right is to work through the
stage where I get it wrong. People who help me go through it faster are
doing me a great service. And people who say I needed to be treated like
a spoiled child are not, regardless of there intent.
I do not mean this to be harsh, just accurate.
marc
>
> Pascal
>
>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in news:ann3al$5vf$1
> @newsreader2.netcologne.de:
>
>>But even then I think that a more "positive" approach would have been
>>more effective, at least for those who pay less attention. (But you're
>>right, my argument gets weaker in the given context.)
>
> With children I would agree with you. But with an adult this is at best
> a false kindness, in many cases I think it actualy does harm to the
> person you are being "nice" to.
There is enough evidence that the "nice" approach is more effective than
the "blunt" approach, even when dealing with adults. I would be
interested to hear about studies that support your point of view.
Pascal
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in
·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in news:ann3al$5vf$1
>> @newsreader2.netcologne.de:
>>
>>>But even then I think that a more "positive" approach would have been
>>>more effective, at least for those who pay less attention. (But
>>>you're right, my argument gets weaker in the given context.)
>
>>
>> With children I would agree with you. But with an adult this is at
>> best a false kindness, in many cases I think it actualy does harm to
>> the person you are being "nice" to.
>
> There is enough evidence that the "nice" approach is more effective
> than the "blunt" approach, even when dealing with adults. I would be
> interested to hear about studies that support your point of view.
>
If you define adult as alive after 18 years then yes you are right. I do
not define adult as just not dead after a certian time period though. I
have seen a lot of people who I would call very old children. They can
do some "adult" things like pay bills and sign contracts etc. But they
still require aproval from other people to function. And if you tell
them they fucked up they stop being functional from a social point of
view. Then they go to great lenghts to "prove" "I'm not fucked up your
fucked up". When I said you did fuck up not that you are fucked up.
By the definition I use for adult if you are corrected in a blunt manor
or not you examin the data, determin if it is valid, take proper action
and thank the person who pointed it out. You only thank the person if
you feel it was an attempt, succesfull or otherwise, by them to help you.
marc
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> By the definition I use for adult if you are corrected in a blunt manor
> or not you examin the data, determin if it is valid, take proper action
> and thank the person who pointed it out.
Why thank them?
kenny
clinisys
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
> > By the definition I use for adult if you are corrected in a blunt
> > manor or not you examin the data, determin if it is valid, take
> > proper action and thank the person who pointed it out.
>
> Why thank them?
Because despite it's presentation, they have given you something
valuable.
--
Sincerely,
Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in news:3DA05E22.8040401
@nyc.rr.com:
>
>
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> By the definition I use for adult if you are corrected in a blunt
>> manor or not you examin the data, determin if it is valid, take
>> proper action and thank the person who pointed it out.
>
> Why thank them?
If someone helps me then they did me a favor/service and I would thank
them for it. I thank people for holding doors open and I consider fixing
my world view a bit more important then holding a door open. This is not
automaticly required on my part. The attempt has to pass a
reasonableness test on my part befor it gets acknoledged, but if it does
then thanks are in order because you at least tried to help me.
marc
>
> kenny
> clinisys
>
>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in news:3DA05E22.8040401
> @nyc.rr.com:
>
>
>>
>>Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>
>>>By the definition I use for adult if you are corrected in a blunt
>>>manor or not you examin the data, determin if it is valid, take
>>>proper action and thank the person who pointed it out.
>>
>>Why thank them?
>
>
> If someone helps me then they did me a favor/service ...
I understand that.
> ...and I would thank
> them for it.
Why? Maybe I should be less obscure. getting back to an NG technical
correction that helps you, why undertake a speech act directed at the
correcter indicating your gratitude to the correcter? What outcome is
desired, what effect on the correcter or yourself? What purpose is
served by expressing gratitude, given that gratitude is felt?
Why thank them? To reward them? To fulfill a social obligation? Other?
kenny
clinisys
* Kenny Tilton
| What outcome is desired, what effect on the correcter or yourself? What
| purpose is served by expressing gratitude, given that gratitude is felt?
Would you ask these same questions if the suggestion to send thanks were
specifically directed to be done by mail, not in public?
--
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:
> * Kenny Tilton
> | What outcome is desired, what effect on the correcter or yourself? What
> | purpose is served by expressing gratitude, given that gratitude is felt?
>
> Would you ask these same questions if the suggestion to send thanks were
> specifically directed to be done by mail, not in public?
>
Yes. And likewise extend "...effect on the corrector or yourself" to
include other NG readers.
k,c
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in news:3DA06B05.6060306
@nyc.rr.com:
>
>
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in news:3DA05E22.8040401
>> @nyc.rr.com:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>>
>>>>By the definition I use for adult if you are corrected in a blunt
>>>>manor or not you examin the data, determin if it is valid, take
>>>>proper action and thank the person who pointed it out.
>>>
>>>Why thank them?
>>
>>
>> If someone helps me then they did me a favor/service ...
>
> I understand that.
>
>
>> ...and I would thank
>> them for it.
>
> Why? Maybe I should be less obscure. getting back to an NG technical
> correction that helps you, why undertake a speech act directed at the
> correcter indicating your gratitude to the correcter? What outcome is
> desired, what effect on the correcter or yourself? What purpose is
> served by expressing gratitude, given that gratitude is felt?
>
> Why thank them? To reward them? To fulfill a social obligation? Other?
Let me ask you a question:
If someone holds a door open for you do you say thank you when you walk
through?
marc
>
> kenny
> clinisys
>
>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in news:3DA06B05.6060306
> @nyc.rr.com:
>>Why thank them? To reward them? To fulfill a social obligation? Other?
>
> Let me ask you a question:
> If someone holds a door open for you do you say thank you when you walk
> through?
*irony on*
No, I would regard this as an insult. Heck, I can open the door on my
own. Does this "someone" think I am physically retarded, or what?
Actually, I would say "fuck you".
*irony off*
Pascal
P.S.: I have actually met feminists who react like this.
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in
·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in news:3DA06B05.6060306
>> @nyc.rr.com:
>
>>>Why thank them? To reward them? To fulfill a social obligation?
>>>Other?
>>
>> Let me ask you a question:
>> If someone holds a door open for you do you say thank you when you
>> walk through?
>
> *irony on*
>
> No, I would regard this as an insult. Heck, I can open the door on my
> own. Does this "someone" think I am physically retarded, or what?
> Actually, I would say "fuck you".
>
> *irony off*
Well I hold doors open for men also. I guess some people have to rebel
against something. And a lot of ones I ran into at college, do not see
them much in the work place, who give my actions base motives were so
butt ugly as to make the thought of it comic(in a hidious sort of way).
marc
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
> P.S.: I have actually met feminists who react like this.
>
>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>>Let me ask you a question:
>>>If someone holds a door open for you do you say thank you when you
>>>walk through?
>>
>>*irony on*
>>
>>No, I would regard this as an insult. Heck, I can open the door on my
>>own. Does this "someone" think I am physically retarded, or what?
>>Actually, I would say "fuck you".
>>
>>*irony off*
>
> Well I hold doors open for men also. I guess some people have to rebel
> against something. And a lot of ones I ran into at college, do not see
> them much in the work place, who give my actions base motives were so
> butt ugly as to make the thought of it comic(in a hidious sort of way).
Now, the next step would be to think about how far the conclusion to
this analogy could be translated to other forms of "politeness" we have
discussed recently.
Pascal
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in
·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>
>>>>Let me ask you a question:
>>>>If someone holds a door open for you do you say thank you when you
>>>>walk through?
>>>
>>>*irony on*
>>>
>>>No, I would regard this as an insult. Heck, I can open the door on my
>>>own. Does this "someone" think I am physically retarded, or what?
>>>Actually, I would say "fuck you".
>>>
>>>*irony off*
>>
>> Well I hold doors open for men also. I guess some people have to
>> rebel against something. And a lot of ones I ran into at college, do
>> not see them much in the work place, who give my actions base motives
>> were so butt ugly as to make the thought of it comic(in a hidious
>> sort of way).
>
> Now, the next step would be to think about how far the conclusion to
> this analogy could be translated to other forms of "politeness" we
> have discussed recently.
>
ok
enforced politeness is comic(in a hidious sort of way). I am sooo glad
that you came around to my way of looking at things.
Now when I do hold doors open or in general at least try to help people
I am being civil not polite. Yes I know one of the definitions of civil
is polite, but the one I am using here is: Of relating to, or
benifitting a citizen or citizens. Another reason I help people is that
I am paying a debt back to the people who have been kind and generious
enough to help me both personaly and professionaly. It is also *fun* to
help people who take advantage of it.
marc
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in news:3DA06B05.6060306
> @nyc.rr.com:
>
>
>>
>>Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>
>>>Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in news:3DA05E22.8040401
>>>@nyc.rr.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>By the definition I use for adult if you are corrected in a blunt
>>>>>manor or not you examin the data, determin if it is valid, take
>>>>>proper action and thank the person who pointed it out.
>>>>
>>>>Why thank them?
>>>
>>>
>>>If someone helps me then they did me a favor/service ...
>>
>>I understand that.
>>
>>
>>
>>>...and I would thank
>>>them for it.
>>
>>Why? Maybe I should be less obscure. getting back to an NG technical
>>correction that helps you, why undertake a speech act directed at the
>>correcter indicating your gratitude to the correcter? What outcome is
>>desired, what effect on the correcter or yourself? What purpose is
>>served by expressing gratitude, given that gratitude is felt?
>>
>>Why thank them? To reward them? To fulfill a social obligation? Other?
>
>
> Let me ask you a question:
> If someone holds a door open for you do you say thank you when you walk
> through?
Yes.
k,c.
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
·····················@nyc.rr.com:
>
>
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in news:3DA06B05.6060306
>> @nyc.rr.com:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>>
>>>>Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in news:3DA05E22.8040401
>>>>@nyc.rr.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>By the definition I use for adult if you are corrected in a blunt
>>>>>>manor or not you examin the data, determin if it is valid, take
>>>>>>proper action and thank the person who pointed it out.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why thank them?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If someone helps me then they did me a favor/service ...
>>>
>>>I understand that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>...and I would thank
>>>>them for it.
>>>
>>>Why? Maybe I should be less obscure. getting back to an NG technical
>>>correction that helps you, why undertake a speech act directed at the
>>>correcter indicating your gratitude to the correcter? What outcome is
>>>desired, what effect on the correcter or yourself? What purpose is
>>>served by expressing gratitude, given that gratitude is felt?
>>>
>>>Why thank them? To reward them? To fulfill a social obligation?
>>>Other?
>>
>>
>> Let me ask you a question:
>> If someone holds a door open for you do you say thank you when you
>> walk through?
>
> Yes.
>
> k,c.
>
why?
I do it also for several reasons:
Some one has done me some small service so I should acknoledge it.
If I do not acknoledge it as a thing done by choice I am claiming it
as a right. And saying you are not my equal in society.
Another reason is to encourage the behavior, it benafits me and society
in general. I feel that opening doors and correcting mistakes both fall
into that catagory of behavior
There are others but I need to go get my diner.
marc
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
> ·····················@nyc.rr.com:
>
>
>>
>>Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>
>>>Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in news:3DA06B05.6060306
>>>@nyc.rr.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in news:3DA05E22.8040401
>>>>>@nyc.rr.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>By the definition I use for adult if you are corrected in a blunt
>>>>>>>manor or not you examin the data, determin if it is valid, take
>>>>>>>proper action and thank the person who pointed it out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why thank them?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If someone helps me then they did me a favor/service ...
>>>>
>>>>I understand that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>...and I would thank
>>>>>them for it.
>>>>
>>>>Why? Maybe I should be less obscure. getting back to an NG technical
>>>>correction that helps you, why undertake a speech act directed at the
>>>>correcter indicating your gratitude to the correcter? What outcome is
>>>>desired, what effect on the correcter or yourself? What purpose is
>>>>served by expressing gratitude, given that gratitude is felt?
>>>>
>>>>Why thank them? To reward them? To fulfill a social obligation?
>>>>Other?
>>>
>>>
>>>Let me ask you a question:
>>>If someone holds a door open for you do you say thank you when you
>>>walk through?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>k,c.
>>
>
>
> why?
Irrelevant. In my world blunt corrections are not OK. I am trying to
understand how "thank you" is appropriate in a world where blunt
corrections are OK.
>
> I do it also for several reasons:
>
> Some one has done me some small service so I should acknoledge it.
>
> If I do not acknoledge it as a thing done by choice I am claiming it
> as a right. And saying you are not my equal in society.
...
>
> Another reason is to encourage the behavior...
Well, we agree. The technical nature of the forum and exchange do not
change the fact that people are involved, and that where people are
involved, more is going on than cold, dry, exchange of technical
information.
We also agree that a lot of people over 18 are sensitive.
I would go further and say everyone is sensitive, but that some very few
have developed the self-control to check their wounded pride before
responding to remarks which do not take folks' sensitivity into account.
Those few get thru such moments by thinking to themselves, "Ah, I have a
low social IQ on my hands, better turn down the gain on my insult antenna."
This reminds me of a great line from some legendary engineer at Bell
Labs, who apparently enjoyed Feynman-esque exemption from workplace
social mores: "The hardest thing for me was realizing that I was being
tolerated by the people I had been tolerating."
:)
kenny
clinisys
* Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
| Irrelevant. In my world blunt corrections are not OK. I am trying to
| understand how "thank you" is appropriate in a world where blunt
| corrections are OK.
When did the corrections become "blunt"? As far as I can tell, Marc was
talking about corrections. Why did you make this switch?
| We also agree that a lot of people over 18 are sensitive.
We do not agree on whether they should know enough not to get themselves
into positions where they can get hurt.
--
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:
> * Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
> | Irrelevant. In my world blunt corrections are not OK. I am trying to
> | understand how "thank you" is appropriate in a world where blunt
> | corrections are OK.
>
> When did the corrections become "blunt"? As far as I can tell, Marc was
> talking about corrections. Why did you make this switch?
Not sure how to URL ng messages, but Netscape offers this:
····················································@167.206.3.3
Or go back to the article to which I responded with, "Why thank them?":
Marc wrote (in part): "By the definition I use for adult if you are
corrected in a blunt manor or not you examin the data, determin if it is
valid, take proper action and thank the person who pointed it out."
>
> | We also agree that a lot of people over 18 are sensitive.
>
> We do not agree on whether they should know enough not to get themselves
> into positions where they can get hurt.
>
OK, my infinite loop detector just went off. Peace. Out.
Kenny Tilton wrote:
[...]
> Not sure how to URL ng messages, but Netscape offers this:
>
> ····················································@167.206.3.3
·········································································@167.206.3.3
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
> | Irrelevant. In my world blunt corrections are not OK. I am trying to
> | understand how "thank you" is appropriate in a world where blunt
> | corrections are OK.
>
> When did the corrections become "blunt"? As far as I can tell, Marc was
> talking about corrections. Why did you make this switch?
I have coined the name "blunt approach" in order to be able to quickly
refer to it. I have used quotation marks when I did so, so this
shouldn't be taken literally. (Perhaps, the name "cold language
approach" would have been a better, more neutral choice, but I didn't
have this idea at that point.) Marc has happily taken over this name, so
he doesn't seem to have a problem with this choice.
Pascal
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
·····················@nyc.rr.com:
> Irrelevant. In my world blunt corrections are not OK. I am trying to
> understand how "thank you" is appropriate in a world where blunt
> corrections are OK.
let me explain with a little story:
I go to party A where everybody is oh so nice and will not say anything
to "hurt" my feelings. Now on the way over there my zipper opens up and
I do not notice. These nice people do not tell me about it except for
some mention of a breeze or some other subtlety's that I miss so I do not
figure it out for the evening. And everyone remembers me as the asshole
who was walking around with his privates in public all night.
Now I go to party B where there are some blunt people by the entrance.
One of them tells me my fly is open then 3 things happen:
1: I get embarrised
2: I zip my fly
3: I say thank you
Then I go on to have a great evening because my zipper is now ziped.
I value the correction and actualy prefer simple and clear language when
it happens. It is going to fix the problem faster and better.
I fell that you way of correcting people is so fundmentaly dissmissive of
people and at the same time so damm condasending to them that I find it
hard to comprehend how the adults( my def.) you work with do not have
serious issues with you for the continious contempt you show them. You
correct them like they are beneath you.
Now when I correct someone I treat them like a peer and with respect.
You treat them as an inferior person. That is much worse then blunt or
rude.
>
>>
>> I do it also for several reasons:
>>
>> Some one has done me some small service so I should acknoledge it.
>>
>> If I do not acknoledge it as a thing done by choice I am claiming it
>> as a right. And saying you are not my equal in society.
> ...
>>
>> Another reason is to encourage the behavior...
>
> Well, we agree. The technical nature of the forum and exchange do not
> change the fact that people are involved, and that where people are
> involved, more is going on than cold, dry, exchange of technical
> information.
This is a "work" and at work you should keep a professional distance if
at all possable because it makes it easier to get work done. When I was
a child I lived in an appartment building and learned this: Do not try to
get to know your neighbors, you may find out that you hate them. You
then have a problem. You keep a professional distance and you will have
less problems living next to them. Be civil if you see they need some
help help them, but try hard not to get involved on a personal level.
>
> We also agree that a lot of people over 18 are sensitive.
No we do not. I said lots of people who have survived past there 18th
birthday are old children. I think that dam near all adults would be
gravly insulted by you treatment of them.
I am saying you did fuck up. You are saying you are fucked up. Mine is
a professional comment and yours is a personal attack.
>
> I would go further and say everyone is sensitive, but that some very
> few have developed the self-control to check their wounded pride
> before responding to remarks which do not take folks' sensitivity into
> account. Those few get thru such moments by thinking to themselves,
> "Ah, I have a low social IQ on my hands, better turn down the gain on
> my insult antenna."
And they should be encouraged in this self distructive behavior? Is this
encouragement any real kindness to them?
>
> This reminds me of a great line from some legendary engineer at Bell
> Labs, who apparently enjoyed Feynman-esque exemption from workplace
> social mores: "The hardest thing for me was realizing that I was being
> tolerated by the people I had been tolerating."
>
But was he patronizing them?
>:)
Please stop treating me like a child it is insulting, the smiley face
above. I do not need or want the pat, pat, pinch, pat drill.
marc
>
> kenny
> clinisys
>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
>>This reminds me of a great line from some legendary engineer at Bell
>>Labs, who apparently enjoyed Feynman-esque exemption from workplace
>>social mores: "The hardest thing for me was realizing that I was being
>>tolerated by the people I had been tolerating."
>>
>>:)
>
>
> Please stop treating me like a child it is insulting, the smiley face
> above. I do not need or want the pat, pat, pinch, pat drill.
i can see that it could be construed that way, but that was just my way
of signifying that I was smiling at that engineer's remark, which I do
every time I read it. It was shorthand for, "Is that priceless or what?"
Otherwise, looks like this horse is rightly and truly dead. I'm out.
kenny
clinisys
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
·····················@nyc.rr.com:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
>
>>>This reminds me of a great line from some legendary engineer at Bell
>>>Labs, who apparently enjoyed Feynman-esque exemption from workplace
>>>social mores: "The hardest thing for me was realizing that I was
>>>being tolerated by the people I had been tolerating."
>>>
>>>:)
>>
>>
>> Please stop treating me like a child it is insulting, the smiley face
>> above. I do not need or want the pat, pat, pinch, pat drill.
>
> i can see that it could be construed that way, but that was just my
> way of signifying that I was smiling at that engineer's remark, which
> I do every time I read it. It was shorthand for, "Is that priceless or
> what?"
fair enough. I would consider that remark disfunctional not cute. He
does not apear to generalize well.
1: he was paid money to show up and do work
2: part of that is he had to deal with his coworkers
3: how long should it take for him to realize they also have to deal with
him?
But why was this the only thing you responded to? There was interesting
stuff above it.
marc
>
> Otherwise, looks like this horse is rightly and truly dead. I'm out.
>
> kenny
> clinisys
>
>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
> ·····················@nyc.rr.com:
>
>
>>Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>
>>>Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
>>
>>>>This reminds me of a great line from some legendary engineer at Bell
>>>>Labs, who apparently enjoyed Feynman-esque exemption from workplace
>>>>social mores: "The hardest thing for me was realizing that I was
>>>>being tolerated by the people I had been tolerating."
>>>>
...
>
> fair enough. I would consider that remark disfunctional not cute. He
> does not apear to generalize well.
>
> 1: he was paid money to show up and do work
> 2: part of that is he had to deal with his coworkers
> 3: how long should it take for him to realize they also have to deal with
> him?
Whatever you think the line says about the bloke, it is still a great
piece of "writing". (He was actually being quoted by a local newspaper
doing a feature on him.)
Another line I liked: "All great engineers are just trying to prove to
their parents that they were wrong about them." So i do not think he was
setting himself up as a paragon of emotional or social strength, to the
contrary he was (quite wittily) taking himself down a notch or two.
Which, come to think of it, does show emotional/social growth by the
time the interviewer found him.
>
>
> But why was this the only thing you responded to? There was interesting
> stuff above it.
Nothing new, i felt. I felt each side had made clear the spin we put on
kindler/gentler vs blunt correction, and that I had nothing more to add
other than to reiterate stuff I or Paul had said, hence the "beating a
dead horse" sign off.
But first, here's an arrow for the pro-blunt quiver: one guy on our team
was also a PhD candidate. One time he responded to something the boss
had written by saying "It is not clear how XYZ will help our cause." A
day later the boss was telling me he had to call the guy to explain XYZ.
I said I felt the guy understood XYZ. The boss replied, "No, I have the
message here. He says it is not clear to him." I had to break it to the
boss that "it is not clear" is acadamese for "rubbish!", an
interpretation to which the guy later laughingly assented.
kenny
clinisys
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
> ·····················@nyc.rr.com:
>>Well, we agree. The technical nature of the forum and exchange do not
>>change the fact that people are involved, and that where people are
>>involved, more is going on than cold, dry, exchange of technical
>>information.
>
>
> This is a "work" and at work you should keep a professional distance if
> at all possable because it makes it easier to get work done.
I disagree. I am programming in Common Lisp in my spare time, I am
participating in this newsgroup in my spare time. I would like to have a
good time here. This is supposed to be fun. This is not my top priority,
but I nevertheless highly value the fun aspect.
And no, the "professional distance" nonsense doesn't help you to get
your work done. There are studies that show that people work better when
they feel more comfortable. (_feel_ _comfortable_ - did you get that?)
Focusing purely on the "work" aspect doesn't make sense to me. What kind
of masochistic world view do you have?
Pascal
* Pascal Costanza
| And no, the "professional distance" nonsense doesn't help you to get your
| work done. There are studies that show that people work better when they
| feel more comfortable. (_feel_ _comfortable_ - did you get that?)
Some people actually feel comfortable when they get their work done
efficiently and when they accomplish something. Others seem to feel
comfortable only when they get paid to do no work at all.
There are studies that show that there are a number of remarkably
different personality types. That you keep insisting on your type is
really pathological. It also tells everybody that you are really average
since no person who is even slightly different from the average will be
able to believe that all others are just like himself.
What makes people of different personalities work together well is
/professionalism/. You seem to lack that concept entirely.
--
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
> | And no, the "professional distance" nonsense doesn't help you to get your
> | work done. There are studies that show that people work better when they
> | feel more comfortable. (_feel_ _comfortable_ - did you get that?)
>
> Some people actually feel comfortable when they get their work done
> efficiently and when they accomplish something. Others seem to feel
> comfortable only when they get paid to do no work at all.
Yes, agreed. And there are many people who are somewhere in between and
even somewhere outside of this spectrum.
> There are studies that show that there are a number of remarkably
> different personality types.
I am aware of that. For example, there are people who feel uncomfortable
when cold language is used. There are also people who feel uncomfortable
when they have the impression that they are being treated in a
condescending way. The first type think they are being insulted when in
fact only cold language is used, the second type think they are being
insulted when in fact only warm language is used.
Cold language can be interpreted as very constructive, because it is
straight to the point. Warm language can also be straight to the point,
but it can additionally help the one being criticized to better accept
the criticism. The warm language approach doesn't mean that the "truth"
is not spoken, it is just packaged in a different way.
> That you keep insisting on your type is
> really pathological.
I don't do that. You seem to believe that the warm language approach is
condescending at the same time. I know that the warm language approach
can be applied without being condescending at the same time. You say
that people who feel insulted by cold language should try harder to
control their feelings to get things straight. I say that people who
feel insulted by warm language should try harder to control their
feelings to get things straight.
> It also tells everybody that you are really average
> since no person who is even slightly different from the average will be
> able to believe that all others are just like himself.
I don't believe that other people are just like myself. I am just
convinced that the "warm language approach" is more appropriate than the
"cold language approach". The former reaches more people than the
latter, and more effectively so.
> What makes people of different personalities work together well is
> /professionalism/. You seem to lack that concept entirely.
No, what makes people of different personalities work together well is
the acknowledgement of the differences.
Pascal
* Pascal Costanza
| For example, there are people who feel uncomfortable when cold language
| is used.
No, there is not. Why do you have to invent such self-serving crap? The
point with "cold" language is to be emotion-free and neutral, business-
like and professional. You seem to have serious problems with people who
do not exude personal care about you, but you know what? Most books are
written in this "cold" language. If you try to publish an academic paper
with lots of warm fuzzy feelings, it gets rejected. But you do not even
believe that arguments can carry their own weight, so what the fuck am I
wasting my time trying to correct your stubbornly idiotic views for?
| The warm language approach doesn't mean that the "truth" is not spoken,
| it is just packaged in a different way.
You have taken this cold/warm thing and twisted it out of shape.
| You seem to believe that the warm language approach is condescending at
| the same time.
Unwanted intimacy or intimation is actually insulting and condescending.
| I know that the warm language approach can be applied without being
| condescending at the same time.
Oh, Christ. Your personal experience is an argument.
| I say that people who feel insulted by warm language should try harder to
| control their feelings to get things straight.
Well, my young friend, isn't that just awfully nice of you?
| I am just convinced that the "warm language approach" is more appropriate
| than the "cold language approach".
Of course you are convinced of it. That has never been doubted. What
matters, however, is that you are wrong to demand this of others, which
is what your entire argument amounts to.
| The former reaches more people than the latter, and more effectively so.
This, however, is such a retarded lie that you /have/ to be nuts. If
this were so, publishers would have known about it and would only publish
books that tried to be intimate with their readers and nurture warm fuzzy
feelings instead of imparting information. So let us know: Which of the
books on Common Lisp use a "warm" language? Which of your textbooks have
used a "warm" language? You should be able to list quite a number of
books you have read that were intended to impart information to its
readers that used a warm language if you are right. If you cannot find
any such books, please feel free to inform us that you understand that
your entire line of argument is based precisely on what I attacked to
begin with: Without (a method of) measurements, people will believe
whatever makes them feel good and reject whatever makes them feel bad,
even though the truth and the facts go in the opposite direction.
However, you have explicitly rejected (a measure of) measurements, so all
your blathering about "and more effectively so" amount to is only /your
personal opinion/, based in what makes you feel good. It does not feel
good to be a stupid jerk who has been proven wrong in a long debate, so
you will never change your mind unless you get rid of the stupid idea
that you do not need measurements. That is, until you acquire at least
some pieces of the scientific method instead of touchy-feely opinionating.
* Erik Naggum
| What makes people of different personalities work together well is
| /professionalism/. You seem to lack that concept entirely.
* Pascal Costanza
| No, what makes people of different personalities work together well is the
| acknowledgement of the differences.
No? Are you denying that professionalism is a good thing? Jesus Fucking
Christ, you have to be one of the most retarded people this newsgroup has
ever set foot on. And I mean that warped metaphor literally. *stomp*
--
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
> | For example, there are people who feel uncomfortable when cold language
> | is used.
>
> No, there is not.
Yes, there are.
> | The warm language approach doesn't mean that the "truth" is not spoken,
> | it is just packaged in a different way.
>
> You have taken this cold/warm thing and twisted it out of shape.
No, I haven't. I have suggested the "positive feedback first" approach.
This approach is an effective method to convey sincere negative
feedback. It doesn't mean to hide the "truth".
> | You seem to believe that the warm language approach is condescending at
> | the same time.
>
> Unwanted intimacy or intimation is actually insulting and condescending.
Yes, but I don't suggest unwanted intimacy or intimation. I suggest a
"warm language approach", that's something different.
> | I know that the warm language approach can be applied without being
> | condescending at the same time.
>
> Oh, Christ. Your personal experience is an argument.
It's not only my personal experience, but it is shared by many other
people. Googling for "positive feedback first" and "feedback sandwich",
for example, is revealing.
> | I say that people who feel insulted by warm language should try harder to
> | control their feelings to get things straight.
>
> Well, my young friend, isn't that just awfully nice of you?
Insofar I am making suggestions for improvement - yes.
> | The former reaches more people than the latter, and more effectively so.
>
> This, however, is such a retarded lie that you /have/ to be nuts. If
> this were so, publishers would have known about it and would only publish
> books that tried to be intimate with their readers and nurture warm fuzzy
> feelings instead of imparting information. So let us know: Which of the
> books on Common Lisp use a "warm" language? Which of your textbooks have
> used a "warm" language? You should be able to list quite a number of
> books you have read that were intended to impart information to its
> readers that used a warm language if you are right.
Here are some:
Guy L. Steele: Common Lisp - The Language, 2nd Edition.
Paul Graham: ANSI Common Lisp.
Richard Gabriel: Patterns of Software.
Douglas R. Hofstadter: G�del Escher Bach.
Joel Kramer, Diana Alstad: The Guru Papers - Masks of Authoritarian Power.
Kent Beck: Extreme Programming Explained.
Martin Fowler: UML distilled.
Martin Fowler: Refactoring.
Alistair Cockburn: Agile Software Methodologies.
and so on, and so on...
Here is some more factual evidence for the approach I am suggesting.
There is a website at http://tip.psychology.org/ that provides lots of
useful information on learning theories. Especially interesting are the
following entries, and I quote some sections.
>>>
Experiential Learning (http://tip.psychology.org/rogers.html)
"To Rogers, experiential learning is equivalent to personal change and
growth. Rogers feels that all human beings have a natural propensity to
learn; the role of the teacher is to facilitate such learning. This
includes: (1) setting a positive climate for learning, (2) clarifying
the purposes of the learner(s), (3) organizing and making available
learning resources, (4) balancing intellectual and emotional components
of learning, and (5) sharing feelings and thoughts with learners but not
dominating."
"Principles:
1. Significant learning takes place when the subject matter is relevant
to the personal interests of the student
2. Learning which is threatening to the self (e.g., new attitudes or
perspectives) are more easily assimilated when external threats are at a
minimum
3. Learning proceeds faster when the threat to the self is low
4. Self-initiated learning is the most lasting and pervasive."
<<<
>>>
Anxiety (http://tip.psychology.org/anxiety.html)
"Anxiety has been shown to impair performance in a wide range of
cognitive functions including attention, memory, concept formation and
problem solving (e.g., Sieber et al., 1977; Spielberger, 1966). There is
an interaction with task difficulty; anxiety results in poorer
performance in complex tasks but may improve performance on very simple
tasks. This result can been explained by Hull's drive reduction theory
in so far as arousal increases the strength of responding but competing
responses are activated in complex tasks. Because of its influence on
performance, anxiety is highly relevant to Aptitude x Treatment
Interaction (ATI) research .
Anxiety can be reduced in an instructional context by:
1) instructions that minimize stress and prepare individual
2) increased use of positive feedback during a task
3) reduced opportunities for failure in a task"
<<<
And here is another quote by Joe Bergin from "Feedback Patterns", the
pattern language that includes the "Positive Feedback First" pattern.
(see http://csis.pace.edu/~bergin/patterns/FeedbackPatterns.html).
The quote is from the introduction:
"This pattern language in progress proposes some successful techniques
to assist with teaching and learning. For professional educators, these
patterns may seem obvious, even trivial, because they have used them so
often. But for those newer to teaching, they offer a way for
experienced teachers to pass on their experiences."
This implies that "positive feedback first" is an "obvious, even
trivial" pattern for "professional educators".
It's really time now for you to provide some hard data other than your
personal opinions that support your approach.
Pascal
"Pascal Costanza" <········@web.de> wrote in message ·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de...
> Here are some:
>
> Guy L. Steele: Common Lisp - The Language, 2nd Edition.
> Paul Graham: ANSI Common Lisp.
> Richard Gabriel: Patterns of Software.
> Douglas R. Hofstadter: G�del Escher Bach.
> Joel Kramer, Diana Alstad: The Guru Papers - Masks of Authoritarian Power.
Since you have brought up this great book, you might be interested in a relevant paper.
http://www.whitelotus.org/library2/articles/kramer_alstad/relationships/index.html
Its going way off a lisp topic however.
Wade
"Pascal Costanza" <········@web.de> wrote in message
·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de...
> > feelings instead of imparting information. So let us know: Which of
the
> > books on Common Lisp use a "warm" language? Which of your textbooks
have
> > used a "warm" language? You should be able to list quite a number of
> > books you have read that were intended to impart information to its
> > readers that used a warm language if you are right.
>
> Here are some:
>
> Guy L. Steele: Common Lisp - The Language, 2nd Edition.
> Paul Graham: ANSI Common Lisp.
> Richard Gabriel: Patterns of Software.
> Douglas R. Hofstadter: G�del Escher Bach.
> Joel Kramer, Diana Alstad: The Guru Papers - Masks of Authoritarian Power.
> Kent Beck: Extreme Programming Explained.
> Martin Fowler: UML distilled.
> Martin Fowler: Refactoring.
> Alistair Cockburn: Agile Software Methodologies.
>
> and so on, and so on...
>
>
> Here is some more factual evidence for the approach I am suggesting.
>
>
> There is a website at http://tip.psychology.org/ that provides lots of
...
> Experiential Learning (http://tip.psychology.org/rogers.html)
...
> Anxiety (http://tip.psychology.org/anxiety.html)
...
> (see http://csis.pace.edu/~bergin/patterns/FeedbackPatterns.html).
Thanks Pascal for that excellently supported argument. It is no secret in
this group that I am a proponent of "warm language" as it has taken shape in
this debate. I actually think the current argument has been thouroughly
co-opted away from the real problem, namely posts that use language similar
to "you fucking moron" This is not merely the absence of positive
reinforcement! I would be more than happy with simply never using abusive
language. But now the grey areas start to take over, we all have a hard
time agreeing what is abusive no matter how clear it may be to you or me in
many cases.
That said, I have no problem with "cold language" per se, and can often see
Erik's POV when he is merely "cold and hard" but not abusive. And to his
credit, I don't think I have ever seen him start out with anyone calling
them "fucking moron" (the times it has seemed that way, there has always
been history I was unaware of). He will use words like "stupid" at first
but always worded to describe what someone has said, not who they are. Then
the problems start because we are humans even if we are talking about
machines.
But the undeniable fact (though some may deny it ;) is that his strategy
results in uneeded, counter-productive garbage. Unfortunately, there is
another undeniable fact: that is just my opinion. Erik is firmly convinced
he is correct in what he does, no amount of debating will change that. As
you have seen, no matter how calm and logical you are, if you don't accept
his arguments the discussion deteriorates quickly.
It is good for the group in general to have your sentiments expressed so
clearly and non-combatively, it is necessary to balance the very prolific
output of Erik. BUT... I don't think there is anything to be gained in
continuing. You'll have to be content with expressing your view and
recognizing a dead end discussion...
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
* "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
| But the undeniable fact (though some may deny it ;) is that his strategy
| results in uneeded, counter-productive garbage.
That is simply false. You simply do not see it when it does not develop
in that direction. You, too, must feel that that which you do not see,
cannot exist.
| Erik is firmly convinced he is correct in what he does, no amount of
| debating will change that.
The evidence is that scores of people come back to me, sometimes years
after their scolding, and tell me that it was extremely valuable to them,
albeit painful at the time. They do not generally post this to the same
forum so stupid feel-good people can get some counter-information,
however. Of the people who have been rebuked for their arrogance or
ignorance, only a tiny fraction (I keep track: it is about 5%) appear to
be permanently damaged. The rest win big, if not there and then, then
later in life.
The perhaps most fascinating thing about you feel-good guys is that you
actually believe that other people are unable to adjust to the feedback
they receive, probably because you are yourself completely inept at that
process. I mean, look at all these morons who return to repeat the same
stupid, non-working argument that got them into trouble previously. How
could I /not/ conclude that these people are permanently dysfunctional
who cannot even produce variations on their theme. Other people are not
as bad as you are, and therefore do not respond the way you do or do not.
| As you have seen, no matter how calm and logical you are, if you don't
| accept his arguments the discussion deteriorates quickly.
*sigh* This is the kind of misguided notion that you will keep harping
on despite the sheer absence of evidence, and when I counter this claim,
you only think you have proven it. You feel-good guys are impossible to
argue with, because disagreement makes you feel not-good and therefore
you go bananas when I do not accept your version of things, especially
where your stupid feelings are concerned. I find it extremely annoying.
| You'll have to be content with expressing your view and recognizing a
| dead end discussion...
I find you one of the most unspeakably condescending persons I have ever
had the displeasure of dealing with, Coby Beck. Your style is to presume
to speak ex cathedra about someone else, as if you knew them like a
childhood friend, their parents, or perhaps their shrink. That you do
not even understand that this causes people to become angry at you only
speaks volumes about your inability to feel any actual empathy with other
people, despite all your self-serving crap about being nice. You are a
bad person who has learned, probably the hard way from people realizing
just what and who you are, that it serves you better to use a more polite
and nicer language. It does not take X-ray vision to see through the
wrapping, but people have to pay attention to what you are actually
communicating to see how fantastically vile you really are beneath the
"please, I'm harmless" language. The worst part is that most people who
only want others to speak nicely are the same kind of evil people who
hope that nobody will notice what they really are if they are polite and
nice to people. Some /do/ notice, 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>
> * "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
> | Erik is firmly convinced he is correct in what he does, no amount of
> | debating will change that.
>
> The evidence is that scores of people come back to me, sometimes years
> after their scolding, and tell me that it was extremely valuable to
> them,
> albeit painful at the time. They do not generally post this to the same
> forum so stupid feel-good people can get some counter-information,
> however.
I will try to take your counter-information ar face value. It does not,
btw, indicate either way how you effect lurkers but I have no way of
guessing that either, short of projecting my own reactions on others (which
you correctly reject as unreliable) or using anecdotal evidence from my
discussions with former fellow students/colleagues (also unreliable). Life
is full of things that can not be proven by logic, my confidence in my own
judgements of people is not unshakeable but I am comfortable that my
perceptions are reasonably accurate. I have no desire or expectation of you
agreeing about that.
> | You'll have to be content with expressing your view and recognizing a
> | dead end discussion...
>
> I find you one of the most unspeakably condescending persons I have ever
> had the displeasure of dealing with, Coby Beck.
> Your style is to presume
> to speak ex cathedra about someone else, as if you knew them like a
> childhood friend, their parents, or perhaps their shrink. That you do
> not even understand that this causes people to become angry at you only
> speaks volumes about your inability to feel any actual empathy with
> other people, despite all your self-serving crap about being nice.
FWIW, my desire is not for people to be nice, it is for them to not be
assholes. You keep co-opting the argument this way. And there is nothing
condescending about ceasing a discussion that is a dead-end and calling a
discussion dead-end is not a value judgement on the participants so your
perception of condescension comes from yourself not me. It is no secret I
disagree with your side of this debate but I don't think you are an idiot.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
* Coby Beck
| It does not, btw, indicate either way how you effect lurkers but I have
| no way of guessing that either, short of projecting my own reactions on
| others (which you correctly reject as unreliable) or using anecdotal
| evidence from my discussions with former fellow students/colleagues (also
| unreliable).
Lurkers write me all the time to tell me they appreciate something I have
written. Do you seriously think that I would ignore the insanely hostile
rantings and ravings of you feel-good jerks if it were not for a constant
flow of appreciation? The fact is that you, Erann Gat, and the other
extremely hostile people do nothing but destroy this environment.
Without your stupid ranting and raving about my behavior, there would be
approximately 5% as much noise as there currently is. Your incessant
need to tell people how they should feel and speculate on how others are
feeling when they can handle themselves just fine is so goddamn insane
that you cannot be taken seriously.
| Life is full of things that can not be proven by logic, my confidence in
| my own judgements of people is not unshakeable but I am comfortable that
| my perceptions are reasonably accurate.
Of course you are. You keep claiming things about me that are so insane
as to be impossible, and you obviously do this with the confidence of a
madman who has long since rejected reality.
| FWIW, my desire is not for people to be nice, it is for them to not be
| assholes.
You never speak out against the people who are assholes towards me, so
this is so unspeakably unjust that you really come across as one of the
most unethical people I know of.
| And there is nothing condescending about ceasing a discussion that is a
| dead-end and calling a discussion dead-end is not a value judgement on
| the participants so your perception of condescension comes from yourself
| not me.
Was there any part of what I wrote that you had any comprehension
problems with? Why do you repeat what I said in a way that suggests I
did not say it? You are such a /dishonest/ jerk. I said "I find" about
how I saw your behavior. What on earth are you thinking with to manage
to have to repeat this the way you do? You are so goddamn /indecent/.
Of all the people on this newsgroup who keep attacking me, you are
certainly one of the worst assholes. *PUKE*
--
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.
* Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>
| Erik Naggum wrote:
| > * Pascal Costanza
| > | For example, there are people who feel uncomfortable when cold language
| > | is used.
| > No, there is not.
|
| Yes, there are.
Fascinating. Normally, people who are involved in a debate and not just
some childish game, show people where they got their opinion when others
flat out deny it. It is your responsibility to offer proof or at least
some evidence when one of your claims is countered. The onus of proof is
on he who asserts the positive. But you resort to this kind of massively
unintelligent response, and I think of the fact that you do not want any
measurement of effectiveness and prefer to feel good over thinking about
something, and I conclude that you have not yet heard of the scientific
method. This is a correctable mistake. I would suggest that you visit
your nearby university and find someone who might be willing to suggest
books on the topic. It is so fundamental to the work of any scientist or
for that matter anyone else who wishes to actually succeed with arguments
when not all the participants are children, that I kind of take it for
granted that those who engage in a debate where they at least ought to
understand that their opponent is not overly impressed with their person
or their personal opinion alone, actually would find it useful.
I understand now where our violent disagreement over methodology has its
roots. You are simply an astonishingly uneducated fuddy-duddy who has no
idea what he's talking about. Cold language, warm language, bah humbug!
You even managed to misunderstand so completely my example of how people
manage to overcome even massive flows of emotions under serious stress
that you thought I meant that I would favor exposing people to stress!
Such an amazing intellectual feat is simply not possible if you have any
brain cells that have been exposed to higher education. You have clearly
never even seen any material on argumentation and rhetoric, which I also
blissfully assume people have internalized at around age 16. So here are
a couple books that might still be a bit above your intellectual level,
but which I have found have helped many wayward people tremendously.
DDC 168 (Arguments and Persuasion); ISBN 0-87220-156-2; LCCN 92026328
Anthony Weston
A Rulebook for Arguments, 2nd ed
DDC 160 (Logic); ISBN 0-393-97213-5; LCCN 97025896
David Kelley
The Art of Reasoning, 3rd ed
For that matter, visit your local Dewey-enriched library and peruse the
entire range from 160 to 169. Books under 165 may turn out out be more
useful than many others, but do take your time.
You could also use a good dictionary of the English language. Since
Merriam-Webster has published their Collegiate Dictionary and Thesaurus
on the Net, there is fortunately no need to purchase them. www.m-w.com
| It's not only my personal experience, but it is shared by many other
| people.
165
| > | I say that people who feel insulted by warm language should try harder to
| > | control their feelings to get things straight.
| > Well, my young friend, isn't that just awfully nice of you?
|
| Insofar I am making suggestions for improvement - yes.
*marvel* You just do not get it, do you?
| Here are some:
|
| Guy L. Steele: Common Lisp - The Language, 2nd Edition.
| Paul Graham: ANSI Common Lisp.
| Richard Gabriel: Patterns of Software.
| Douglas R. Hofstadter: G�del Escher Bach.
| Joel Kramer, Diana Alstad: The Guru Papers - Masks of Authoritarian Power.
| Kent Beck: Extreme Programming Explained.
| Martin Fowler: UML distilled.
| Martin Fowler: Refactoring.
| Alistair Cockburn: Agile Software Methodologies.
|
| and so on, and so on...
I am imply in *awe* of your inability to understand what "cold"/"warm"
language /means/.
This really is just a game to you where the point is to keep talking
until everybody has gone home and the last man talking wins, right?
| Here is some more factual evidence for the approach I am suggesting.
Look, you doofus, the things you argue about have never been in question.
The reason I tend not to assume that people have such a strong agenda of
their own that they do not see anything other people say is that I tend
to assume a certain level of social skills. Fanatics who keep talking
about their pet theories no matter what other people are talking about
tend to puzzle me somewhat, so I tend to want to listen to even such
people because they /might/ have an important clue that is useful for me,
but if you listen carefully to a fanatic, you notice that he lives has
lived his entire life inside his own skull, where everything makes sense
to him and his behavior is of course correct and beneficial to those
others he cares about.
| It's really time now for you to provide some hard data other than your
| personal opinions that support your approach.
Look up "professionalism" and "technical writing" in your favorite
library. I have already given you these pointers, you insufferable twit.
--
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.
····@naggum.no said...
>
> * Pascal Costanza
> | For example, there are people who feel uncomfortable when cold language
> | is used.
>
> No, there is not. Why do you have to invent such self-serving crap? The
> point with "cold" language is to be emotion-free and neutral, business-
> like and professional. You seem to have serious problems with people who
> do not exude personal care about you, but you know what? Most books are
> written in this "cold" language. If you try to publish an academic paper
> with lots of warm fuzzy feelings, it gets rejected. But you do not even
> believe that arguments can carry their own weight, so what the fuck am I
> wasting my time trying to correct your stubbornly idiotic views for?
You may be talking about the same things, but in different terms. Erik,
your interpretation of "cold" is free of emotion as defined above.
Pascal appears to equate "cold" language with hostility.
What if we redefined things a little bit. If "warm" language were
understood to mean "ass kissing", where one uses emotion and appeals to
the feelings of the other person, and "cold" language were understood to
mean "ass kicking" where one is hostile towards the other person, then
the language that ought to be used in a technical forum would be
"neutral" language, free of hostility and negative emotions and also
free from ass-kissing emotions as well.
A technical discussion shouldn't cater to peoples insecurities by using
wishy-washy, touchy-feely, feel-good language ("Friend, while you appear
to be really a swell chap, your idea is a most unusual and far-fetched
one and I don't think many would be willing to accept it. Have a nice
day!") nor should it berate people through the use of insults ("Only a
god damned moron would come up with a piece of shit idea like yours, you
pigfucker!"). A neutral approach might take the form of: "Your idea is
wrong as you neglected to consider...". This way, one won't kiss ass
nor would one insult the intelligence of the other person by implying
that their idea, while perhaps ridiculous to those well-versed in the
topic, is an indication of poor mental capacity. You never know -- it
could be that the person truly is brain-damaged, but emotionally charged
language like doesn't belong that in a technical discussion.
The /argument/ itself is what should be criticized as much as it
deserves. Naturally, should the other person take offense and feel hurt
at someone suggesting that their idea is wrong and they start hurling
insults back, then flame on and toast that god damned pigfucker!
[Back to lurk mode...]
Brian Palmer wrote:
> ····@naggum.no said...
>
>>* Pascal Costanza
>>| For example, there are people who feel uncomfortable when cold language
>>| is used.
>>
>> No, there is not. Why do you have to invent such self-serving crap? The
>> point with "cold" language is to be emotion-free and neutral, business-
>> like and professional.
> You may be talking about the same things, but in different terms. Erik,
> your interpretation of "cold" is free of emotion as defined above.
> Pascal appears to equate "cold" language with hostility.
Thanks a lot for trying to "translate". However, I am using "cold
language" in the same way as Erik does, as a short name for the
emotion-free and neutral language he is referring to.
I am not concerned with the hostility some people see in his arguing
style. I really think he wants to contribute effectively to this
newsgroup (and he has certainly already done so). He is just not using
the most effective communication techniques for the purpose at hand.
> What if we redefined things a little bit. If "warm" language were
> understood to mean "ass kissing", where one uses emotion and appeals to
> the feelings of the other person, and "cold" language were understood to
> mean "ass kicking" where one is hostile towards the other person, then
> the language that ought to be used in a technical forum would be
> "neutral" language, free of hostility and negative emotions and also
> free from ass-kissing emotions as well.
I am not suggesting "ass kissing". Positive reinforcement techniques are
of a different nature.
Pascal
* Pascal Costanza
| However, I am using "cold language" in the same way as Erik does, as a
| short name for the emotion-free and neutral language he is referring to.
I have reason to believe that you do not understand what it means.
| He is just not using the most effective communication techniques for the
| purpose at hand.
Yes, I am. Thank you very much. If the really tiny fraction of feel-
good guys could please stop attacking me personally when I fail to stroke
your ego and pat you on the head while I correct your mistakes or inform
you of better ways to achieve your (underlying) goals, things would be
fine. The problem is that people like you, you do not actually want to
program in Common Lisp when you post articles to a forum for those who
want program in Common Lisp, need to have your personal worth and your
feelings validated. This is not the place to do that kind of touchy-
feely stuff.
Has it ever occurred to you that the people who actually want to program
in Common Lisp in this newsgroup gain a lot of valuable information from
people who are /not/ talking about how to feel good? The worst part is
that you feel-good guys really think you have a monopoly on the most
effective communication techniques, yet you do not actually program in
Common Lisp, so what the fuck would you know, anyway?
I got an interesting e-mail the other day, from which I quote one of the
best responses to this idiotic warring by you emotional twits I have
seen. Simple, straight-forward, to the point, and with "cold" language:
I already know how to flame. I am here to learn Lisp.
Clearly, you feel-good guys are /not/ here to learn 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.
········@web.de said...
>
> Thanks a lot for trying to "translate". However, I am using "cold
> language" in the same way as Erik does, as a short name for the
> emotion-free and neutral language he is referring to.
And you believe language which lacks emotion is actually UNdesireable?
If you would agree that is that it's up to each individual how they
choose to phrase their posts as long as it's free of hostility, then why
are you beating this dead horse yet again? Just say that it's an
approach that you prefer. Erik will say that he thinks your approach
has no place here. Why try so hard to convince someone over your matter
of opinion? So you disagree on something... welcome to life, now get
back to Lisp!
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote in message news:<················@naggum.no>...
>
> If you try to publish an academic paper
> with lots of warm fuzzy feelings, it gets rejected. But you do not even
> believe that arguments can carry their own weight, so what the fuck am I
> wasting my time trying to correct your stubbornly idiotic views for?
I agree, you should not waste your time on this, Erik, as you have
many more fine articles to write. How else will you be able to keep
up with your rate of Usenet posting, so well established over the
years:
Year Posts
------ -------
1995 1110
1996 3310
1997 1720
1998 1810
1999 2560
2000 2120
2001 1790
2002 3520 (*)
(*) annualised from 2710 as of 10/8/2002
Source: Google Groups
3,520 posts in Y2002 is an average of 10 posts a day. That's huge.
Actually if you break it down by month:
Month Posts Per day
------ ------ --------
1/2002 155 5
2/2002 210 8
3/2002 388 13
4/2002 217 7
5/2002 206 7
6/2002 298 10
7/2002 12 --
8/2002 485 16 <- blimey!
9/2002 425 14
Figure sixteen posts a day over a whole month, takes, say, least ten
minutes to compose a post, another ten to read other stuff (it's a
two-way channel), that's five hours a day -- counting _every day_ of
the week now -- I don't see how you have time for Lisp programming.
In fact I'm convinced you are not a single person but rather are
employing a team of people, trained to write exactly alike, in order
to spread a particular message. Are you perchance working for one of
the commercial Common Lisp vendors??
I'll close with a riddle ... why is this collection of articles so
dense in useful information:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&as_drrb=b&q=group%3Acomp.lang.lisp&as_mind=1&as_minm=7&as_miny=2002&as_maxd=31&as_maxm=7&as_maxy=2002
Geoff (limiting my posting to one today)
On 8 Oct 2002 07:35:28 -0700, ·········@yahoo.co.uk (Geoff Miller)
wrote:
> 8/2002 485 16 <- blimey!
wOw!
>In fact I'm convinced you are not a single person but rather are
>employing a team of people, trained to write exactly alike, in order
>to spread a particular message. Are you perchance working for one of
>the commercial Common Lisp vendors??
Maybe. But I was thinking that it would be easier to program a
intelligent CL usenet post resonder for Erik. That responder, would,
typically cross reference and post best-line-of-response responses
based on some huristic. The program would consult Erik only in an
strange situation.
Seriously though, would it be possible to program such a thing? I
mean there is the all famous eliza. But that was ages ago. I suppose
general expertise has grown since that time... And CL is supposed to
excel at such fuzzy problems.
quasi
(Abhijit Vijay Rao)
--
What?
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in
·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
>> ·····················@nyc.rr.com:
>
>>>Well, we agree. The technical nature of the forum and exchange do not
>>>change the fact that people are involved, and that where people are
>>>involved, more is going on than cold, dry, exchange of technical
>>>information.
>>
>>
>> This is a "work" and at work you should keep a professional distance
>> if at all possable because it makes it easier to get work done.
>
> I disagree. I am programming in Common Lisp in my spare time, I am
> participating in this newsgroup in my spare time. I would like to have
> a good time here. This is supposed to be fun. This is not my top
> priority, but I nevertheless highly value the fun aspect.
>
Well I have never goten paid to program in common lisp either. And the
fact that it is fun is besides the point. The focus of this group is
talking about lisps that have no other newsgroup, the assumed default is
common lisp. This is a professional goal. A personal goal would be to
spend more time with my family.
I think of life as a kind of n dimensional ven diagram. The part where
CLL and CL sit is professional. I enjoy both, but that does not mean
that I want to bring my personal life into it.
> And no, the "professional distance" nonsense doesn't help you to get
> your work done. There are studies that show that people work better
> when they feel more comfortable. (_feel_ _comfortable_ - did you get
> that?)
I feel more confortable when people do not barge into my personal life
just because I am paid to do work with them. If I invite someone into my
personal life that is a different matter.
The "did you get that?" was a personal insult/attack. Why did you feel
the need to atack me personaly and in public? How does this poor
behavior benifit you?
>
> Focusing purely on the "work" aspect doesn't make sense to me. What
> kind of masochistic world view do you have?
It does not have to. I enjoy what I do and I enjoy who I am. The thing
you apear to miss is that what I do is not who I am. The things/events
that have truley shaped me have nothing to do with the professional but
with the personal and they are not proper subject matter to be talked
about here( do YOU get it???)
marc
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in
> ·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de:
> Well I have never goten paid to program in common lisp either. And the
> fact that it is fun is besides the point. The focus of this group is
> talking about lisps that have no other newsgroup, the assumed default is
> common lisp. This is a professional goal. A personal goal would be to
> spend more time with my family.
>
> I think of life as a kind of n dimensional ven diagram. The part where
> CLL and CL sit is professional. I enjoy both, but that does not mean
> that I want to bring my personal life into it.
Programming in Common Lisp is a very enjoyable thing to do. If this fact
would really be besides the point, I could be programming in any other
programming language.
>>And no, the "professional distance" nonsense doesn't help you to get
>>your work done. There are studies that show that people work better
>>when they feel more comfortable. (_feel_ _comfortable_ - did you get
>>that?)
> The "did you get that?" was a personal insult/attack. Why did you feel
> the need to atack me personaly and in public? How does this poor
> behavior benifit you?
I am terribly sorry for that. I was getting a bit angry in the heat of
the argument. I hope you accept my apologies.
>>Focusing purely on the "work" aspect doesn't make sense to me. What
>>kind of masochistic world view do you have?
>
> It does not have to. I enjoy what I do and I enjoy who I am. The thing
> you apear to miss is that what I do is not who I am. The things/events
> that have truley shaped me have nothing to do with the professional but
> with the personal and they are not proper subject matter to be talked
> about here( do YOU get it???)
I didn't suggest to discuss your personal matters. Things like "warm
language", "Positive Feedback First", and so on, don't mean that you
need to expose your complete personality. Actually, they allow you to
stay focused very effectively.
Pascal
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in
·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in
>> ·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de:
>
>>>And no, the "professional distance" nonsense doesn't help you to get
>>>your work done. There are studies that show that people work better
>>>when they feel more comfortable. (_feel_ _comfortable_ - did you get
>>>that?)
>
>> The "did you get that?" was a personal insult/attack. Why did you
>> feel the need to atack me personaly and in public? How does this
>> poor behavior benifit you?
>
> I am terribly sorry for that. I was getting a bit angry in the heat of
> the argument. I hope you accept my apologies.
Why are you even getting angry? There was nothing previous to this in my
text to merrit the effort it takes to get mad. The only thing I can think
of that would cause this is that it is all personel to you, you do not have
a professional sphere and this is not good for you.
>
>>>Focusing purely on the "work" aspect doesn't make sense to me. What
>>>kind of masochistic world view do you have?
>>
>> It does not have to. I enjoy what I do and I enjoy who I am. The
>> thing you apear to miss is that what I do is not who I am. The
>> things/events that have truley shaped me have nothing to do with the
>> professional but with the personal and they are not proper subject
>> matter to be talked about here( do YOU get it???)
>
> I didn't suggest to discuss your personal matters. Things like "warm
> language", "Positive Feedback First", and so on, don't mean that you
> need to expose your complete personality. Actually, they allow you to
> stay focused very effectively.
this pat, pat, pinch, pat krap is krap. how do you expect people to grow
up when you never stop treating them as children? Look at the high stakes
professions soldier for example. That the fact that he was offended by
critisim of his job because it was not nice enough would make your peers
ridicule you for being a looser( to put it nicely) and if your lapses
caused them enough pain they might just beat him up but good. I know this
is a fact in the US Army, personal experience(no I did not get jumped or do
any jumping), and from friends in the Navy, USMC and Air Force(to a lesser
degree). You have a job to do and if you do not do it well you get
corrected and no one dies if you are lucky.
marc
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>>The "did you get that?" was a personal insult/attack. Why did you
>>>feel the need to atack me personaly and in public? How does this
>>>poor behavior benifit you?
>>
>>I am terribly sorry for that. I was getting a bit angry in the heat of
>>the argument. I hope you accept my apologies.
>
> Why are you even getting angry? There was nothing previous to this in my
> text to merrit the effort it takes to get mad.
I have told you that I am sorry - what else can I do? Please accept my
apologies.
>>I didn't suggest to discuss your personal matters. Things like "warm
>>language", "Positive Feedback First", and so on, don't mean that you
>>need to expose your complete personality. Actually, they allow you to
>>stay focused very effectively.
>
> this pat, pat, pinch, pat krap is krap.
No, it isn't. Please see my recent reply to anther post by Erik Naggum.
(············@newsreader2.netcologne.de)
Pascal
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in
·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>
>>>>The "did you get that?" was a personal insult/attack. Why did you
>>>>feel the need to atack me personaly and in public? How does this
>>>>poor behavior benifit you?
>>>
>>>I am terribly sorry for that. I was getting a bit angry in the heat
>>>of the argument. I hope you accept my apologies.
>>
>> Why are you even getting angry? There was nothing previous to this
>> in my text to merrit the effort it takes to get mad.
>
> I have told you that I am sorry - what else can I do? Please accept my
> apologies.
I did not mean to say I did not accept your apologies. I was and still
am curious why you got angry because someone did not agree with you. I
thought we were having a discussion. I think that my position is correct
and yours is incorrect, but I could be wrong. So far you have said
nothing to convince me that I am not correct, to my satsfaction. In all
honesty you have not even come close.
>
>>>I didn't suggest to discuss your personal matters. Things like "warm
>>>language", "Positive Feedback First", and so on, don't mean that you
>>>need to expose your complete personality. Actually, they allow you to
>>>stay focused very effectively.
>>
>> this pat, pat, pinch, pat krap is krap.
>
> No, it isn't. Please see my recent reply to anther post by Erik
> Naggum. (············@newsreader2.netcologne.de)
Yes it is pure krap. It is grossly disrespectful of the people who have
done the work nessary to grow up and become adults. It also discourages
others who have not made the effort to correct the situation. The reason
for this is that you reinforce there childish behavior by engageing them
as if they were children.
marc
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> I did not mean to say I did not accept your apologies.
Thank you.
>>>>I didn't suggest to discuss your personal matters. Things like "warm
>>>>language", "Positive Feedback First", and so on, don't mean that you
>>>>need to expose your complete personality. Actually, they allow you to
>>>>stay focused very effectively.
>>>
>>>this pat, pat, pinch, pat krap is krap.
>>
>>No, it isn't. Please see my recent reply to anther post by Erik
>>Naggum. (············@newsreader2.netcologne.de)
>
> Yes it is pure krap.
Please take the line of reasoning into account I have given in my recent
replies to Erik Naggum. I don't want to repeat it here.
Pascal
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in
·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>
>> I did not mean to say I did not accept your apologies.
>
> Thank you.
>
>>>>>I didn't suggest to discuss your personal matters. Things like
>>>>>"warm language", "Positive Feedback First", and so on, don't mean
>>>>>that you need to expose your complete personality. Actually, they
>>>>>allow you to stay focused very effectively.
>>>>
>>>>this pat, pat, pinch, pat krap is krap.
>>>
>>>No, it isn't. Please see my recent reply to anther post by Erik
>>>Naggum. (············@newsreader2.netcologne.de)
>>
>> Yes it is pure krap.
>
> Please take the line of reasoning into account I have given in my
> recent replies to Erik Naggum. I don't want to repeat it here.
I think the main problem were having is we are talking about different
things using the same words, professional and adult.
I think the definitions that you are using are:
adult: over 18 years old
professional: works in a professional or someone who works for money
the ones I am using are:
adult: someone who behaves like an adult. For example they understand
the difference between critisism and insult/personal atacks.
professional: someone who has a firm goal of being better at the end of
the day then at the begining of it in his craft. Part of this is
realizing that critisim is *good* as it helps him improve his craft. And
that he knows that he is not being attacked because his work is. Amon
many other things.
marc
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in
> ·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de:
>
>>Marc Spitzer wrote:
> professional: someone who has a firm goal of being better at the end of
> the day then at the begining of it in his craft. Part of this is
> realizing that critisim is *good* as it helps him improve his craft. And
> that he knows that he is not being attacked because his work is. Amon
> many other things.
You are right, criticism is the most valuable input for making
improvements. I am not discouraging criticism, I am in fact encouraging
it. I am just suggesting an alternative way for packaging criticsm in
order to communicate it more effectively. Please consider this.
I quote Joe Bergin, again: "For professional educators, these patterns
may seem obvious, even trivial, because they have used them so often."
He refers to the "positive feedback first" pattern, among others. Please
note that he is an outstanding professional in his field.
Try to take the expertise of professionals into account for a given
task. For effective communication, I have provided several links and
pointers in ············@newsreader2.netcologne.de that you might want
to take a closer look at.
I think your general goal to improve your skills is a good one. Keep up
with that.
Pascal
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in
·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in
>> ·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de:
>>
>>>Marc Spitzer wrote:
>
>> professional: someone who has a firm goal of being better at the end
>> of the day then at the begining of it in his craft. Part of this is
>> realizing that critisim is *good* as it helps him improve his craft.
>> And that he knows that he is not being attacked because his work is.
>> Amon many other things.
>
> You are right, criticism is the most valuable input for making
> improvements. I am not discouraging criticism, I am in fact
> encouraging it. I am just suggesting an alternative way for packaging
> criticsm in order to communicate it more effectively. Please consider
> this.
What you have been saying is that people can not deal with critisim.
That you have to go through the process of telling them that they are not
fucked up when you tell them they did fuck up. If you do not go through
this complete wast of time they will feel hurt and call you bad names,
sniffle and sob at you wanton crulty. And this is true for children.
Most professional educators deal with children so they design there
methoids for children.
>
> I quote Joe Bergin, again: "For professional educators, these patterns
> may seem obvious, even trivial, because they have used them so often."
> He refers to the "positive feedback first" pattern, among others.
> Please note that he is an outstanding professional in his field.
>
> Try to take the expertise of professionals into account for a given
> task. For effective communication, I have provided several links and
> pointers in ············@newsreader2.netcologne.de that you might want
> to take a closer look at.
you do not seem to get or want the idea that over 18 years old does not
make someone behave like an adult. I have stated this as a core argument
in my posts repetedly and you have done absolutly nothing to address it.
Others have also said that your prefered methiod is a personal insult if
you directed it at them.
>
> I think your general goal to improve your skills is a good one. Keep
> up with that.
here is the pat. considdering my stated oppinion that this is
condasending and insulting, WHY THE FUCK DID YOU DO IT??? why did you
treat me as a FUCKKING INFERIOR?
Now let me spell it out for you:
the pat, pat, pinch, pat stuff is what I would considder a personel
insult and an unprovoked personel attack on me in a public forum, again.
if you continue this way I will respond in kind. Now I am not as
eloquent or well read as Erik but I can be just as determined.
I do not want or need your apoligy
marc
ps your pat line above was grossly insulting and condacending. As a
professional and person I am always trying to improve myself that is a
given in an adult. This knoledge that critism helps you improve yourself
faster in one of the reasons we like and respect it.
marc
>
>
> Pascal
>
* Pascal Costanza
| I quote Joe Bergin, again: "For professional educators, these patterns
| may seem obvious, even trivial, because they have used them so often."
| He refers to the "positive feedback first" pattern, among others. Please
| note that he is an outstanding professional in his field.
Just so we keep this in mind: His field is educating people. One other
profession you have brought up is psychotherapists. What I am missing is
why this is relevant to practioners in a particular field who want to
help each other. Do we have to be some combination of professional
educator and professional psychotherapists to deal with a stupid question
(a question whose answer, if any, is not useful to the qusetioner) from a
lumbering idiot who does not really want to program in Common Lisp but
comes here only because he wants to vent his spleen?
What is the motivation of the professional educator and the professional
psychotherapist that is missing from the professional programmer who
helps his fellow travelers? Could it be that your people are /paid/ and
my people are /not/? Could it be that the professional educator and the
professional psychotherapist actually have as their /job/ to make people
comfortable and learn things and /fails/ if he does not succeed in that,
while the person who comes to a newsgroup of professional programmers and
who does not /himself/ want to succeed with programming Common Lisp has
violated the one underlying premise of the entire forum?
The professional educator and the professional psychotherapist work with
people who are not self-starters with respect to the topic at hand. They
offer their paid assistance to accomplish some goal to someone who does
not know how to accomplish said goal on his own. If you do that here or
in any other professional forum, you violate the one core premise of the
exchange of information -- that people are supposed to be equals. We do
/not/ have a professional educator role here. When I help people with a
technical point, I do /not/ grade their efforts and assume responsibility
for rest of their education. My involvement starts and stops with the
article I have posted, The goodwill that I have shown the requestor has
no further obligations on my part. This is why it is a public forum and
why we do not engage in person-to-person communication by mail. Barry
Margolin wisely instructs people not to mail him technical questions in
his signature, no doubt because he has had his share of those. I also ask
people who mail me to ask their questions in public, because I do /not/
want the responsibility to follow up on these people. I want the choice
to follow up on their /questions/ if I so desire. This is a choice that
your professional educator and professional psychotherapist on paid time
do not /have/ to begin with. If they choose /not/ to follow up on one of
their /paying/ clients, that would actually be dereliction of duty under
penalty of forfeiture of pay or even dismissal.
It would be /wrong/ for any of the people you bring up as examples of
users of your feel-good therapy to make the choices we make here every
time we decide to respond to an article or refrain from it. And it is
/because/ they do not have that choice that they need your methodology.
If you could conceive the difference between a personal and professional
relationship, you would understand this, Pascal.
| Try to take the expertise of professionals into account for a given task.
Sure, pay me, and I shall assume the responsibility you want to lay on
may shoulders. People who pay me get a very different service level and
a whole different commitment to our shared and stated goals than people
who get my services for free. You admit that you are not programming for
pay, but as a hobbyist, for fun. You seem to be the kind of person who
believes that this gives you a right to other people's time, to demand of
others their goodwill and their time, to require other people to behave
your way when you ask them to give you their advice without compensation.
Why would anyone want to give anything to a person who is so fucked up
that he cannot even distinguish between gifts and contractual obligations
and who is so screwed up that he thinks he can put demands on people who
want to help their fellow travelers to ease their journey that they not
only help them for free, but carry them on their backs?
I have a nagging suspicion that people like you do not understand that it
makes a difference if you pay people or get their services for free. I
have actually met people who are so massively stupid as to completely
fail to understand the difference between free and paid work, who do not
understand contractual obligations or any other aspect of the legal
framework that exists in order to ensure that you can trust people to
actually deliver as promised and force them to pay damages if they do
not. But nobody here promises anything, nobody has any responsibility
whatsoever for the future of the requestor. The /entire/ responsibility
lies with the requestor. The /requestor/ has to prove himself worthy of
the time and goodwill of those he asks to help him. It is the requestor
who should approach those who are willing to help him with deference and
positive feedback!
When do these "problems" with hostility arise? They arise when some
snotty little fuck like you, Pascal, have the audacity, the gall, the
unspeakable arrogance of demanding that those who help him treat him
better and start to attack those who help him for free. It is when the
fucking ungrateful morons who take the efforts offered by people in good
will and demand more, and not only that, they demand the right to tell
people who have helped them to behave differently! How fucking arrogant
can you /get/?
What we have here is a concerted effort led by one ungrateful bastard
with the name of Pascal Costanza to require people who are willing to
help others, who are willing to share of their time and their expertise,
to assume the role of a professional educator who has a responsibility for
the education of other people, to be held responsible when the ungrateful
little fucks who have asked and received an answer in a neutral, technical
language, to the point and which should solve their problems or at least
help, but which makes their finicky little emotions play tricks on them
so they turn mad with rage that they did not receive a "warm" enough
response so they do not "feel good" about themselves. To have the /gall/
to require those who help you for free to treat you like you were the
paying client of a professional educator!
Where is the fucking /money/ to back up your demands, Pascal Costanza?
An ungrateful little bitch, that is what you are. Helping you and the
other feel-good morons is a recipe for hurt feelings -- /it actually is
very hurtful/ to see that you spent an hour composing a response to some
ungrateful little prick like yourself only to be met with some whining
like "your language was too cold for my delicate emotions, so now I shall
instead attack you for not making me feel good".
If you want to lecture people how to take care of the emotional problems
of ungrateful little children who are not satisfied with free help and
the unpaid assistance of others, start /paying/ people, Pascal Costanza!
| For effective communication, I have provided several links and pointers
Yet you completely miss the point. The point here is /not/ to make those
who respond to questions on how to become a better programmer in Common
Lisp responsible for these people. When you ask a question, /you/ have
the responsibility to make the most use of it, to do your homework, to
pay attention to details, to listen carefully. Somebody gave you of a
piece of their life so that you could have an easier time programming in
Common Lisp. and you have the fucking gall to demand that they treat you
like they were your professional educators?
| I think your general goal to improve your skills is a good one.
You have come across as the most ungrateful shithead this newsgroup has
ever seen. You have communicated this /extremely/ effectively. You have
also made it abundantly clear that you do not understand the difference
between private and public fora, personal and professional services, or
paid and free work. In short, you do not have the concept of "thank you"
in your miserable, greedy personality. It is other people's duty to make
you feel good before you can feel anything positive towards people who
are willing help you for free. You have made it abundantly clear, as
have your other feel-good morons, that you are not here with the purpose
of programming in Common Lisp. You are here to dictate the behavior of
people who /were/ willing to help you for free. You assume the role of a
paying customer who is always right, but without paying the money that
gives you that right to demand. You pay for nothing here. The currency
is how nice you are to people who can help you, so shut the fuck up and
deal with it, you ungrateful, demanding little shit.
I guess congratulations on your communication skills is in order, though.
So you can at least have /something/ to feel good about. Happy now?
--
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 Erik Naggum,
> | I think your general goal to improve your skills is a good one.
>
> You have come across as the most ungrateful shithead this newsgroup
> has ever seen. You have communicated this /extremely/ effectively.
> You have also made it abundantly clear that you do not understand the
> difference between private and public fora, personal and professional
> services, or paid and free work. In short, you do not have the
> concept of "thank you" in your miserable, greedy personality. It is
> other people's duty to make you feel good before you can feel anything
> positive towards people who are willing help you for free. You have
> made it abundantly clear, as have your other feel-good morons, that
> you are not here with the purpose of programming in Common Lisp. You
> are here to dictate the behavior of people who /were/ willing to help
> you for free. You assume the role of a paying customer who is always
> right, but without paying the money that gives you that right to
> demand. You pay for nothing here. The currency is how nice you are
> to people who can help you, so shut the fuck up and deal with it, you
> ungrateful, demanding little shit.
>
> I guess congratulations on your communication skills is in order,
> though. So you can at least have /something/ to feel good about. Happy
> now?
In an amazing display of continued restraint Pascal never stooped to your
level of abuse Erik.
Pascal Costanza has already contributed exceptionally to the Lisp
community through his great "Highly Opinionated Guide to Lisp" available
at http://www.cs.uni-bonn.de/~costanza/lisp/guide.html
It is an extremely helpful guide that also contains many links to
worthwhile material, some that I was surprised to discover for the first
time.
Pascal Costanza is "the most ungrateful shithead this newsgroup has ever
seen" because he doesn't worship you. You are unable to maintain neutral
language around him because he is the newest threat to your perceived
status as dominant male.
While you have the goal of "Immortality in our lifetime" the only thing
you are achieving is infamy.
Though I have no desire to pollute this newsgroup with further arguments
(and will refrain from responding even if soon provoked) I could not
continue to condone your behaviour by my silence.
Regards,
Adam Warner
* Adam Warner
| In an amazing display of continued restraint Pascal never stooped to your
| level of abuse Erik.
Clearly, you think abuse is only in words, never in meaning. This only
says that you are not very bright.
| While you have the goal of "Immortality in our lifetime" the only thing
| you are achieving is infamy.
Please confine your stupid guesswork to yourself.
| Though I have no desire to pollute this newsgroup with further arguments
Funny how people who pee in the well always need to tell people how nice
they will be in the future.
| I could not continue to condone your behaviour by my silence.
Yes, you could.
--
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.
* Adam Warner
| In an amazing display of continued restraint Pascal never stooped to your
| level of abuse Erik.
Now that you have had time to calm down a bit, I want you to consider
your own behavior for a moment. You were replying to an article that had
a lengthy and sound argument, yet you /only/ emoted in response. This is
fundamentally indecent of you and tells your intelligent readers that you
lack self-control. You may wish to /think/ before you react in this way
in public.
In response to arguments, one expects counter-arguments. Let us see how
your counter-arguments even come close to the arguments to which you have
responded.
| Pascal Costanza has already contributed exceptionally to the Lisp
| community through his great "Highly Opinionated Guide to Lisp" available
| at http://www.cs.uni-bonn.de/~costanza/lisp/guide.html
This is a non sequitur. One can certainly be ungrateful for things that
others do while doing something else for others. My argument is that
Pascal Costanza demands that those who help others put up with all kinds
of shit from those who have been helped voluntarily and he argues that
those who help them should use more effective communication techniques,
and should behave like educators and psychotherapists, professions he use
to defend his idiotic policy of dealing with ungrateful miscreants. In
so doing, he has placed the entire burden of how advice is received on
the shoulders of those who voluntarily and without compensation help
another human being in good faith. Instead of gratitude for this aid to
the undeserving, Pascal Costanza demands that they take responsibility
for how the recipient of their advice "feels". He wants people to use a
"warm" language that caters to the readers' emotoins and lists several
technical books that those who favor an emotion-free, neutral language
that is also devoid of condescension and patronization, would describe as
/not/ particular "warm" books, but rather technical and to-the-point. It
is thus hard to imagine any measurement of what "warm" means, but Pascal
Costanza has also eschewed measurement entirely, and discards the notion
so prevalent in science that some method of quantification of results is
a good thing in order to know whether you have indeed done better when
you feel you have. More often than not, people feel well about their own
sense of control, not about the results, so even if people feel better,
that does not mean they actually /do/ better. Devoid of measurements and
objective standards, Pascal Costanza becomes the arbiter of how people
"feel" about the communication. Living up to his demands for a "warmer"
languages therefore means contacting him to see how he "feels" about it.
I would rather go find water with a divining rod than succumb to this
mystical, anti-rational, feel-good policy of communication.
Your entire argument is that he is a nice person who helps others and
should not be subjected to fair criticism of his actual arguments and his
actual position.
| It is an extremely helpful guide that also contains many links to
| worthwhile material, some that I was surprised to discover for the first
| time.
Following up on the previous non-sequitur, you now think you can improve
your idiotic non-argument by backing it up with more on how you feel.
| Pascal Costanza is "the most ungrateful shithead this newsgroup has ever
| seen" because he doesn't worship you.
Now, this is where your rationality, if any, has left you. It is clear
from this moronic non-argument that you experience too much emotion for
your own good. Your lack of self-control has moved you into a position
where you spew hatred and invent things you think will hurt other people.
This is a supposed counter-argument to behavior you could not condone by
your silence. I'll say. Wow, man. You really know how to argue against
bad behavior that you cannot condone by your silence.
Where /does/ a moron like yourself find reason to believe in "worship"?
Did you "worship" me when I offered you advice? Did you feel that one
person you "worshipped" should have been nicer to another person you
"worship"? Is that it? How /did/ you come upon this "worship" idiocy if
you do not feel this kind of thing yourself? Do you think it is /bad/ to
worship other people? Do you think it is the /recipient/ of your worship
that should be branded as a bad guy because of your worship?
How on earth could you even come up with this fantastically moronic shit
when your goal was to speak up against someone else's bad behavior? Are
you as insane as you appear to me right now? Are you really fucking nuts
the way you appear to me? Now, why should I even for a moment consider
the criticism about my behavior from some lunatic who invents "worship"
as an argument in his favor? Just how dumb do you think I am that would
look at your pathetic excuse for an emotional outburst and think "oh, my,
Adam Nut sure has a great argument!"? People who behave the way you do
when you think you are arguing against bad behavior really show the
entire world how /appropriate/ it is with emotional outbursts when you
get really pissed off by something. But the staggeringly unintelligent,
such as Adam "the Nut" Warner, do not manage to produce /arguments/ when
they feel many things at the same time. Perhaps your favorite melody of
the entire previous millennium was "Words don't come easy to me" by
F. R. David?
| You are unable to maintain neutral language around him because he is the
| newest threat to your perceived status as dominant male.
This is /so/ fascinating. We gain a unique insight into a person's value
system when he gets angry. I, for instance, consider stupidity and too
low intelligence for the task at hand to be one of the most dangerous
threat that can befall the human race. Consider momentarily the prospect
of the most powerful man in the world, wielding a larger armory than any
person before him in the history of the planet, and he is just as dumb as
the high-school dropout who got a job at McDonald's only because of his
father: He is a much greater threat to the civilized world than the super-
terrorist, as he will most certainly continue the legacy of destroying
the nation in order to save it. Adam the Emotional Nut, however, appears
to believe that nothing is worse in this world than the idiotic behavior
of sports fans and primitive people. However, in his emotional zeal, he
also forgot everything I have said about dangers of the same thing, that
I consider people whose high testosterone levels are only made up for
their lack of intelligence to be the most interesting living archeological
specimens from the stone age, that the group mentality is the most base
and most useless properties of the human psychology after all our basic
needs were covered. Your life, livelihood, or even food supply is not at
stake when you have the luxury of going on the Internet to engage in an
intellectual meeting of minds. To bring homo-erectus-style psychology
into this forum the way that Adam the Emotional Nut does here is so out
of place that we have to remind ourselves that he actually tries to argue
against a position that the person who helps another on Usenet should be
held responsible for the emotional development of the person helped.
There is one way to look at this from the point of view of an actual case
and argument: Adam the Emotional Nut /demonstrates/ what happens when the
person who helped him with technical matters does not hold the poor
fool's hand when he continues to read articles by the person who helped
him. Scratch up one point for Pascal Costanza here! A beneficiary of
voluntary assistance on the Internet, Adam the Emotional Nut depends on
others for his emotional well-being, and the hero he worshiped because he
helped with his technical problems fails to live up to his standards as
hero, and the hero-worshiping idiot who looks upon the dominant male must
lash out at his idol for not being nice enough. Lacking the intellectual
capacity to deal with his emotions, we see that a combination of worship
and the dominant male theory of group dynamics produces a person who
feels so ill at ease that he has to tell the group that he shall no longer
worship the dominant male because he did not make him feel good enough.
| While you have the goal of "Immortality in our lifetime" the only thing
| you are achieving is infamy.
Another /excellent/ argument against my position. The moron now wields a
stupid /threat/ instead of using whatever little intellectual capacity he
has to argue against a position we are increasingly suspicious that he
did not understand at all. But what does understanding matter when you
can talk about worshiping and dominant males and make stupid threats like
this? Hah! Intellect be damned! Adam the Emotional Nut shows us the
way out of our predicament. This is a forum where suck-ups worship the
dominant male and where little piss-ants like Adam the Emotional Nut get
to vote on who is the dominant male. Let's roll back history about 50,000
years to the time when the emotional equivalent of Adam the Emotional Nut
roamed the lands, no strike that, huddled together in little bands of
feverishly insecure proto-humans long before their brains grew big enough
to become a burden with its excess capacity, and let us look at one small
member of the band lash out at the dominant male and for the brief
remainder of his miserable life gets to threaten the man with the club.
Then fast-forward 50,000 years to see Adam the Emotional Nut sitting
behind his computer and feeling oh so smug, because all the way from New
Zealand, he can challenge the dominant male that he once worshiped and
claim that all he his achieving is infamy. Pity Adam the Emotional Nut.
| Though I have no desire to pollute this newsgroup with further arguments
As previously remarked, this is the typical behavor of the typical loser
who has done something clearly wrong. His lack of intellectual capacity
to deal with an argument when he feels something at the same time has
made him do some of the smartest things he could be suspected of doing
when he felt mad, but it still is a far cry short of imbecilic. The
abnormal failure to argue coherently is briefly overshadowed by all the
moronic emotions he cares to share with his fellow travelers, but lest we
think that he is the moron he makes a serious effort to appear to be, has
has no desire to pollute this newsgroup with /further/ -- and let us just
pause here for effect because the next word is really big -- /arguments/.
Adam the Emotional Nut appears to think he has provided us with arguments
-- is that fascinating or what? We clearly look at a person who does not
even know the difference "having an argument" and "giving an argument".
To Adam the Emotional Nut, there is no distinction. The ability to argue
coherently for anything is quickly replaced by his inability to think.
At least, we have to commend this fantastic moron with the introspection
that goes into realizing that he has polluted this forum. My goodness,
is he not a real charmer who both realizes that he pollutes the forum and
promises not to do it any more? We just /have/ to see a rationalization
of his massive lack of thinking ability coming up soon.!
| (and will refrain from responding even if soon provoked)
Wow! Amazing! He promises to curtail his pathetic emotional response
pattern even if he is soon provoked! That sure is ground for applause.
How could anyone think this unthinking, dominant-male-worshiping brute of
a screwd-up polluting asshole is a shithead now that he dons his halo and
gives us all his most angelic little smile because he will do us all a
huge favor and refrain from acting out his inability to argue against
anything other than how he feels.
| I could not continue to condone your behaviour by my silence.
This, however, is the real gem in this godforsaken moron's reaction. I
am just in awe of the ability of some people to both act like world-class
assholes themselves when they seek to exact retribution against others
for some behavior they could not condone and to justify their evil acts.
There is something like the confession of a serial killer in this kind of
behavior. He has to both promise that he will not do it again /and/ make
everybody else responsible for his actions. For what does it mean when
Adam the Emotional Nut is the only person in a huge crowd to speak up
because he could not condone some behavior with his silence? I mean,
everybody else have kept quiet, and although I am fairly sure that we
will hear from the other emotional nuts pretty soon, that means that Adam
the Emotional Nut is the only one /not/ to condone the behavior with
their silence. By virtue of this truly unintelligent statement, Adam the
Emotional Nut has not only tried to justify his own evil behavior, he
makes everybody else responsible /and/ himself the smallest minority
there is! Look around you, Adam! Everybody else condones my behavior
with their silence. You /lose/, you insufferable dimwit. Instead of
being the one who speaks up, you phrased your position so poorly that
everybody else turned against you in your very own words!
But does anyone condone anything with their silence? Of course not! My
goodness, what kind of endless chatter would we have on Usenet if people
were forced to speak up lest they be presumed to condone everything that
the did /not/ comment on! We would have several messages every single
day from every one of tens of thousands of people who could not condone
the behavior of others by their silence. Everything from misinformation
to using words from a taboo word list to not being Christian enough and
not being kind enough to the mentally handicapped, there would be no end
in sight of the endless number of abusive and hateful messages that would
flow from the hands of those who could not condone the behavior or others
by their silence, and then everybody who thought that Adam the Emotional
Nut went overboard need to express their hatred for that fucked-up moron,
too. It would never end.
The fact is that by his most reprehensible act of /cowardice/, Adam the
Emotional Nut has not only derailed the argument, letting the most
ungrateful bastard this newsgroup has seen in a long time go scot free by
virtue of the inability to continue discussions in the presence of such a
goddamn asshole as Adam the Emotional Nut, he has put everybody in the
awkward position of having to voice their concern lest he think they all
condone the "behavior" that could not.
But perhaps it is possible for Adam the Emotional Nut to understand that
he has hurt himself really badly this time. Perhaps this insufferable
dimwit can grasp that his lack of ability to express himself intelligently
caused him to become the lone nut in the minority of people who does not
condone what everybody else condones.
Adam, you should realize that you are not the dominant male here, either.
(In fact, the very concept is an insult to your intelligence, and nobody
is any such stupid thing.) You should realize that you were the only one
to speak up and everybody else implicitly approve of the behavior you do
not approve of and you should take this to heart. People are not as dumb
as you are, they are not as brutally unintelligent as you are, and they
do not think it is a good idea to derail discussions because you /feel/
more than your pathetic excuse for a brain can deal with.
Adam, the fact remains that you chose to attack me most viciously. That
is what I shall remember you for, and you will not be let off the hook.
You had time to think before you posted your idiotic article, so no
apologies will be accepted. Your action was premeditated, and even
though you would most likely be able to defend yourself with temporary
insanity and lack of full control of your faculties at the time you
spewed your hateful message, I am not going to accept that, either. You
are the kind of person this forum needs much fewer of.
And if you thought you were arguing /against/ my point that this stupid
positive reinforcement first bullshit is condescending and patronizing,
you have shown the entire world what /you/ choose when you need to make a
comment on somebody's behavior. It most certainly was /not/ positive
reinforcement. So not only did you make a fool of yourself, you made a
fool of Pascal Costanza, too, with your moronic emotional behavior.
Die in shame, Adam Warner.
--
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.
He saw right through you, didn't he, Adam? ;)
Erik Naggum wrote:
> For what does it mean when
> Adam the Emotional Nut is the only person in a huge crowd to speak up
> because he could not condone some behavior with his silence?
Yeah, Adam, why are you the only one who ever objects to Erik's
behavior?
> I mean,
> everybody else have kept quiet, and although I am fairly sure that we
> will hear from the other emotional nuts pretty soon, that means that Adam
> the Emotional Nut is the only one /not/ to condone the behavior with
> their silence.
Oops, he sees right through everyone else, too. :(
> Die in shame, Adam Warner.
That is the only punishment fit for someone who hurts Erik's feelings.
The poor baby.
Will
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> I quote Joe Bergin, again: "For professional educators, these patterns
> may seem obvious, even trivial, because they have used them so often."
> He refers to the "positive feedback first" pattern, among others. Please
> note that he is an outstanding professional in his field.
Yes, for _educators_. Positive feedback is not used to communicate
svada and nada. It is used to reinforce the positive first and help
the trainee to see some light when the situation seems very difficult.
What does it mean to reinforce the positive you ask? It means that
you tell the apprentice that what you are doing there is good so
keep up with that, but what you are doing there is not so good so do
it this way instead. The goal of the positive reinforcement here is
not to open the individual up for the coming critique, but to
reinforce what they already do well, make the conscious of what they
actually are doing. This is a very important principle if you are some
sort of sports instructor. I have been a tennis instructor and it was
not uncommon for one of the players to have a good day and have a
temporary improvement of technique. So I used positive reinforcement
to make the player aware and conscious of how good technique feels.
It also makes the reciever of this positive feedback feel better
and therefore perform better. Anyone who argues that someone who
feels better (up to a certain not quite euphoric state) does not
perform better must have their empirical data from somewhere I am
not familiar with.
This is not the case when you are engaging someone in a discussion
on equal terms. If you were wrong and had strong opinions about
whatever subject was discussed you dismiss the former idea, go
home and sulk for awhile if you feel that you need that, snap out
of it and try to form new opinions and ideas based on the new
material and view points offered to you. You win. If you were right,
you have gained new confidence and perhaps a deeper understanding
of the subject. You win again.
--
Thomas.
Thomas Stegen wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>
>> I quote Joe Bergin, again: "For professional educators, these patterns
>> may seem obvious, even trivial, because they have used them so often."
>> He refers to the "positive feedback first" pattern, among others.
>> Please note that he is an outstanding professional in his field.
>
>
> Yes, for _educators_. Positive feedback is not used to communicate
> svada and nada. It is used to reinforce the positive first and help
> the trainee to see some light when the situation seems very difficult.
> This is not the case when you are engaging someone in a discussion
> on equal terms.
This was quite a useful explanation, it had actually given me some new
perspectives on this whole issue. Thanks for that.
However, there are still some questions that puzzle me.
How many newbies are participating in c.l.l?
Do we want to attract more newbies? Do we actually want to create more
interest in Common Lisp (or Lisp in general)?
Is "education" of the newbies among the goals of c.l.l? Do we want to
help them to overcome the hurdles that Common Lisp actually seems to
have in the perception of newbies (and even of those who have reached a
"medium" level)?
For the sake of completeness: Do my questions convey a misconception?
Thanks in advance,
Pascal
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 04:22:06 +0200, Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>
wrote:
>
>> This is not the case when you are engaging someone in a discussion
>> on equal terms.
This is the perplexing issue. If we discuss at "equal" terms then
weight of opinion on only Lisp will vary (as this is cll). If I think
x is y and Erik, for example, tells me that x is x, I shall accept his
opinion about it (most probably). But this is the case only about CL.
In general discussions, it is the merit of the /argument/ which should
come forth (though due weight could be given to experience). But that
is sadly not the case. The seniors (:some) have a final line like
"what do /you/ know twit?"
>This was quite a useful explanation, it had actually given me some new
>perspectives on this whole issue. Thanks for that.
>
>However, there are still some questions that puzzle me.
>
>How many newbies are participating in c.l.l?
most of them are Lurkers, I suppose. I lurked for more than a year.
:-) But that was because I had some fundamental questions to ask and
got scolded. Can Lisp be used for this-that, can Lisp do that etc. I
was scolded and told to go get "how do I do this in Lisp" kind of
problems and then get back [1]. I hold nothing against that advice
because those type of questions are asked here all too often and
people get bugged. A newbie should search the archives first. But
then he is not called a newbie for nothing. I stayed on because the
Force was with me. But a lot of other just loose interest and go
away. There should be a factfile about Lisp - what it is and what it
is not - which can be pointed to the newbie. I am working towards my
version - "experiences of learning Lisp - a newbie POV". The "about
Compiled Lisp" was in this direction but I got bit :-). No fear I
continue. Hope I get to give more time to it.
>Do we want to attract more newbies? Do we actually want to create more
>interest in Common Lisp (or Lisp in general)?
we do !
>Is "education" of the newbies among the goals of c.l.l? Do we want to
>help them to overcome the hurdles that Common Lisp actually seems to
>have in the perception of newbies (and even of those who have reached a
>"medium" level)?
I think this work of initiating the complete newbies is for the
not-so-new newbies. I suppose the oldies often forget how they
learned. One very good effort I think is the cl-kookbook. Which is
actually wonderful and solves /many/ of the teething problems for
newbies.
>Do my questions convey a misconception?
NIL
I, at least, appreciate the effort you put in your guide. Thank you
for it.
[1] Often people ignore the fact that learning a new language like CL
is often not just a hobby. One has to think a lot before leaving such
advised things like C++/Java. I was called a fool my 99% of my
friends. They all earn ~25x the amount on what I live today.
quasi
--
What?
From: Craig Brozefsky
Subject: Re: What about the newbies?, was: Re: Understanding Errik Naggum
Date:
Message-ID: <87fzvemovj.fsf@piracy.red-bean.com>
quasi <·········@yahoo.com> writes:
> [1] Often people ignore the fact that learning a new language like CL
> is often not just a hobby. One has to think a lot before leaving such
> advised things like C++/Java. I was called a fool my 99% of my
> friends. They all earn ~25x the amount on what I live today.
I remember people calling me a fool when I moved to the Bay Area and
continued working for a little company in Chicago. When we started
doing CL work I was subjected to another round of it. Some just
wanted an excuse to boast about their salary, some wanted to take a
pot-shot at CL, some tried to hire me away with promises of much
larger salaries and stock options. For all the talk about learning
skills in languages that would help in my future, there seemed to be
very little awareness of what the future was really holding, which
seemed obvious to me at the time -- a severe contraction in available
capital. I think the BA has a special brand of fantasy that is
responsible for that. Of those dozens of people, perhaps 4 still have
the same job, maybe 3/4s have a job at all. I don't rejoice in this,
as many are freinds and it is very stressful for them.
--
Sincerely,
Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: What about the newbies?, was: Re: Understanding Errik Naggum
Date:
Message-ID: <3243261753316333@naggum.no>
* Pascal Costanza
| Do we want to attract more newbies? Do we actually want to create more
| interest in Common Lisp (or Lisp in general)?
We do that by being a quality forum that discusses something that newbies
want to read about. My tack on this is that most newbies do not want to
read about your feelings or about how other people feel about me. The
more you discuss how newbie-friendly you want to be, the less newbie-
friendly you actually /are/, because newbies do not want to read about
how newbies are to be treated -- I would find that condescending and
patronizing in the extreme in the areas I am a newbie -- they want to
read something that can make them stop being newbies and take part in the
rich tradition that they may momentarily feel outsiders to. You and the
other actually quite hostile feel-good guys make such a stink about the
newbies that if I were a newbie, I most certainly would not post for a
long time after reading your self-serving crap about how nice you will be
to newbies. My God, I would find another language to be a newbie in
where they treated people with respect and the expectation that they
would be able to learn quickly and would not be newbies for long, instead
of going into a forum where I am "marked" as a newbie and then people are
supposed to treat me like I'm special or something.
Stop patronizing people, Pascal Costanza! You scare off the newbies who
want to stop being newbies. The best you can do with your policy is
attract stupid children who think it is OK to be treated like children
and pampered and pandered to.
| Is "education" of the newbies among the goals of c.l.l?
Not in the sense that anyone assumes responsibility for anyone else.
| Do we want to help them to overcome the hurdles that Common Lisp actually
| seems to have in the perception of newbies (and even of those who have
| reached a "medium" level)?
This is what we did here until you feel-good guys chose to attack me and
started talking about how good people you are when you not like me.
Until you shitheads started to make such a ruckus here about how holier
than everybody who has actually helped people for years thou art, we have
actually succeeded in bringing quite a few people up from inexperienced
to experienced in a fairly short amount of time, and we have been very
helpful to people who wanted to learn. If today I am regarded as an
experrt, it is in no small part because of the people here who helped me.
If I had been treated like a newbie, I would have left the community
alone. It is because people here are expected to have working brains
that they get chided for not using it. If they were expected to be fools
with too many emotions for their own good, nobody would chide them, but
neither would they stay to discuss things of real importance with them.
| For the sake of completeness: Do my questions convey a misconception?
Your questions convey a deep disrespect for both newbie and experienced
reader alike. You know best, you know how to run this show, it could not
possibly have worked before you came along, and without your change in
style to a positsive reinforcement first style suitable for educators who
have responsibility for their students and of psychotherapists who assume
responsibility for the /lives/ of their patients, we could not have had a
good environment here where people would actually want to get on good
terms with those who are in the know. Without your feel-good therapy
from experts down to the lowly newbie, we could not possibly have
developed our own experts. Thanks to the /lack/ of your feel-good crap,
this forum is worth reading for people who do not want to remain newbies.
--
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 in message <················@naggum.no>...
> The best you can do with your policy is
> attract stupid children who think it is OK to be treated like children
> and pampered and pandered to.
I do not buy this silk-purse-into-sow's-ear concept of good manners being
condescending, Thoreau did provide a cool supporting anecdote:
http://eserver.org/thoreau/algash08.html
"Having carried over the dam, he darted down the rapids, leaving us to walk
for a mile or more, where for the most part there was no path, but very
thick and difficult travelling near the stream. At length he would call to
let us know where he was waiting for us with his canoe, when, on account of
the windings of the stream, we did not know where the shore was, but he did
not call often enough, forgetting that we were not Indians. He seemed to be
very saving of his breath,--yet he would be surprised if we went by, or did
not strike the right spot. This was not because he was unaccommodating, but
a proof of superior manners. Indians like to get along with the least
possible communication and ado. He was really paying us a great compliment
all the while, thinking that we preferred a hint to a kick."
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in message news:<············@newsreader2.netcologne.de>...
>
> Is "education" of the newbies among the goals of c.l.l? Do we want to
> help them to overcome the hurdles that Common Lisp actually seems to
> have in the perception of newbies (and even of those who have reached a
> "medium" level)?
>
> For the sake of completeness: Do my questions convey a misconception?
Yes, I think they do. If I was to be horribly thatcherite I'd say:
there is no such thing as cll, instead there is just a group of people
with access to a newsreader and newsfeed. Thus it is meaningless to
ask what the `goals' of cll are: you need to ask what the goals of the
people who post here are. And if you want things to be different, I
suggest that the right approach is not to start meta discussions about
the goals of a nonexistent entity and what they should be, or about
the goals of others and what they should be. Instead, *Just Do It*.
If you want to help newbies, help newbies! Your document on Lisp was
a good start!
--tim
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in message news:<············@newsreader2.netcologne.de>...
>
>
>>Is "education" of the newbies among the goals of c.l.l? Do we want to
>>help them to overcome the hurdles that Common Lisp actually seems to
>>have in the perception of newbies (and even of those who have reached a
>>"medium" level)?
>>
>>For the sake of completeness: Do my questions convey a misconception?
>
>
> Yes, I think they do. If I was to be horribly thatcherite I'd say:
> there is no such thing as cll, instead there is just a group of people
> with access to a newsreader and newsfeed. Thus it is meaningless to
> ask what the `goals' of cll are: you need to ask what the goals of the
> people who post here are.
You have a point here.
> And if you want things to be different, I
> suggest that the right approach is not to start meta discussions about
> the goals of a nonexistent entity and what they should be, or about
> the goals of others and what they should be. Instead, *Just Do It*.
> If you want to help newbies, help newbies! Your document on Lisp was
> a good start!
OK, I'll do.
Thanks for your contribution.
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:
> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>> And if you want things to be different, I
>> suggest that the right approach is not to start meta discussions about
>> the goals of a nonexistent entity and what they should be, or about
>> the goals of others and what they should be. Instead, *Just Do It*.
>> If you want to help newbies, help newbies! Your document on Lisp was
>> a good start!
>
> OK, I'll do.
As a final note on this issue, here is some anecdotal evidence that
might be interesting to newbies, and also Lispers in general.
Guy Steele [1] is known to be a very shy and introverted person. He has
actually taken acting lessons in the past in order to improve his
communication skills. His experiences have influenced another
pedagogical pattern by Joe Bergin called "Introvert - Extrovert", that
can be found at
http://csis.pace.edu/~bergin/patterns/introvertExtrovert.html. Highly
recommended!
Pascal
[1] For the newbies: Author of "Common Lisp - The Language", considered
by many to be the bible of Common Lisp.
--
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
| There is enough evidence that the "nice" approach is more effective than
| the "blunt" approach, even when dealing with adults.
Those are not the only options. Many people prefer being treated like
children when they get a chance, and all you show is that by taking
charge of their lives and making it your responsibility to make them feel
good, they follow your lead. But that is not what being an adult means.
Being an adult means taking charge of your own life. Some people say
they did not become adults until they took charge of somebody else's
life, but they are only big brothers to their own children, not adults.
Treating people like adults produce far better results than treating them
as children, however. If all you test for is how childlike people respond
under various stimuli, of course you get better results by being nice,
but some people actually feel deeply insulted by treated like children.
--
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
> | There is enough evidence that the "nice" approach is more effective than
> | the "blunt" approach, even when dealing with adults.
>
> Those are not the only options. Many people prefer being treated like
> children when they get a chance, and all you show is that by taking
> charge of their lives and making it your responsibility to make them feel
> good, they follow your lead. But that is not what being an adult means.
> Being an adult means taking charge of your own life. Some people say
> they did not become adults until they took charge of somebody else's
> life, but they are only big brothers to their own children, not adults.
>
> Treating people like adults produce far better results than treating them
> as children, however. If all you test for is how childlike people respond
> under various stimuli, of course you get better results by being nice,
> but some people actually feel deeply insulted by treated like children.
I am not suggesting to treat people like children. I am suggesting that
the "nice" approach ("Positive Feedback First") is more appropriate even
when adults are involved. Please don't exaggerate my position.
Pascal
* Pascal Costanza
| I am not suggesting to treat people like children. I am suggesting that the
| "nice" approach ("Positive Feedback First") is more appropriate even when
| adults are involved. Please don't exaggerate my position.
That /is/ treating people like children.
If you start off telling a stranger that you like him as a person but
would prefer if he did not do something he did, some people are actually
deeply insulted by your misuse of personal relations.
I guess the examples I gave did not quite register with you and you only
saw a reason to talk about something entirely different, which of course
is what happens when you have an open forum and people cannot focus, but
try to understand how the following will be interpreted by adults who do
not want to have personal relations with other people in a professional
setting, please. Here is what I said. Please try to focus on what I say
and not only on how you think and feel. Thank you.
However, it is more correct that I do not think being liked and accepted
should take predence to technical matters /in a technical forum/. It
would be inconceivable for me to say "I like you as a person, but you
post misinformation about Common Lisp in comp.lang.lisp". I think that
would be about as likely as a stock broker saying "I like you as a person,
but you give your customers really bad stock advice", or a priest saying
to another "I really like you as a person, but could you please cut down
on murdering abortion doctors?"
--
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
> | I am not suggesting to treat people like children. I am suggesting that the
> | "nice" approach ("Positive Feedback First") is more appropriate even when
> | adults are involved. Please don't exaggerate my position.
>
> That /is/ treating people like children.
No, it isn't. At least not in my experience. I know what I am talking
about in this regard. Why are you so sure about your assessment of the
"nice" approach? Have you actually seen it fail? Repeatedly?
> I guess the examples I gave did not quite register with you and you only
> saw a reason to talk about something entirely different, which of course
> is what happens when you have an open forum and people cannot focus, but
> try to understand how the following will be interpreted by adults who do
> not want to have personal relations with other people in a professional
> setting, please.
Sorry, how can you avoid a personal relation with people you need to
deal with? We are having a personal relation right now, aren't we? What
is it that I get wrong here?
> Here is what I said. Please try to focus on what I say
> and not only on how you think and feel. Thank you.
>
> However, it is more correct that I do not think being liked and accepted
> should take predence to technical matters /in a technical forum/. It
> would be inconceivable for me to say "I like you as a person, but you
> post misinformation about Common Lisp in comp.lang.lisp". I think that
> would be about as likely as a stock broker saying "I like you as a person,
> but you give your customers really bad stock advice", or a priest saying
> to another "I really like you as a person, but could you please cut down
> on murdering abortion doctors?"
OK, here is suggestion that is more concrete: "Your assessment of Common
Lisp is right in the following points: [...] However, the following
information you gave was not accurate: [...] You can improve by doing X
(for example, reading Keene's book). Keep on your promising efforts."
This sounds a bit stylized, as it can get in examples, but in practice
this works extremely well.
Sometimes it can even be rewarding for you to think about the positive
aspects of a contribution when they are not obvious. Of course,
sometimes it doesn't work - but in my experience this is very seldom the
case.
Pascal
* Pascal Costanza
| No, it isn't.
For a person who only talks about what you think and feel, you are
awfully persistent.
| I know what I am talking about in this regard.
Of course you do. Listening to others was ruled out long ago.
| Why are you so sure about your assessment of the "nice" approach?
| Have you actually seen it fail? Repeatedly?
Yes, but you would not believe me.
| Sorry, how can you avoid a personal relation with people you need to deal
| with?
Oh Christ. You really /have/ no concept of professional relationships.
| We are having a personal relation right now, aren't we?
No.
| What is it that I get wrong here?
That you are in a discussion, not a social club.
| OK, here is suggestion that is more concrete:
Oh Christ. Do you have the capacity to listen to other people?
| Of course, sometimes it doesn't work - but in my experience this is very
| seldom the case.
Your data is only how you feel about these things. You have explicitly
rejected measurements that would establish whether what you believe would
actually hold water under testing and you reject counter-information
before you could possibly have thought about it and evaluated it.
Therefore, what you present to us is indeed what you think and feel, and
nobody should pay any attention to it because you do not pay attention to
the information that would invalidate or update 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.
"Pascal Costanza" <········@web.de> wrote in message ·················@newsreader2.netcologne.de...
> I am not suggesting to treat people like children. I am suggesting that
> the "nice" approach ("Positive Feedback First") is more appropriate even
> when adults are involved. Please don't exaggerate my position.
That can be taken as trying to be ingratiating and manipulative. In..., let
your defenses down and then "I" will correct you. If you still have the
"negative feedback" in mind when you are giving "positive feedback"
what does that say about you? In the best case the "positive feedback"
should have nothing to do with the topic.
If you give positive and negative feedback for the same subject
you will appear two-faced. Giving the "positive feedback" first is an attempt
to get the person to like you up front (and take your correction because they like
you, even IF you are correct). It is also trying to build up a bank of
forgiveness ahead of time. Its hardly treating yourself with respect.
Isn't it better to give up all those mind games and just be yourself, and,
let others be themselves? Act as you need to act and interact with others
on that basis. With mind games everyone feels pressure to play them
to protect themselves, and rightly so. I think everyone knows someone
who is just themselves and it is a great relief to be around them, you
can let your guard down. Its the child like thing to do. Perhaps a movie
recommendation is in order, "The Education of Little Tree" (its also a book),
rent it if you can.
Why do people try to correct others anyway? Perhaps you can examine that
motivation?
Wade
* Pascal Costanza
| ?!? Yes, they are. Criminals and even murderers are treated by
| psychotherapists like that (at least in Germany, but I guess also
| elsewhere). I think there's a reason for that.
Look, my patience with this topic is limited and the incessant discussion
about my person in this newsgroup is really fucking annoying. The least
you can do is pay attention and try to stay focused, OK?
If they call in /psychotherapists/ in order to be friendly to people who
have done something wrong, /you prove my point/. Normal people do not
treat these wrong-doers that way. Or do you seriously want people on
this newsgroup to become trained psychotherapists before they answer
articles from annoying ignorants?
People here offer their advice for free. Even your psychotherapists get
paid to be nice. When their help is received with hostility, they have a
goddamn /right/ to feel snubbed, disrespected, and mistreated. People
here (with the exception of the resident evil) use this forum to further
a particular purpose in a broad sense: Programming in (Common) Lisp.
If you are so easily distracted that you cannot focus on this purpose, it
is not a good idea to expose yourself to distractions.
| Your response started with a very good suggestion. You have strongly
| suggested to him to read Keene's book and reassured him by saying how
| rewarding this would turn out to be. I think this was a very positive and
| constructive way of dealing with the issue.
Glad you see it.
| However, after that, in the same message, you have also diminished your
| efforts.
No, you think I have diminished my efforts. If your purpose is to do
programming in Common Lisp, where is your focus? You focus on things
that "diminish my efforts". People who actually want to program in
Common Lisp will know how to use the information they have received
productively to their own ends. You have a higher goal than programming
in Common Lisp, however. I think you should be aware of this and manage
to see things in perspective. Being a German, I expect you to value form
higher than function and politeness higher than actual communication.
| In your reply you started to use the swear word "bullshit";
Oh, my goodness, a "swear word"! Obviously, this is so important to you
that you lose focus and get seriously distracted. Whose responsibility
is that? Someone who posts something that is clearly his negative
opinion about something that others value highly must /expect/ a harsh
response to such negativism. I think "bullshit" is a quite appropriate
response to people who post their personal negativism as if it were fact.
Clearly, if you do not value what others have denigrated, you would not
be able to understand that it is a hostile move on their part, and if you
are really dumb, you only think people use "swear words" without cause
and are /satisfied/ to condemn the use of "swear words" without further
investigation as to their cause. People of the absolutist persuasion also
tend to have lists of words that you cannot use lest you be condemned to
Hell. I find such people mildly entertaining and watch their tortured
response to simple words with considerable amusement, but that is in real
life, and I do not engage them. When a person lives in a cage in a zoo
of his own creation, one should take care not to annoy the caged animal.
However, on the Net, the caged animal has chosen to wander out into the
great wide open with his zoo-cage mentality intact and does not deserve
any respect fot his mentality.
You know a lot about a person if you can predict accurately when he stops
investigating something and is /satisfied/ with what he has found out and
believes to be the cause. People are in no small part /defined/ by what
causes them to close their investigations, whether about other people or
about individual events. A person who closes a case after he has found a
scapegoat is a seriously inferior human.
| perceived to have the subtext that you think that Jeremy is just not
| intelligent enough to understand them
You have been reading this newsgroup for a while, right? Whenever did I
need a subtext to say what I think about someone's intellectual capacity?
So get real, please.
| especially the statement "It is just complex, and you have decided not to
| deal with it." can be regarded as a personal attack.
Gimme a fucking break! You /got/ to be making this shit up on the spot!
| I guess that Jeremy has the general feeling that he is capable of dealing
| with complexity and that he has not "just given up".
If he has, he would not have any problems with a difference of opinion on
this aspect. He would be momentarily puzzled that people would conclude
this and ask for their reasons if he /really/ cared or he would simply do
some work to explain why he had concluded what he had. It would still be
a professional exchange among professionals. Taking it personally is his
/first/ mistake and indicates a lack of purpose to his participation.
If he is terribly insecure and does not /really/ think himself able to
deal with complex issues, but needs affirmation of his conclusion that
"CLOS is too hard" in order to feel better about himself, he should be
prepared not to get that affirmation from people who disagree with him
and refuse to engage in touchy-feely group hugs. If he really approaches
other people in order to get those group hugs, doing it in /writing/ is a
very serious, even fundamental mistake. This is not a support group
where people's shortcomings are supposed to be validated and approved.
If someone have problems getting something to work, we help him make it
work, not make him feel better about it not working. If you need the
latter, look for alt.support.lisp.
This is a group about programming in Common Lisp. If you walk in on a
support group and say "I can't hack it", people will care about you and
validate your failure and say encouraging things. However, if you walk
in on a technical group of people and exclaim that "it is too hard" to
people who have been through the learning process, you do not talk about
/yourself/ and /your own problems/, you make statements about the /tools/
that other professionals use with great benefit. Now, if you think that
Usenet is a giant support group complete with group hugs, /you got it
wrong/ and getting such a mistake fixed can indeed be painful, but you
/do not attack people who correct you/ no matter how you feel about it.
I maintain that once you go out on the Net, you should behave the same
way you do when you leave the safe confines of your home. You can no
longer be naked and neglect to shower and stink on people, for instance,
nor can you expect to be able to accomplish everything in a dirty sweat
suit. You also leave your personal problems at home and do /not/ bother
stranges with them. If you scream and shout because someone used a
"swear word", /you/ are the nutcase. If you physically attack people who
have used a word you do not tolerate or a tone you do not like, or you
cause a public disturbance in order to "defend" a "victim" of "abuse",
and you keep going at this, /you/ get to see the inside of a jail cell,
not the person who was supposedly abusive. The same applies here on the
Net: If you purposefully create a massive disturbance over something,
/you/ are the offender and the aggressor. Luckily society in general
tends to react much, much stronger to those who disturb the peace over
something they cannot handle than the supposed offence, or we would have
ongoing wars all over the place with people wrecking stores and public
buildings because someone thought someone else was "abusive". People who
reach for their weaponry when somebody else is "abusive" are ipso facto
dangerous and deranged lunatics because they can attack anyone at any
time when their "sensibilities" are offended. Society locks such people
up and prevent them from attacking normal people. However, many think
that since they can venture out into the great wide open that is Usenet
from their home or some other secluded space, they can behave the way
they would in solitude. It has been said that one should try to imagine
the person behind the other screen, but I think that would be much too
private. Even Madonna has been reported to regret her much too private
exposures.
| In this example, I think that concentrating purely on positive
| reinforcement and suggestions for improvement would have been more
| effective.
But you imply that he is not at fault for his own negativism. I mean,
the guy is stupid enough to invoke "religious". Where are the positive
reinforcements and suggestions in that? Do you seriously think that
people should always respond positively to absolutely anything they read,
but one who does not is not to blame unless that person is me? Why do
you not fight those who attack /me/ so viciously and tell them to be nice
ans positive towards /me/? Why this selectivity? Why is it /my/ fault
that he is not positive about Common Lisp? Why is it /my/ responsibility
to make him feel better when he can offend me and others at liberty and
/he/ goes scot free for his hostile reaction to me? Why is your theory
of positive reinforcement so selectivy applied? If being negative does
not accomplish what being positive can be, you are looking at reactions
to /his/ negativity right in the eye. These things are universally valid
or they universally invalid. Selective application and throwing blame
around is so unprofessional that people who engage in it should be shot.
| Especially, I think that the first paragraph of your reply would have
| done the job if it would have been your only response.
Then why did he not /focus/ on that? Is concentration and the ability to
sort out the most valuable things from what you read too demanding on
modern youths? Do you flame your newspaper for including a lot of sports
pages if you have no interest in sports? Do you cancel your subscription
if they allow an advertisement that "offends" your sensibilities? (Lots
of nutcases actually do this, mind you.) In short: Do you shut yourself
in when the world around you does not conform to your wishful thinking?
Do you take responsibility for coping with a reality that is not entirely
to your personal liking? Those are your basic choices.
| I don't think your statements where intended to be insulting, but they
| can be perceived as such.
Absolutely /everything/ can be perceived to be insulting! Your statement
can be perceived to be extremely insulting to Jeremy's coping ability in
the real world. If you have to construct possible insulting contexts,
you are in dire need of psychotherapy sessions until you get over it.
| I am convinced that, when in doubt, it's better to omit statements that
| are ambiguous on this level (with regard to possibly being perceived as
| insults or not).
I am convinced that people should have learned to cope with a reality
that is not entirely to their liking by the time they are let loose on
the Internet. Failure to do so means that they are doing something that
/will/ hurt them whether anyone intends it or not, and if they are so
fickle that they are offended by what they read in newsgroups, you can
just imagine what will happen to them if they ever hear Eminem on the
radio.
| Well, from what I have read so far I have the impression that your way of
| argueing is pretty non-standard.
And which standard would that be? The "standard" way to have opinions in
"modern society" is to allow everyone have them /except/ those who know
what they are talking about. The "standard" way to argue is to base your
entire chain of argument on how you /feel/ about something and then make
up arguments, logic, statistics, whatever, to rationalize your feelings.
If you want this "standard" let me know.
| All non-standard behavior causes irritations in people just and purely
| because it is non-standard, but for no other reason at all.
People who react like this need to live in small villages where everybody
agree on everything and not venture out into the great wide open.
| This is a natural reaction of people and you can't do anything against
| it, in my opinion.
This is nothing like a "natural" reaction. Thinking it is /natural/ is a
large part of the problem. /Failure/ to cope with a situation is /not/
natural. If you fail to cope with a situation in /nature/, you die. If
you want to survive, you better learn to cope with everything that comes
you way. The /natural/ reaction to anything unusual is to /want to cope
with it/ because you succeed better if you cope. What is /natural/ among
people with an intelligence level that makes them able to function well
in reality is precisely that they do not lose track of their purpose and
lose their concentration simply because they see something "unusual".
People who have a firm purpose to what they do /will not diverge their
attention/ for such reasons.
Therefore, those who lose their focus do not have a rational purpose to
their participation in a technical forum for programming in (Common) Lisp
but expect it to be something else, like an armchair philosophers society.
And typically, those who argue the most for politeness and being nice to
idiots /are not programming in Common Lisp/ and therefore do not consider
these idiots to be annoying distractions from that purpose. They would
prefer polite conversation about nothing than engaged debate about real
and difficult problems. And that really is the choice you get to make on
Usenet.
| I am not sure if you are talking about me here?!?
Only you know whether you sent Erann Gat mail to encourage his hate
campaign against me. For all I know, the bastard is lying through his
teeth to avoid taking responsbility for his own evil deeds. This would
not be the first time someone /invented/ supporters in order to feel less
guilty for what they have done. He is also the kind of person who would
do just that kind of thing to shirk responsibility for his own actions.
| So I would really like to see him continue to participate in c.l.l.
I would not. He and his cohorts have no respect for the peace that
should exist in a newsgroup, but much prefer to stage wars and cause much
hostility than to actually /improve/ the condition any way they can. He
and his cohorts are destructive and evil, that is, the kind of people who
are willing to hurt other people on purpose and who take pleasure in the
act of hurting others. Only the dead have seen the end of war.
--
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
> | ?!? Yes, they are. Criminals and even murderers are treated by
> | psychotherapists like that (at least in Germany, but I guess also
> | elsewhere). I think there's a reason for that.
>
> Look, my patience with this topic is limited and the incessant discussion
> about my person in this newsgroup is really fucking annoying. The least
> you can do is pay attention and try to stay focused, OK?
I am terribly sorry, but you have brought up the analogy, not me.
> If they call in /psychotherapists/ in order to be friendly to people who
> have done something wrong, /you prove my point/. Normal people do not
> treat these wrong-doers that way. Or do you seriously want people on
> this newsgroup to become trained psychotherapists before they answer
> articles from annoying ignorants?
No.
> | Your response started with a very good suggestion. You have strongly
> | suggested to him to read Keene's book and reassured him by saying how
> | rewarding this would turn out to be. I think this was a very positive and
> | constructive way of dealing with the issue.
>
> Glad you see it.
>
> | However, after that, in the same message, you have also diminished your
> | efforts.
>
> No, you think I have diminished my efforts.
Yes, I think you have diminished your efforts. I take it for granted
that I can only talk about what I think and feel about things.
In my previous message, I have just tried to give a (tentative) answer
to some of your questions. (Quote: "Now tell me, where did this guy get
the idea that I was full of poisonous bile? What I had I /done/ to him?")
I don't really think that you are "full of poisonous bile". You really
want to be helpful and give good advice. I only think that you have an
unusual arguing style, and this causes irritations.
> You have a higher goal than programming
> in Common Lisp, however. I think you should be aware of this and manage
> to see things in perspective.
I don't understand this statement completely, and I would be (seriously)
interested what you mean by that.
> Being a German, I expect you to value form
> higher than function and politeness higher than actual communication.
No, I think form and function depend on, and influence, each other. I
also think that politeness makes actual communication a lot easier, but
I don't value it higher. (I don't even understand what "value" means in
this context.) I also don't get why me being German should be relevant
in this context.
> | In your reply you started to use the swear word "bullshit";
>
> Oh, my goodness, a "swear word"! Obviously, this is so important to you
> that you lose focus and get seriously distracted.
No, it's not important to me. Again, I have just tried to find an
explanation for people's (or Jeremy's) reactions to your arguing style.
> A person who closes a case after he has found a
> scapegoat is a seriously inferior human.
Agreed.
> | perceived to have the subtext that you think that Jeremy is just not
> | intelligent enough to understand them
>
> You have been reading this newsgroup for a while, right? Whenever did I
> need a subtext to say what I think about someone's intellectual capacity?
:-) You're right in this regard.
> | especially the statement "It is just complex, and you have decided not to
> | deal with it." can be regarded as a personal attack.
>
> Gimme a fucking break! You /got/ to be making this shit up on the spot!
?!? No, I don't think so. I imagine someone who has tried very hard to
understand a very complicated topic. After quite a while he/she decides
to give up because he/she seriously thinks it is too complicated. Then
someone comes and tells this person that he/she "has decided not to deal
with it". That would be an insult, because he/she _has_ decided to deal
with it, but just failed. At least, it would be an incorrect assumption.
Please note that in the meantime I am not so sure anymore that this was
the case for Jeremy. Further note that I don't think that CLOS is that
complicated. (However, I still think that many people have a hard time
to grasp CLOS when they are not guided by a good tutorial.)
> | I guess that Jeremy has the general feeling that he is capable of dealing
> | with complexity and that he has not "just given up".
>
> If he has, he would not have any problems with a difference of opinion on
> this aspect. He would be momentarily puzzled that people would conclude
> this and ask for their reasons if he /really/ cared or he would simply do
> some work to explain why he had concluded what he had. It would still be
> a professional exchange among professionals. Taking it personally is his
> /first/ mistake and indicates a lack of purpose to his participation.
I have tried to find an explanation what he could possibly have
interpreted as personal attacks. As soon as he felt personally attacked
he stopped arguing and started to complain. It might be his mistake that
he just misunderstood you, but I thought you asked about the actual
sources for misunderstandings.
> This is a group about programming in Common Lisp. If you walk in on a
> support group and say "I can't hack it", people will care about you and
> validate your failure and say encouraging things. However, if you walk
> in on a technical group of people and exclaim that "it is too hard" to
> people who have been through the learning process, you do not talk about
> /yourself/ and /your own problems/, you make statements about the /tools/
> that other professionals use with great benefit. Now, if you think that
> Usenet is a giant support group complete with group hugs, /you got it
> wrong/ and getting such a mistake fixed can indeed be painful, but you
> /do not attack people who correct you/ no matter how you feel about it.
No, I don't think that usenet, or c.l.l should be a "support group".
However, I think that acknowledging people's feelings makes
communication a lot easier. Acknowledgement of people's feelings is
quite easy to accomplish, there are several simple techniques that are
not hard to learn.
> | In this example, I think that concentrating purely on positive
> | reinforcement and suggestions for improvement would have been more
> | effective.
>
> But you imply that he is not at fault for his own negativism.
No.
> I mean,
> the guy is stupid enough to invoke "religious". Where are the positive
> reinforcements and suggestions in that? Do you seriously think that
> people should always respond positively to absolutely anything they read,
Yes, at least people can try. But you're right, it's not always possible.
> but one who does not is not to blame unless that person is me?
No, that's nonsense. I don't blame you for anything.
> Why do
> you not fight those who attack /me/ so viciously and tell them to be nice
> ans positive towards /me/?
Do you need this kind of support? ;)
> Why this selectivity? Why is it /my/ fault
> that he is not positive about Common Lisp?
I didn't say so.
> Why is it /my/ responsibility
> to make him feel better when he can offend me and others at liberty and
> /he/ goes scot free for his hostile reaction to me? Why is your theory
> of positive reinforcement so selectivy applied? If being negative does
> not accomplish what being positive can be, you are looking at reactions
> to /his/ negativity right in the eye. These things are universally valid
> or they universally invalid. Selective application and throwing blame
> around is so unprofessional that people who engage in it should be shot.
I am not selective. I didn't respond to negative statements of yours,
but only to your statement that positive reinforcement does not work. I
don't agree with that. That's all.
Actually, I don't care personally if you continue to be "negative". I
can cope with your arguing style, and already learned some valuable
lessons from you.
> | Especially, I think that the first paragraph of your reply would have
> | done the job if it would have been your only response.
>
> Then why did he not /focus/ on that? Is concentration and the ability to
> sort out the most valuable things from what you read too demanding on
> modern youths? Do you flame your newspaper for including a lot of sports
> pages if you have no interest in sports?
Funnily enough, I do. ;-)
> Do you cancel your subscription
> if they allow an advertisement that "offends" your sensibilities? (Lots
> of nutcases actually do this, mind you.) In short: Do you shut yourself
> in when the world around you does not conform to your wishful thinking? Do > you take responsibility for coping with a reality that is not
> entirely to your personal liking? Those are your basic choices.
For example, I have actually quit watching TV many years ago. I don't
think that's going nuts, but I rather see this as a very conscious and
well-thought decision. It has made me a calmer person. You don't need to
cope with anything, you can be selective.
> | Well, from what I have read so far I have the impression that your way of
> | argueing is pretty non-standard.
>
> And which standard would that be? The "standard" way to have opinions in
> "modern society" is to allow everyone have them /except/ those who know
> what they are talking about. The "standard" way to argue is to base your
> entire chain of argument on how you /feel/ about something and then make
> up arguments, logic, statistics, whatever, to rationalize your feelings.
> If you want this "standard" let me know.
I didn't mean standard in the sense of "normative standard", but rather
"factual standard". I also don't want the standard you describe.
However, if your assessment of reality is correct, then you are clearly
an exception. There is no value judgement involved in this statement.
> | I am not sure if you are talking about me here?!?
>
> Only you know whether you sent Erann Gat mail to encourage his hate
> campaign against me.
I didn't.
Pascal
* Pascal Costanza
| I am terribly sorry, but you have brought up the analogy, not me.
Oh Christ. Every analogy, by virtue of not being exactly the same thing,
carries the potential that a person who manages to drop context or have
none to begin with will go off on a tangent. It is not my fault that you
do this. The point with analogy is to illustrate a point. If you think
you see another point and want to talk about that, instead, that is still
your responsibility.
| Yes, I think you have diminished your efforts. I take it for granted that
| I can only talk about what I think and feel about things.
Oh Christ. Another one of those. Listen carefully. What you have been
taught about only being able to talk about what you think and feel is
/wrong/. You can actually talk about something you have observed that
other people can observe and validate themselves, too. If you only want
to talk about what you think and feel about things, it has no consequence
whatsoever for others. /Why/ should they listen to what /you/ think and
feel? The reason most people actually care what other people say is that
they expect it to be about the same reality they live in. If people only
talk about what they think and feel, you actually have to care about them
personally before you want to listen to them. I want to care about what
somebody says, /not/ about the person who says it. However, I realize
that a small fraction of people are so narrowly focused on people that
they can only read what people they care about write. I have a hard time
figuring out how these people survive in an information society. The
very concept of caring about the author before you can listen seems so
anti-intellectual and anti-intelligent. Most of the time, good authors
are not people you would like to deal with person-to-person.
If you understand that you can actually talk about something that exists
independently of yourself, then others can talk about those things, too,
without your /personal/ think-and-feel nonsense and without having to
care about /you/. Your arguments should carry their own weight.
| In my previous message, I have just tried to give a (tentative) answer to
| some of your questions. (Quote: "Now tell me, where did this guy get the
| idea that I was full of poisonous bile? What I had I /done/ to him?")
You were speculating a lot, but now I see that it has no consequence for
me, because it is only how you think and feel. (Right?)
| You really want to be helpful and give good advice. I only think that you
| have an unusual arguing style, and this causes irritations.
Well, this is how you feel. Irrelevant. People of a more intellectual
bent will not feel that "unusual" leads to irritation. They will /think/
about the unusual and not just "feel" that it is irritating. That is
just how you react. Other people do in fact react differently, and we
have no indication that the person in question is just like you. You
really have to realize that you cannot both argue that everything you say
is how you "think and feel" and then argue that it is universal that
"unusual" leads to irritation. It is just you, according to your own
"only what I think and feel" position. (Do you see how wrong that
position is?)
* Erik Naggum
| You have a higher goal than programming in Common Lisp, however. I think
| you should be aware of this and manage to see things in perspective.
* Pascal Costanza
| I don't understand this statement completely, and I would be (seriously)
| interested what you mean by that.
You have shown me that you get distracted by "an unusual arguing style"
an that you lose your focus on the argument and presentation when there
is something you allow yourself to get irritated about. That means that
your highest value is not getting the most useful information out of what
you read, but its conformance to some standard of your own that even
causes irritation when you feel it is violated.
| I also think that politeness makes actual communication a lot easier, but
| I don't value it higher. (I don't even understand what "value" means in
| this context.) I also don't get why me being German should be relevant
| in this context.
Then you should travel more. Germans are fairly unique in their need for
protocol, and it is actually something most Germans do not notice until
they contemplate the irritation they feel when others do not behave just
so and exactly according to their own standards. However, many Germans
fail completely to understand that they cause serious irritation among
others because they are flat out uninterested in the differences and only
blame other people for not adapting to their standards. That you say you
get irritated by the unusual is such a telling point, actually.
* Erik Naggum
| Oh, my goodness, a "swear word"! Obviously, this is so important to you
| that you lose focus and get seriously distracted.
* Pascal Costanza
| No, it's not important to me. Again, I have just tried to find an
| explanation for people's (or Jeremy's) reactions to your arguing style.
But you only talk about how you think and feel. Here you presume to
think and feel on behalf of Jeremy, even to something that you do not
find important to yourself. What is this? Telepathy? Arrogance? Pure
speculation into the unknown? If you have to /fabricate/ things that you
do not even find important yourself, you are so far out on a limb that
you really should stop before you fall.
| ?!? No, I don't think so. I imagine someone who has tried very hard to
| understand a very complicated topic. After quite a while he/she decides to
| give up because he/she seriously thinks it is too complicated. Then someone
| comes and tells this person that he/she "has decided not to deal with
| it". That would be an insult, because he/she _has_ decided to deal with it,
| but just failed. At least, it would be an incorrect assumption.
Are you for real? If he gives up because he thinks it is too complicated,
he has ipso facto decided not to deal with it.
| I have tried to find an explanation what he could possibly have
| interpreted as personal attacks.
But you engage in pure speculation about something that is not even
important to yourself. (And you only talk about how you think and feel.)
| As soon as he felt personally attacked he stopped arguing and started to
| complain. It might be his mistake that he just misunderstood you, but I
| thought you asked about the actual sources for misunderstandings.
Yes, /actual/. That is quite distinct from speculation.
| However, I think that acknowledging people's feelings makes communication
| a lot easier.
Let me know when you think people acknowledge how I feel. It is the
age-old dilemma: "If I should always think of others before myself, who
should the other people think of?".
| Acknowledgement of people's feelings is quite easy to accomplish, there
| are several simple techniques that are not hard to learn.
Clearly, people think it is /wrong/ to acknowledge my feelings. What do
you think I could learn from that?
My solution is higher standards of professionalism. You leave your
feelings out of public view so others do not have to acknowledge them.
Imposing your feelings on others so they have to care about them is indecent.
| > Why do you not fight those who attack /me/ so viciously and tell them
| > to be nice ans positive towards /me/?
|
| Do you need this kind of support? ;)
If you had principles worth shit, you would not even conceive of asking
such a stupid question. You /strongly/ imply selectivity in application
with this response. If you selectively apply your principles, they are
not principles, only conveniences you choose when you have already
selected whether to treat people well based on your emotional response.
| I am not selective.
Please realize that you are.
| I didn't respond to negative statements of yours, but only to your
| statement that positive reinforcement does not work.
Huh? Which /statement/ would that be?
| Actually, I don't care personally if you continue to be "negative".
This is what I find most fascinating about you touchy-feely people. I am
not negative. I am simply not hugging and praising people. People say I
am "cold". I do not feed people's need for affirmation and validation --
I think they should keep such needs out of public view. I have received
high praise for my writing from professional authors and copyeditors and
I actually consider the need to feel good about what you read to be quite
pathological. How do you deal with textbooks? I notice that more and
more newspapers are going into "feel-good reporting" in that they focus
on making the reader comfortable. They are amazingly uninformative as a
result. If you want to feel good about something you read, you cannot
/also/ expect it to be informative and be able to teach you something.
How you feel is your own responsibility. Somebody can want to make you
feel bad by trying to hurt you with their words, but even then, you have
to decide to let this influence you. If how you feel is only produced by
other people, you have a /major/ psychological problem.
| For example, I have actually quit watching TV many years ago. I don't
| think that's going nuts, but I rather see this as a very conscious and
| well-thought decision. It has made me a calmer person.
If you become a calmer person from ceasing to be exposed to TV, you have
a /serious/ problem, and avoiding situations to make you feel better is
the wrong choice. I mean this quite seriously.
--
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
> | I am terribly sorry, but you have brought up the analogy, not me.
>
> Oh Christ. Every analogy, by virtue of not being exactly the same thing,
> carries the potential that a person who manages to drop context or have
> none to begin with will go off on a tangent. It is not my fault that you
> do this. The point with analogy is to illustrate a point. If you think
> you see another point and want to talk about that, instead, that is still
> your responsibility.
OK, in order to make this very explicit: I think your analogy is wrong.
> | Yes, I think you have diminished your efforts. I take it for granted that
> | I can only talk about what I think and feel about things.
>
> Oh Christ. Another one of those. Listen carefully. What you have been
> taught about only being able to talk about what you think and feel is
> /wrong/. You can actually talk about something you have observed that
> other people can observe and validate themselves, too.
Sure. I have read a similar argument by Immanuel Kant, and I think this
is right, but only to a certain degree.
> If you only want
> to talk about what you think and feel about things, it has no consequence
> whatsoever for others.
This is not a correct conclusion.
> /Why/ should they listen to what /you/ think and
> feel? The reason most people actually care what other people say is that
> they expect it to be about the same reality they live in.
Of course.
> If you understand that you can actually talk about something that exists
> independently of yourself, then others can talk about those things, too,
> without your /personal/ think-and-feel nonsense and without having to
> care about /you/. Your arguments should carry their own weight.
Arguments never carry their own weight. Arguments are always
communicated by people; without people, there would be no arguments.
I understand the dichotomy between the rational side and the emotional
side of poeple you obviously believe in (do you?), but I think it's a
wrong perception of reality. (Think about it: There's no rational reason
for being rational.)
> | In my previous message, I have just tried to give a (tentative) answer to
> | some of your questions. (Quote: "Now tell me, where did this guy get the
> | idea that I was full of poisonous bile? What I had I /done/ to him?")
>
> You were speculating a lot, but now I see that it has no consequence for
> me, because it is only how you think and feel. (Right?)
We both don't know why Jeremy reacted the way he did. I have just tried
to create a "mental model" that could explain his reactions. I think
it's a fairly consistent "model". You are right, this can be called
speculation.
> | You really want to be helpful and give good advice. I only think that you
> | have an unusual arguing style, and this causes irritations.
>
> Well, this is how you feel. Irrelevant. People of a more intellectual
> bent will not feel that "unusual" leads to irritation. They will /think/
> about the unusual and not just "feel" that it is irritating. That is
> just how you react.
I think you have misunderstood me. _I_ am not irritated by your arguing
style. But it does cause irritations, as you can see from the reactions
in this newsgroup. That's just a matter of fact. Whether people are
"right" to feel irritated or not doesn't matter in this regard, it's
just an assessment of the fact that they do feel irritated.
Most probably they shouldn't, but it's also probable that they continue
to react like that.
> You
> really have to realize that you cannot both argue that everything you say
> is how you "think and feel" and then argue that it is universal that
> "unusual" leads to irritation. It is just you, according to your own
> "only what I think and feel" position. (Do you see how wrong that
> position is?)
No, actually I don't see any contradiction in this regard. To put it a
little ironically: I am quite happy that there are quite a few people
who think similarly and share a fair amount of my feelings. Of course,
this doesn't allow me to dispose of a certain amount of uncertainty in
the end, but I can live with that.
> * Erik Naggum
> | You have a higher goal than programming in Common Lisp, however. I think
> | you should be aware of this and manage to see things in perspective.
>
> * Pascal Costanza
> | I don't understand this statement completely, and I would be (seriously)
> | interested what you mean by that.
>
> You have shown me that you get distracted by "an unusual arguing style"
> an that you lose your focus on the argument and presentation when there
> is something you allow yourself to get irritated about.
No.
> That means that
> your highest value is not getting the most useful information out of what
> you read, but its conformance to some standard of your own that even
> causes irritation when you feel it is violated.
No.
> | I also think that politeness makes actual communication a lot easier, but
> | I don't value it higher. (I don't even understand what "value" means in
> | this context.) I also don't get why me being German should be relevant
> | in this context.
>
> Then you should travel more. Germans are fairly unique in their need for
> protocol, and it is actually something most Germans do not notice until
> they contemplate the irritation they feel when others do not behave just
> so and exactly according to their own standards. However, many Germans
> fail completely to understand that they cause serious irritation among
> others because they are flat out uninterested in the differences and only
> blame other people for not adapting to their standards.
Ah, this is what you mean. I am aware of this "tendency" of German
people. People that know me well think of me as being very atypical in
this regard. (And I still think this is irrelevant.)
> | ?!? No, I don't think so. I imagine someone who has tried very hard to
> | understand a very complicated topic. After quite a while he/she decides to
> | give up because he/she seriously thinks it is too complicated. Then someone
> | comes and tells this person that he/she "has decided not to deal with
> | it". That would be an insult, because he/she _has_ decided to deal with it,
> | but just failed. At least, it would be an incorrect assumption.
>
> Are you for real? If he gives up because he thinks it is too complicated,
> he has ipso facto decided not to deal with it.
Well, yes and no. In the example I have made up he/she _first_ decided
to deal with it. Perhaps we can agree on "he/she decided not to deal
with it _anymore_", which would still have different connotations.
> | Acknowledgement of people's feelings is quite easy to accomplish, there
> | are several simple techniques that are not hard to learn.
>
> Clearly, people think it is /wrong/ to acknowledge my feelings. What do
> you think I could learn from that?
I try to avoid to get involved in other people's arguments. I am aware
of the fact that other people misbehave in this newsgroup. I don't
respond to that because I don't see the sense in doing so. I also didn't
respond to any of your supposedly "negative" statements. Why should I? I
regard your arguing style as merely "unusal", not as negative.
However, I firmly believe in the "Positive Feedback First" technique,
and some of your statements can be understood as suggesting an
"opposite" technique. I have responded to that, and that's the only
point I really care about in our discussion.
> | > Why do you not fight those who attack /me/ so viciously and tell them
> | > to be nice ans positive towards /me/?
> |
> | Do you need this kind of support? ;)
>
> If you had principles worth shit, you would not even conceive of asking
> such a stupid question. You /strongly/ imply selectivity in application
> with this response. If you selectively apply your principles, they are
> not principles, only conveniences you choose when you have already
> selected whether to treat people well based on your emotional response.
I am terribly sorry to have caused such a reaction. The question was
intended to be a joke, and not to be a serious question. This was my
mistake, I am sorry - I will try to refrain from including jokes in this
discussion.
> | I didn't respond to negative statements of yours, but only to your
> | statement that positive reinforcement does not work.
>
> Huh? Which /statement/ would that be?
The starting point of our discussion was the following statement of yours:
'However, it is more correct that I do not think being liked and
accepted should take predence to technical matters /in a technical
forum/. It would be inconceivable for me to say "I like you as a
person, but you post misinformation about Common Lisp in
comp.lang.lisp". I think that would be about as likely as a stock
broker saying "I like you as a person, but you give your customers
really bad stock advice", or a priest saying to another "I really like
you as a person, but could you please cut down on murdering abortion
doctors?"'
I have read this as a statement that you don't "believe" in positive
reinforcement techniques, like the "Positive Feedback First" pattern.
Please correct if have gotten that wrong.
> | Actually, I don't care personally if you continue to be "negative".
>
> This is what I find most fascinating about you touchy-feely people. I am
> not negative. I am simply not hugging and praising people.
I have put the word "negative" in quotation marks to express that I
don't really think you are negative. Sorry, I could have been more
precise here.
> | For example, I have actually quit watching TV many years ago. I don't
> | think that's going nuts, but I rather see this as a very conscious and
> | well-thought decision. It has made me a calmer person.
>
> If you become a calmer person from ceasing to be exposed to TV, you have
> a /serious/ problem, and avoiding situations to make you feel better is
> the wrong choice. I mean this quite seriously.
Thanks a lot for your advice, but this was just a single example. You're
right, avoiding _all_ possibly stressful situations to make me feel
better is the wrong choice. On the other hand, it's equally unwise to
try to expose yourself to all conceivable stressful situations. The
"truth" is somewhere in between. (In my opinion, TV is one of the most
dangerous sources of stress of our times, and exposing yourself to it is
not rewarding at all. So i have decided to quit watching it. But I am
getting very off-topic here...)
Pascal
* Pascal Costanza
| OK, in order to make this very explicit: I think your analogy is wrong.
Oh Christ. Listening to other people's point of view is not your strong
suit, is it?
| Sure. I have read a similar argument by Immanuel Kant, and I think this is
| right, but only to a certain degree.
German philosophy. Spare us.
| > If you only want to talk about what you think and feel about things,
| > it has no consequence whatsoever for others.
|
| This is not a correct conclusion.
So? That, too, by your own admission, is only what you think and feel.
| > /Why/ should they listen to what /you/ think and feel? The reason
| > most people actually care what other people say is that they expect
| > it to be about the same reality they live in.
|
| Of course.
This clearly contradicts what you said about only talking about what you
think and feel. You obviously think you can get by with approximations,
and pretty fuzzy ones at that. I pity your miserable life that you have
come to believe this.
| Arguments never carry their own weight. Arguments are always communicated
| by people; without people, there would be no arguments.
Oh Christ. You are one of those.
| I understand the dichotomy between the rational side and the emotional
| side of poeple you obviously believe in (do you?), but I think it's a
| wrong perception of reality. (Think about it: There's no rational reason
| for being rational.)
Oh Christ. You are one of those. This is just too goddamn stupid to be
worth a serious comment.
| No, actually I don't see any contradiction in this regard.
It is more important to you to deny things than to understand them.
| However, I firmly believe in the "Positive Feedback First" technique,
It has stunted your mental growth, just as I argue that technique will.
People grow from challenges. People who avoid challenges tend not to
grow, or worse, they tend to rot.
| > | I didn't respond to negative statements of yours, but only to your
| > | statement that positive reinforcement does not work.
|
| > Huh? Which /statement/ would that be?
|
| The starting point of our discussion was the following statement of yours:
:
| I have read this as a statement that you don't "believe" in positive
| reinforcement techniques, like the "Positive Feedback First" pattern.
Pascal, you are an idiot or extremely sloppy intellectually, so listen
carefully. When you say "your statement that positive reinforcement does
not work", that means that I made a statement to that effect. Do you
understand this simple piece of English? Since you are obviously quite
influenced by toxic philosophies that wipe out the distinction between
what you think and feel and observable reality, you think you can claim
that I /said/ something that you /believe/ as a consequence of what you
/think/ I said. This is not a fucking /game/, OK? If you are so unable
to deal with the world around accurately that you cannot even distinguish
between someone else's /actual statements/ and what you /think and feel/,
you should realize that you have nothing whatsoever to offer anyone.
| Please correct if have gotten that wrong.
I generally think this line is produced only by retards who are too
fucking lazy to pay attention to details. You confirm that opinion.
| On the other hand, it's equally unwise to try to expose yourself to all
| conceivable stressful situations.
No, it is not. You really should talk to the psychotherapists that are
paid to be friendly to idiots and learn what they know about coping
strategies.
| The "truth" is somewhere in between.
Oh Christ. You're a goddamn /relativist/!
| (In my opinion, TV is one of the most dangerous sources of stress of our
| times, and exposing yourself to it is not rewarding at all. So i have
| decided to quit watching it. But I am getting very off-topic here...)
Basket case closed.
--
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.
-
people.
are you really unable to understand?
-
'friends'.
can you really abuse a human this way?
-
reflection.
many ways to do this.
some people don't do.
some people do silent, internally.
some people do loud, but alone.
some people do loud, with others.
-
some people do reflection with projection.
projecting their faults into other people.
-
read carefully the postings of what you try to understand.
screaming for help.
-
don't answer to his messages.
this is what he really wants.
this is what he really needs.
-
From: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum (was Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python))
Date:
Message-ID: <uadltwfek.fsf@telus.net>
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> You can call this arrogance, ego or whatever you want. But that won't
> change it. If you don't come to grips with the above, you will waste
> time in futile efforts to convince Erik that his behavior is uncivil,
> because he doesn't care if it is or not when other things he values
> more are at stake.
I think that anyone who has been following this group for a while knows that
ultimately it is a waste of time to try and change Erik. He is what he is.
However, that should not stop one from calling out bad (ney, immoral)
behaviour when one sees it.
Or to be precise: *I* am compelled to point it out, and not let it slide on
by, at least when it crosses a certain threshold.
The catalyst this time? Erik waxing on about the duties of good public
speaking. The nerve!
> But I don't expect to change him by yelling at him.
The only real yelling going on is from Erik. That is the essential problem,
really. Freaking out is ok for him, while the slightest disagreement about his
behaviour from anyone else is an unjustified attack against him.
> One more thing. Erik claims that his detractors don't care about
> civility either. That's because they themselves are willing to
> sacrifice civility when they are offended. This is a good point.
A good point only if they are being uncivil. I don't believe I have been, for
example. To be fair, Erik also thinks that his tantrums are not uncivil either
(or more accurately, they are justified responses to unprovoked attacks).
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum (was Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python))
Date:
Message-ID: <3242811946827388@naggum.no>
* Ray Blaak
| However, that should not stop one from calling out bad (ney, immoral)
| behaviour when one sees it.
Ah, you think it is moral of yourself to attack me and immoral of myself
to defend myself from your unfair hatred. Amazing reality break.
| Or to be precise: *I* am compelled to point it out, and not let it slide
| on by, at least when it crosses a certain threshold.
It does not cross that threshold until you start attacking me.
| The catalyst this time? Erik waxing on about the duties of good public
| speaking. The nerve!
Your prejudicial nature is showing. I am amazed that you dare show it.
| A good point only if they are being uncivil. I don't believe I have been,
| for example.
Your summary is so self-serving you should get a halo long before you
die. How unspeakably revolting it is to watch you people in action.
--
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: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum (was Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python))
Date:
Message-ID: <uofa8rc1m.fsf@telus.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * Ray Blaak
> | However, that should not stop one from calling out bad (ney, immoral)
> | behaviour when one sees it.
>
> Ah, you think it is moral of yourself to attack me and immoral of myself
> to defend myself from your unfair hatred. Amazing reality break.
Defend away. I had no problem with your post for example.
It is not the "what" I object to, it was the "how".
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum (was Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python))
Date:
Message-ID: <3242838210671650@naggum.no>
* Ray Blaak
| It is not the "what" I object to, it was the "how".
Be honest. It is the "who".
--
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: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum (was Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python))
Date:
Message-ID: <ulm5c6rd7.fsf@telus.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * Ray Blaak
> | It is not the "what" I object to, it was the "how".
>
> Be honest. It is the "who".
I know what I think: it was the "how".
If it was the "who", how could we be having these last 2 or 3 posts like we are?
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
From: Advance Australia Dear
Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum (was Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python))
Date:
Message-ID: <b7p2rug30pm8ae0mcj1g73mqemtn2002m1@4ax.com>
On 05 Oct 2002 20:23:30 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> ,
undoubtedly inspired by the Great Cthulu wrote:
>* Ray Blaak
>| It is not the "what" I object to, it was the "how".
>
> Be honest. It is the "who".
Hooo ?
From: Oleg
Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum (was Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python))
Date:
Message-ID: <anme05$e93$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>
Fred Gilham wrote:
> Many people are civil because they want to be liked and accepted.
> Erik doesn't care if he's liked and accepted.
Why would you say this about someone who turns hysterical and verbally
abusive in response to even mild and polite criticism?
In fact, he cares so much about his image, he brags about his
pseudo-intellectualism non-stop: "my 1200+ library", "40+ O'Reilly books I
own", "when I sit down to study the superstring theory", etc. (The last one
made me laugh out loud when I read it: I got a degree from MIPT (the one
Landau et.al. had founded), and to the best of my ability to judge people,
even supposing that a phoney like that could study theor-phys is ridiculous)
Let's not be naive here. Erik is just a sicko. And I doubt that he can stop
being one.
What's sad is that his trolling and unprofessionalism drives the whole
newsgroup down there with him, simply because normal people tend not to
stay, while sock puppets do. This creates a positive feedback (in the
mathematical sense), making the newsgroup even less attractive to those
seeking intelligent discussion, and so on. Hopefully, you get the picture.
(Or at least this is my hypothesis as to why this comp.lang.lisp is so
uncivilized compared to other comp.lang.* groups of similar or even larger
sizes) [1]
Oleg
[1] Bjarnee Stroustrup wrote somewhere on his web page about how the
average quality of computer language communities decreases with their size.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum (was Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python))
Date:
Message-ID: <3242812225104576@naggum.no>
* Oleg
| Why would you say this about someone who turns hysterical and verbally
| abusive in response to even mild and polite criticism?
I ask that question each time someone goes postal for a simple correction.
| In fact, he cares so much about his image, he brags about his pseudo-
| intellectualism non-stop:
This is so false it is instead quite telling about your prejudicial nature.
| "when I sit down to study the superstring theory", etc. (The last one
| made me laugh out loud when I read it: I got a degree from MIPT (the one
| Landau et.al. had founded), and to the best of my ability to judge
| people, even supposing that a phoney like that could study theor-phys is
| ridiculous)
Yes, the best of your ability to judge people. Indeed.
| What's sad is that his trolling and unprofessionalism drives the whole
| newsgroup down there with him, simply because normal people tend not to
| stay, while sock puppets do.
Are you a sock puppet, then?
--
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: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum (was Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python))
Date:
Message-ID: <kk9wuowd90e.fsf@glug.org>
Oleg <···················@columbia.edu> writes:
> [1] Bjarnee Stroustrup wrote somewhere on his web
> page about how the average quality of computer
> language communities decreases with their size.
neither simple direct nor simple inverse can accurately
describe the relationship between quality and quantity.
in this case, all meaning hinges on "average" which is
a recognized weasel-word.
thi
From: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <ud6qpwfxo.fsf@telus.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> The one recipe for actually communicating that civility is the desired
> form of human communication is this one simple imperative. OK? All well
> prepared for the tremendous force of this recipe? Here we go, then:
>
> Be civil.
> So, again, the recipe for getting uncivil behavior from other people,
> which you should /not/ do, is:
>
> Annoy them.
Amazing! We agree on something!
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> Oh, and BTW, I believe it should be "Goddamn ignoramus," not "Goddamn
> ignorant," (i.e., ignorant is an adjective, not a noun).
In this context (Elizabethan english) I find it suprising that the
phrase God damn used. I could find no reference to the contraction
Goddamn at all.
As an example of this form of english, Shakespeare in the many
hundreds of thousands of words, makes only one reference to "God damn":
The Commedy of Errors. Act IV. Scene III. A Public Place
Ant. S. Satan, avoid! I charge thee tempt me not!
Dro. S. Master, is this Mistress Satan?
Ant. S. It is the devil.
Dro. S. Nay, she is worse, she is the devil’s dam, and here she
comes in the habit of a light wench: and thereof comes that the
wenches say, ‘God damn me;’ that’s as much as to say, ‘God make me a
light wench.’ It is written, they appear to men like angels of light:
light is an effect of fire, and fire will burn; ergo, light wenches
will burn. Come not near her.
I would suggest that at this time "God damn" was very serious insult
and would lead to a short, but not mercifully short, and rather
unpleasant comubustion related end.
:)w
On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 10:48:47 +0100, Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> said:
> In this context (Elizabethan english) I find it suprising that the=20
> phrase God damn used. I could find no reference to the contraction=20
> Goddamn at all.
> As an example of this form of english, Shakespeare in the many=20
> hundreds of thousands of words, makes only one reference to "God damn":
I know that `damn' ceased to be a taboo word some time around a
century ago, but when did it become one? Before or after
Elizabethan times?
---Vassil.
Vassil Nikolov wrote:
> I know that `damn' ceased to be a taboo word some time around a
> century ago,
This depends on what you mean by a `taboo word.' I think -- obviously
dependant on circumstances -- that my grandparents would ask to leave
their house if you were to `damn and blast.'
> but when did it become one? Before or after Elizabethan times?
Apparently to damn originally is from Norman French meaning to damage
or hurt. This in the C14th took on a legal and eclesiastical meaning
to pronounce judgement on and from the religious usage it became an
insult.
:)w
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3D9C5733.7010209@nyc.rr.com>
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> Oh, and BTW, I believe it should be "Goddamn ignoramus," not "Goddamn
> ignorant," (i.e., ignorant is an adjective, not a noun).
this might just be an indication that EN has mastered American English
Adspeak. As well.
> Now if only he would turn one tenth part of his intellect toward
> dealing with people with a civil tongue, c.l.l might be a more
> welcoming forum.
Nah, it's good for the newbies. Like Churchill said, "nothing
concentrates the mind like being shot at".
kenny
clinisys
From: Kurt B. Kaiser
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <m3heg3zge5.fsf@float.attbi.com>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> > Now if only he would turn one tenth part of his intellect toward
> > dealing with people with a civil tongue, c.l.l might be a more
> > welcoming forum.
>
> Nah, it's good for the newbies. Like Churchill said, "nothing
> concentrates the mind like being shot at".
"The prospect of hanging wonderfully concentrates the mind."
Samuel Johnson
"There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result."
Winston Churchill
In this case,
"Never murder a man when he's busy committing suicide."
Woodrow Wilson
or,
"Never stand between a dog and the hydrant."
John Peers
KBK
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3D9C6945.3020404@nyc.rr.com>
Kurt B. Kaiser wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>>
>>>Now if only he would turn one tenth part of his intellect toward
>>>dealing with people with a civil tongue, c.l.l might be a more
>>>welcoming forum.
>>
>>Nah, it's good for the newbies. Like Churchill said, "nothing
>>concentrates the mind like being shot at".
>
>
> "The prospect of hanging wonderfully concentrates the mind."
> Samuel Johnson
>
> "There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result."
> Winston Churchill
>
"I hate you guys so much." Cartman, South Park
:)
k,c
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Kurt B. Kaiser wrote:
> > Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> >>Nah, it's good for the newbies. Like Churchill said, "nothing
> >>concentrates the mind like being shot at".
> > "The prospect of hanging wonderfully concentrates the mind."
> > Samuel Johnson
> >
> > "There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result."
> > Winston Churchill
> >
>
> "I hate you guys so much." Cartman, South Park
> :)
"Oh my God! They insulted Kenny!"
Michael
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
"Raffael Cavallaro" <·······@mediaone.net> wrote in message
·································@posting.google.com...
> ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) wrote in message
news:<····················@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov>...
>
> Oh, and BTW, I believe it should be "Goddamn ignoramus," not "Goddamn
> ignorant," (i.e., ignorant is an adjective, not a noun).
Now I have always thought phrases like this should really be "God damned
ignoramus" and the common sounding as "God damn" was just a spoken
affectation. From a functional grammar point of view, it only makes sense
as "damned" ie "you damned-by-God ignoramus". I can't parse it the other
way.
> In the larger scheme of things, Erik's english is excellent - far, far
> better than my norwegian will ever be. The fact that he even knows
> this archaic subjunctive usage speaks volumes about the depth of his
> knowlege.
I like Erik's use of english too, it is often surprising in its structure
but almost always eloquent. But he makes alot of typos, I just took "only
apply to people like you" as one of them and read "only applies to people
like you"
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242632096690177@naggum.no>
* Coby Beck
| Now I have always thought phrases like this should really be "God damned
| ignoramus" and the common sounding as "God damn" was just a spoken
| affectation.
It is the same subjunctive as in "God bless you".
| From a functional grammar point of view, it only makes sense as "damned"
| ie "you damned-by-God ignoramus". I can't parse it the other way.
You don't learn about the subjunctive in the wonderful American
educational system anymore, do you?
| I like Erik's use of english too, it is often surprising in its structure
| but almost always eloquent.
Thanks, I appreciate this.
| But he makes alot of typos
Yeah, it is an unfortunate side-effect of my trying to cut down on my
news time.
--
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:
> * Coby Beck
> | Now I have always thought phrases like this should really be "God damned
> | ignoramus" and the common sounding as "God damn" was just a spoken
> | affectation.
>
> It is the same subjunctive as in "God bless you".
>
> | From a functional grammar point of view, it only makes sense as "damned"
> | ie "you damned-by-God ignoramus". I can't parse it the other way.
>
> You don't learn about the subjunctive in the wonderful American
> educational system anymore, do you?
>
> | I like Erik's use of english too, it is often surprising in its structure
> | but almost always eloquent.
>
> Thanks, I appreciate this.
>
> | But he makes alot of typos
>
> Yeah, it is an unfortunate side-effect of my trying to cut down on my
> news time.
Side effects.... I've heard of those... they have something to do
with programming and even happen in Lisp, correct? That would make
this on topic, no?
Peace,
Petr
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3242641755142840@naggum.no>
* Petr Swedock
| That would make this on topic, no?
There is one thing I do not understand about you people who take valuable
time out of your important lives to quip about others being on topic or
not. On which newsgroup would it be on-topic to discuss whether others
are on topic or not? If you know the answer, you also know where to post
your replies.
--
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: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <4rc3lkql.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> You don't learn about the subjunctive in the wonderful American
> educational system anymore, do you?
Would that we did.
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * Coby Beck
> | Now I have always thought phrases like this should really be "God damned
> | ignoramus" and the common sounding as "God damn" was just a spoken
> | affectation.
>
> It is the same subjunctive as in "God bless you".
I will try to learn about that. I have always taken that as "[May] God
bless you."
> | From a functional grammar point of view, it only makes sense as "damned"
> | ie "you damned-by-God ignoramus". I can't parse it the other way.
>
> You don't learn about the subjunctive in the wonderful American
> educational system anymore, do you?
While I do have US citizenship by birth, we will have to blame the Canadian
education system for that one ;-)
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
From: ozan s yigit
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <vi4smznug38.fsf@blue.cs.yorku.ca>
coby beck:
> > You don't learn about the subjunctive in the wonderful American
> > educational system anymore, do you?
>
> While I do have US citizenship by birth, we will have to blame the Canadian
> education system for that one ;-)
collins/cobuild suggests that the subjunctive mood is not so common
in english anymore, (even fowler 2nd ed suggests it is dying) though
i'm reasonably sure it was covered by ESL teachers in toronto some
twenty-six years ago... :)
oz
---
the best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas. - anon
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3D978406.7080609@nyc.rr.com>
Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
> Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
>
>>* Jeremy H Brown wrote:
>>
>>>I can't answer these questions as well as I'd like. I haven't read
>>>Keene's book, and I can't claim to have mastered CLOS; I've always
>>
>>I think you've been taught, or taught yourself, very badly. If you
>>find multiple inheritance complicated don't use it.
...
>
> Your points regarding using subsets of CLOS are entirely correct, but
> they miss the fact that I was responding to the question "Why is it
> harder to master CLOS than <foo>?" I don't think I could claim to
> have mastered the technology by using only a subset of its abilities.
Neither should you respond to a subset of what TB wrote. He also
mentioned that newbies should know where to go for more info when they
get to the point where they need advanced features.
You might also have responded to a larger subset of the commentary you
received, but I am starting to think you are a troll, perhaps
accidentally for lack of intelligence. Sorry, but the CLOS features you
described as complex seem pretty straightforward to most of us.
And jumping from your own inability to grok CLOS to an absolute
condemnation of it as confusing is either intellectually dishonest or
just plain dumb. Equally uncute was your attempted pre-emptive strike
against such protests by whining "this is just my opinion".
>
> Jeremy
>
> PS Is Erik Naggum always so full of poisonous bile?
No, it depends on the article, and given your sloppy piece I think he
showed admirable restraint. You gave up on studying X not having read
the best introduction to X, then pronounced X too confusing thinking
somehow that that being an opinion made it OK to call X confusing
without having made a decent effort to understand X. When a lot of folk
let your lack of diligence slide you responded selectively to make
yourself look better, then took a cheap shot at the one person who did
not let you slide. Now I wager you are about to find out how many people
were thinking what EN wrote.
Better luck next thread.
kenny
clinisys
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <ey31y7bzomm.fsf@cley.com>
* Kenny Tilton wrote:
> Sorry, but the CLOS features you described as complex seem pretty
> straightforward to most of us.
I disagree with this, at least in part. I think that it can be quite
hard to know what the precedence list of a class is in the case of MI,
and that sometimes it can be quite surprising. I think there are even
arguments that CLOS's CPL algorithm is not ideal (there's a paper on
this somewhere I think) because it gives surprising results sometimes.
It's *fairly* easy to avoid the odd-CPL cases though.
Similarly I think that it can be quite hard to know what methods will
run when, although I think that this is almost always either due to
surprises in the CPL or (much more often) to just plain misdesign.
--tim
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3D985B27.6090504@nyc.rr.com>
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> * Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>>Sorry, but the CLOS features you described as complex seem pretty
>>straightforward to most of us.
>
>
> I disagree with this, at least in part. I think that it can be quite
> hard to know what the precedence list of a class is in the case of MI,
> and that sometimes it can be quite surprising.
Agreed, and in my first post on this subject I did say that guessing in
advance how class precedence (CP) would pan out can be tough, but that
is only because I have not taken the trouble to understand the
published, deterministic algorithm, the fun bit being:
"Sometimes there are several classes from SC with no predecessors. In
this case select the one that has a direct subclass rightmost in the
class precedence list computed so far."
[btw, is "rightmost" in the right place in that sentence?]
Why haven't I taken the trouble? Because one of Tilton's Laws is that
juggling the CP (by changing the order of the superclasses as declared
to defclass) should not change my program's behavior, so who cares?
IIRC, we are in the neighborhood of one of the problems Graham has with
OO, viz, that one can look neat and tidy while creating a monstrosity.
Happens to me all the time, then <dare I say it?> I refactor.
kenny
clinisys
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3y99j8svh.fsf@cley.com>
* Kenny Tilton wrote:
> Why haven't I taken the trouble? Because one of Tilton's Laws is that
> juggling the CP (by changing the order of the superclasses as declared
> to defclass) should not change my program's behavior, so who cares?
That's a good rule. I'm not *sure* it's always possible to obey it,
but I certainly try whenever I can.
--tim
In article <···············@cley.com>, Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com>
wrote:
> I disagree with this, at least in part. I think that it can be quite
> hard to know what the precedence list of a class is in the case of MI,
> and that sometimes it can be quite surprising. I think there are even
> arguments that CLOS's CPL algorithm is not ideal (there's a paper on
> this somewhere I think) because it gives surprising results sometimes.
> It's *fairly* easy to avoid the odd-CPL cases though.
Try this one:
http://www.webcom.com/haahr/dylan/linearization-oopsla96.html
-- Bruce
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3D9860A0.7080401@nyc.rr.com>
Thx for the link. Man, them's some convoluted examples.
k,c
Bruce Hoult wrote:
> In article <···············@cley.com>, Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I disagree with this, at least in part. I think that it can be quite
>>hard to know what the precedence list of a class is in the case of MI,
>>and that sometimes it can be quite surprising. I think there are even
>>arguments that CLOS's CPL algorithm is not ideal (there's a paper on
>>this somewhere I think) because it gives surprising results sometimes.
>>It's *fairly* easy to avoid the odd-CPL cases though.
>
>
> Try this one:
>
> http://www.webcom.com/haahr/dylan/linearization-oopsla96.html
>
> -- Bruce
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <ey37kh3a8li.fsf@cley.com>
* Bruce Hoult wrote:
> http://www.webcom.com/haahr/dylan/linearization-oopsla96.html
That's one of them definitely. I think the one I was thinking of was
the Baker `CLOstrophobia' paper.
--tim
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
> > Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> >
> >>* Jeremy H Brown wrote:
> >>
> >>>I can't answer these questions as well as I'd like. I haven't read
> >>>Keene's book, and I can't claim to have mastered CLOS; I've always
> >>
> >>I think you've been taught, or taught yourself, very badly. If you
> >> find multiple inheritance complicated don't use it.
>
> ...
> > Your points regarding using subsets of CLOS are entirely correct, but
> > they miss the fact that I was responding to the question "Why is it
> > harder to master CLOS than <foo>?" I don't think I could claim to
> > have mastered the technology by using only a subset of its
> > abilities.
>
> You might also have responded to a larger subset of the commentary you
> received...
Shortly after initiating this thread, I wound up leaving town
unexpectedly, which meant I had to pay by the minute to participate in
the newsgroup from the road. As several people in addition to Tim
(including yourself) had made the point regarding learning CLOS
piecewise, I made the (evidently unwise) decision to attempt to
respond briefly to that part of a representative post. I agree with
all of you that that is a good way to learn CLOS (and many other
things).
At this point I'm not going to go back and pick up all the stale
threads from two weeks ago, but I encourage anyone who has a specific
point they'ed like me to address to raise it again and I'll do what I
can.
(As an aside: Keene's book is not mentioned in question 1-2, "Lisp
books, introductions, documentation, periodicals, journals, and
conference proceedings,", of the 1997-era comp.lang.lisp FAQ at
<http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/comp/comp.lang.lisp.html>.
Nor is it mentioned in question 2.3, "What books should I read to
learn more about lisp?", of the nominal successor FAQ at
<http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/lispfaq.html>
Is there a more up-to-date version of a c.l.l FAQ elsewhere that
might have led me to this book? I'd been working with CLTL2, the
Hyperspec, Winston and Horn's "Lisp", and most recently Graham's "On
Lisp".)
> ... but I am starting to think you are a troll, perhaps accidentally
> for lack of intelligence.
I have you, along with various others here, classified as people who
both know a fair bit about the topic at hand (Lisp), and are also
generally polite. I still think that's basically true, and that the
above comment was beneath you, so I'm just gonna ignore it.
> Sorry, but the CLOS features you described as complex seem pretty
> straightforward to most of us.
The followup discussion to your post suggests that many people here
--- actually including yourself --- agree that predicting the
precedence list in MI situations can be difficult. (The particular
examples that I ran into comes from Winston & Horn's book "Lisp", 3rd
edition. I'll append it to this post for the entertainment of the
masses.)
Anyhow, given that agreement as a starting point, one can ask the
question "Should one who claims mastery of Common Lisp be able to
accurately compute the MI precedence list in corner cases?"
My assumption in my initial post was that claiming language mastery
implied that one had good intuition not just for the basics of the
language, but also for the corner cases. But perhaps the
circumstances under which the depth-first/left-to-right/up-to-join
approximations fail in CLOS are in such deep corners that one can
claim to have mastered CLOS without having an intuition for them, in
which case my initial assumption was wrong, or at least too
black-and-white.
Or perhaps it comes down to a matter of opinion --- and I know that
word makes some people's teeth hurt, but there it is again anyhow ---
as to where to draw the "mastery" line.
Thoughts?
> And jumping from your own inability to grok CLOS to an absolute
> condemnation of it as confusing is either intellectually dishonest or
> just plain dumb.
I'm not claiming, and certainly never intended to claim in previous
posts, that the entirety is confusing, but rather that some of the
details are either confusing in the sense that they are hard to
develop an intuition for (see above w.r.t. class precedence lists), or
that they are hard in that they make it easy for those of us who
haven't mastered the language to produce confusing code (e.g. using
before/after/around methods.)
> Equally uncute was your attempted pre-emptive strike
> against such protests by whining "this is just my opinion".
Again, I think this tone is beneath you.
> > Jeremy
> > PS Is Erik Naggum always so full of poisonous bile?
>
> No, it depends on the article, and given your sloppy piece I think he
> showed admirable restraint. You gave up on studying X not having read
> the best introduction to X, then pronounced X too confusing thinking
> somehow that that being an opinion made it OK to call X confusing
> without having made a decent effort to understand X. When a lot of
> folk let your lack of diligence slide you responded selectively to
> make yourself look better, then took a cheap shot at the one person
> who did not let you slide.
Actually, several people, again including yourself, politely pointed
out what they considered to be the limitations of my post. Erik was
the only one who felt the need to be belligerent and rude in his
initial response, and I called him on it.
> Now I wager you are about to find out how many people were thinking
> what EN wrote.
I note that followups to your post in this thread showed that several
people --- yourself included --- agree that parts of CLOS are complex
enough to be difficult to predict accurately, which suggests that I
was not entirely out to lunch.
I further note that Naggum and, later, yourself were the only
respondants who felt the need to be rude in responding
to/correcting/educating informing me. On the other hand, several
people agreed with me either on the newsgroup or via personal email
that Erik's rudeness overstepped generally accepted social bounds.
(Granted, such bounds are often weakly observed on USENET, but I think
it's still worth calling people on it.)
> Better luck next thread.
comp.lang.lisp: I can *feel* the love.
Anyhow, here are some potentially-confusing class precedence examples
paraphrased from Winston and Horn's "Lisp", 3rd edition. They come
the sole Appendix --- which is entirely dedicated to explaining the
full glory of the CLOS class precedence determination algorithm.
First example:
(defclass bottom (a b c))
(defclass a (c d))
(defclass b (c d))
If you do the typical depth-first, right-to-left, up-to-join[*]
approximation, you will decide that bottom's precedence list is
bottom a b d c
when in fact it is actually
bottom a b c d
Second example:
(defclass bottom (a b c))
(defclass a (c e))
(defclass b (c d))
The class precedence list for bottom here approximates to
bottom a e b d c
but is actually
bottom a b c d e
[*] This approximation scheme, which I was taught by the same book
these examples come from, is as follows:
To approximate the precedence list of a class, you:
- traverse its subclasses in depth-first order
- when there are more than one subclasses for a class, traverse them
from left to right
- when there are multiple paths from the bottommost class to some
superclass, only the last (rightmost, deepest) path should traverse
that superclass and those above it.
Does anyone here know of superior approximation rules?
Right, this post is way too long already, I'll stop now.
Jeremy
·······@ai.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown) writes:
> First example:
> (defclass bottom (a b c))
> (defclass a (c d))
> (defclass b (c d))
>
> If you do the typical depth-first, right-to-left, up-to-join[*]
> approximation, you will decide that bottom's precedence list is
> bottom a b d c
>
> when in fact it is actually
> bottom a b c d
>
> Second example:
> (defclass bottom (a b c))
> (defclass a (c e))
> (defclass b (c d))
>
> The class precedence list for bottom here approximates to
> bottom a e b d c
>
> but is actually
> bottom a b c d e
Faugh. Let me be the first to point out that each of these defclasses
should, according to the hyperspec at least, have an additional empty
list of slots as a final argument.
Jeremy
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3243556916923538@naggum.no>
* Jeremy H. Brown
| Actually, several people, again including yourself, politely pointed out
| what they considered to be the limitations of my post. Erik was the only
| one who felt the need to be belligerent and rude in his initial response,
| and I called him on it.
You behaved like a belligerent idiot. I called you on it. Apparently,
it is OK for you to call people on how you think about them, but not OK
for you to be called on by others. This speaks volumes about you. You
have just been called on this aspect of your personality. Now, do you
want to make this the focal point of your investigation on Common Lisp,
or do you think you could accept that you were called on your own
behavioral and attitude problems and decide to do something about it?
Learn to deal with honest criticism. It will help you greatly in the
rest of your life. You do not have a monopoly on calling people on what
you think about them. Accept this and move on with what matters to you.
If you continue to harp on your monopoly to call people on how you feel,
you confirm that you are a belligerent idiot, and did not just behave
like one temporarily. This is your choice now. The path lies wide open.
--
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:
> * Jeremy H. Brown
> | ... Erik was the only one who felt the need to be belligerent and
> | rude in his initial response, and I called him on it.
>
> You behaved like a belligerent idiot. I called you on it. ...
Dear Erik,
Things just aren't working out. Our he-said, he-said,
no-he-said-it-first games will never end. Our fights are disturbing
the neighbors. Your blood pressure is dangerously high. And I cry
myself to sleep every night knowing you don't respect me anymore.
What I'm trying to say is, I think it would be best if you didn't see
me anymore.
It'll be better for your blood pressure. It'll be better for the
neighbors. And while I take a certain guilty pleasure in the way a
throwaway sentence can make you waste hours filling pages with vitriol
that go unread, I know it's wrong for me to do so.
So this is goodbye, Erik. Please don't cry. Just killfile me now.
It'll be better for both of us, really.
Goodbye,
Jeremy
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3243604211272541@naggum.no>
* Jeremy H. Brown
| Dear Erik,
Patronize elsewhere. You have now proven that you are a troll.
--
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.
Jeremy H. Brown wrote in message ...
>Things just aren't working out. Our he-said, he-said,
>no-he-said-it-first games will never end. Our fights are disturbing
>the neighbors. Your blood pressure is dangerously high. And I cry
>myself to sleep every night knowing you don't respect me anymore.
You'll grow up a little faster if you meditate on the number of class acts
(such as Duane, Kent, and Tim) who do not have your problem getting along
with others in c.l.l.
k,c
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <ey38z118hej.fsf@cley.com>
* Jeremy H Brown wrote:
> Anyhow, given that agreement as a starting point, one can ask the
> question "Should one who claims mastery of Common Lisp be able to
> accurately compute the MI precedence list in corner cases?"
I don't know if I've mastered CL. I wouldn't want to claim I have
really mastered any system as it seems like rather an arrogant and
`final' statement: `OK, I've done CL now, what's next?'. On the other
hand I've written fairly substantial applications in CL, which use a
fair amount of the language including many of the `obscure' bits like
extensive use of pathnames, non-standard method combinations,
non-global specials, package system hackery &c &c.
I can't accurately compute the precedence list in all cases. I can do
it in simple cases, and I can write code such that it doesn't depend
on fine details of the ordering in most cases, and given the spec and
some time I can compute it in all cases (though I'd probably actually
do this by just asking the implementation to compute it for me).
I have occasionally been bitten by this, but I've occasionally been
bitten by not knowing what all the active condition handlers are too,
by writing search algorithms which failed to terminate, and many other
things. For me that's a part of programming - I'm not as good at
computing things reliably as the machine is and sometimes it gives me
answers I didn't expect.
--tim
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <aoe6ch$nb1$1@venus.btinternet.com>
Tim wrote:
> * Jeremy H Brown wrote:
>>Anyhow, given that agreement as a starting point, one can ask the
>>question "Should one who claims mastery of Common Lisp be able to
>>accurately compute the MI precedence list in corner cases?"
>
> I don't know if I've mastered CL. I wouldn't want to claim I have
> really mastered any system as it seems like rather an arrogant and
> `final' statement
Absolutely.
Putting on my philosophers hat[1] the question `do I *really* know x' --
or in this case `do I *need* to know x' is a really, really hard
question to answer and has concerned a number of brilliant people to no
conclusive result. Inherent in this question appears to be some kind of
idea that there is a canon of work that if somehow memorised or mastered
would give some kind of power. IMHE life -- and certainly computing --
isn't like that.
> I can't accurately compute the precedence list in all cases. I can do
> it in simple cases, and I can write code such that it doesn't depend
> on fine details of the ordering in most cases, and given the spec and
> some time I can compute it in all cases (though I'd probably actually
> do this by just asking the implementation to compute it for me).
I agree. Rather than taking some kind of purely theoretical approach[2]
-- particularly in complex cases -- read the specification and then try
it. This reality check will either show you something about your, or the
implementors, understanding. Or maybe both.
:)w
[1] ...oh no they cried not the philosphy hat...
[2] this isn't scheme after all ;)
Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> writes:
> Tim wrote:
> > * Jeremy H Brown wrote:
> >>Anyhow, given that agreement as a starting point, one can ask the
> >>question "Should one who claims mastery of Common Lisp be able to
> >>accurately compute the MI precedence list in corner cases?"
> > I don't know if I've mastered CL. I wouldn't want to claim I have
> > really mastered any system as it seems like rather an arrogant and
> > `final' statement
> Absolutely.
>
> Putting on my philosophers hat[1] the question `do I *really* know
> x' -- or in this case `do I *need* to know x' is a really, really
> hard question to answer and has concerned a number of brilliant
> people to no conclusive result. Inherent in this question appears to
> be some kind of idea that there is a canon of work that if somehow
> memorised or mastered would give some kind of power. IMHE life --
> and certainly computing -- isn't like that.
Stepping back from terms like "mastery" and "power" for a moment, it
is at least the case in programming that the more one understands
about one's programming tools, the more productive one can be.
And in my case, at least, I'm a tool junkie --- I want to know how
they all work, all the details, just so I *know*. Simpler tools are
easier for me to satisfy my curiousity about; CLOS is going to take
eons before the itch is fully scratched. (An aside: over time I've
gotten inherently suspicious of complicated tools; it takes a lot of
time for me to convince myself the complexity is a net win. Principle
of least surprise, or something like that. As you can probably tell,
I haven't really reached that point yet with CLOS, but we'll see how
things develop.)
> > I can't accurately compute the precedence list in all cases. I can do
> > it in simple cases, and I can write code such that it doesn't depend
> > on fine details of the ordering in most cases, and given the spec and
> > some time I can compute it in all cases (though I'd probably actually
> > do this by just asking the implementation to compute it for me).
>
> I agree. Rather than taking some kind of purely theoretical
> approach[2] -- particularly in complex cases -- read the specification
> and then try it. This reality check will either show you something
> about your, or the implementors, understanding. Or maybe both.
>
> :)w
>
> [1] ...oh no they cried not the philosphy hat...
"It looks good on ya."
> [2] this isn't scheme after all ;)
"It burns! It burns!"
Jeremy
"Jeremy H. Brown" <·······@ai.mit.edu> wrote in message ····················@suspiria.ai.mit.edu...
> And in my case, at least, I'm a tool junkie --- I want to know how
> they all work, all the details, just so I *know*. Simpler tools are
> easier for me to satisfy my curiousity about; CLOS is going to take
> eons before the itch is fully scratched. (An aside: over time I've
> gotten inherently suspicious of complicated tools; it takes a lot of
> time for me to convince myself the complexity is a net win. Principle
> of least surprise, or something like that. As you can probably tell,
> I haven't really reached that point yet with CLOS, but we'll see how
> things develop.)
>
The CMUCL source code is available for you to understand class
precedence. Why don't you just look at the code and see how it is
calculated? You are fretting over nothing.
Wade
Rather than drop a half-dozen closely related messages into the
thread, here's one large response to several recent messages. After
this, I'm happy to step out of the thread and let others finish it
off. (I'll stick around and answer any questions specifically
directed to me, but other than that I'll step out of the thread.)
"Wade Humeniuk" <····@nospam.nowhere> writes:
> "Jeremy H. Brown" <·······@ai.mit.edu> wrote in message ····················@suspiria.ai.mit.edu...
> > And in my case, at least, I'm a tool junkie --- I want to know how
> > they all work, all the details, just so I *know*. Simpler tools are
> > easier for me to satisfy my curiousity about; CLOS is going to take
> > eons before the itch is fully scratched. (An aside: over time I've
> > gotten inherently suspicious of complicated tools; it takes a lot of
> > time for me to convince myself the complexity is a net win. Principle
> > of least surprise, or something like that. As you can probably tell,
> > I haven't really reached that point yet with CLOS, but we'll see how
> > things develop.)
> >
>
> The CMUCL source code is available for you to understand class
> precedence. Why don't you just look at the code and see how it is
> calculated? You are fretting over nothing.
Well, certainly one hopes that the code is computing it in agreement
with the spec. The question is whether reading (or writing, as Alan
Crowe did in another recent post) code to compute the CPL will improve
one's intuition for the process. Alan, any thoughts on that?
Incidentally, here's a line of thought as to why I (and others) start
out intimidated by CL/CLOS. There's two kinds of knowledge: knowing
something, and knowing where to look something up. (This says nothing
about knowing how to use that knowledge well, of course.)
Between the Hyperspec, widely-available CL/CLOS implementations, etc.,
a bit of familiarization is probably enough to create the second kind
of knowledge pertty quickly. What some of us have (unfortunately)
come to expect from experience with languages such as C, Scheme, and
Java[*] is that with respect to the core of the language, at least,
the transition from the latter type of knowledge to the former type is
a relatively short, and relatively complete process.
Those of us with this expectation --- however dumb it may be --- are
then spooked when we realize early on that (a) the language core for
CL is significantly larger than for these other languages, and (b)
CPL, at least, is part of the core that one may never completely move
into the former class of knowledge.
So, there you have it, a theory of why some of us have an
emotional/visceral reaction: violated/unrealistic expectations.
[*] Actually, if people want to pick on Java for having unknown and
unknowable corners, I would recommend they start with the
threading/synchronization/memory model. See, for instance,
http://csg.lcs.mit.edu/pubs/memos/Memo-428/memo-428.pdf
I think most Java programmers remain blissfully unaware of this
attrocity.
------
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> > Fair enough, although how frequent the exceptional cases arise is a
> > legitimate criterion for judgement as well. As yet, I have no real
> > sense of how often these arise in practice with CLOS; I was spooked
> > early on by the fact that Winston and Horn had to dedicate an entire
> > appendix to explain how the class precedence list is actually
> > computed. I fully grant that it may turn out to be irrelevant 99%
> > of the time --- but it is spooky to a newcomer (or at least this
> > newcomer) to even be told that the situation exists.
>
> I think you will find Richard Gabriel's paper, "Lisp: Good News Bad
> News How To Win Big" helpful here. A quotation from that paper
> follows:
> [clip]
The clasic "Worse is Better" paper! It's mandatory reading around
here; I've probably read it 3 times in the last few years, but not
since I'd developed interest/time to actually try to learn CL. Thanks
for reminding me of it.
Upon rereading it now, I'm struck by how it contains many statements
likely to frighten newbies away from CL, e.g. "We've seen that the
right thing attitude has brought us a very large,
complex-to-understand, and complex-to-implement Lisp -- Common Lisp
that solves way too many problems," or "In Lisp it is very easy to
write programs that perform very poorly; in C it is almost impossible
to do that." And this from a master of the language!
I wonder how many university students get their first taste of lisp
with this paper and go off to learn C/C++ and UNIX without ever
looking back. I imagine this one paper scares away more people than a
dozen newbies like me saying "CL [or CLOS] is hard, let's go shopping."
> The idea here is that when you see something like the appendix on CPL
> you are in the presence of "the right thing." Note especially that
> when one trades off between simplicity and completeness, completeness
> is supposed to have some degree of priority. So this appendix is
> telling you that CLOS will do "the right thing" in a fairly obscure
> area. The existence of this appendix shows how "the right thing"
> mentality operates.
>
> But if you are used to a "worse is better" approach you will see this
> same appendix and think, "If they are covering this case in some
> detail, it must be really important to understand it, because it will
> probably come up often."
>
> But it won't.
>
> As you use Lisp (and other systems) you get a feel for things like
> this. Personally when I saw that appendix some years ago, I thought,
> "In the unlikely event that I ever have this problem it's nice to know
> that there's somewhere I can look to see what's going on."
Point taken, and certainly I tend to come at things from a
worse-is-better philosophical standpoint. I will attempt to realign
my expectations for this learning process.
Gabriel himself seems to have wandered back and forth a lot as to
where he actually stands on the matter; the whole, fascinating saga,
-- including debating himself in papers written under assumed names! --
is described at http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html
------
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Jeremy H Brown wrote:
>
> > So maybe you've just identified one of the key simplicity-vs.-power
> > issues that make it easier to "master" Java than CLOS: whenever
> > something potentially confusing comes up, Java simply says "you can't
> > do that", while CLOS provides a mechanism (a perhaps
> > necessarily-complex one) for managing the situation.
>
> Right. And this is one of the things that I (and others) said ages
> ago. CLOS is only complicated if you want to do complicated things.
> Like MI - it's much simpler in Java because it isn't there at all.
Check.
> And I hear it's quite exciting in C++.
Although I've used C++ extensively, I've avoided the MI parts ---
partly from lack of need (or at least, lack of realizing I had the
need), and partly due to the gagging reaction. C++ is my least
favorite language.
------
···@iki.fi (Janne Rinta-M�nty) writes:
> Jeremy H. Brown 2002-10-14T02:01:46Z:
> > [*] This approximation scheme, which I was taught by the same book
> > these examples come from, is as follows: [...]
>
> Do they say /why/ they have an approximation scheme in the book? I
> can't think of any reason for it: it doesn't seem to be easier to use
> than the real thing and clearly it gives wrong results.
They don't explicitly list a reason; my read was that this enabled you
to figure out how your back-of-the-coaster class hierarchy would work
out in practice without having to haul out a laptop at the bar.
------
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> I think you are touching here on a guiding principle in the design of lisp:
> freedom and flexibility over simplicity and safety[1] Where other languages
> avoid difficult problems lisp addresses them and IMO does so with only the
> complexity that is necessary to define the problem precisely. But really
> this should not be any problem whatsoever for anyone who does not really
> want that freedom - just don't use it. But when the day comes and you need
> it, lo and behold it is there!
and Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> Right, and this is the critical point: for some reason people think
> it's OK for a language to just punt on difficult problems.
This is very much the worse-is-better approach on display. Viral
simplicity.
> Well, I'll risk the stake: we need MI and its ilk. So it's hard in
> places - just get over it: the world is hard in places too. Epicycles
> can't hack it, in case you hadn't noticed, *however* complex you make
> them.
A question: My brain by and large hasn't been stretched in the MI
direction yet, so I don't have a good sense of what applications it
tends to get used in. E.g., in the past I've done a fair bit of
compiler work (mostly for tasteless C-like languages.) I haven't felt
like I was losing for lack of MI, but then again I don't know the tool
well. Has anyone here used MI for a compiler type project? What for?
Modelling the real world is the most obvious (to me) application of
MI; what else have you used it for in practice?
------
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> I am quite busy at the moment, so I only throw a few thoughts into the
> discussion.
Thanks for taking the time. It's hard to keep up with the pace of
this newsgroup.
> Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
> No, I don't think so. Try to use the facilities - not for toy examples
> that illustrate the corner cases, but for actual real-world examples.
That's the goal. I'm mostly putzing around getting familiar with the
environment at the moment, but I hope to do something larger shortly.
(If anyone has suggestions for an application the world desperately
needs and that CL is well-suited to, let me know, maybe I'll take a
stab at it.)
> >>Java is a language that is designed for solving simple tasks, while
> >>Common Lisp is designed for solving complex tasks. However, CLOS is as
> >>simple as possible for the issues it can solve.
> > I'm not qualified to judge that statement at this point.
>
> Then, perhaps, it is wiser to wait until you have gained more
> experience to be able to judge it from a better perspective.
[clip]
Fair enough.
> >>Equally, I don't think you can "master" programming languages, but you
> >>can rather "master" programming tasks. Java is designed for simple
> >>tasks, so I cannot master the complex tasks with Java by
> >> definition.
> > I'm not quite sure I buy this argument.
>
> So why do you think are they working on things like genericity,
> aspect-oriented programming and other extensions to Java? Why do you
> think the have added reflection to Java, and other more sophisticated
> "meta" facilities to C#? Such things are eventually needed!
Was reflection really a late addition to Java? I'd've thought it was
built in from the start; it clearly requires low-level support from
the JVM. I'm not familiar with the details of the Java extensions you
mention, nor with C#. But I would assume that the goal of adding all
of these things is to make it *easier* to perform (or master) certain
tasks. I wouldn't say that there were tasks you *couldn't* master
before, just that some will be easier to address now than they were
before ---- and, correspondingly, the language will be that much more
complex/difficult to learn than before, as it adds new details.
------
Many thanks to everyone who took the time to send thoughtful messages
to this thread!
Jeremy
·······@ai.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown) writes:
> Well, certainly one hopes that the code is computing it in agreement
> with the spec. The question is whether reading (or writing, as Alan
> Crowe did in another recent post) code to compute the CPL will improve
> one's intuition for the process. Alan, any thoughts on that?
Writing it helped me alot.
I am curious as to whether my posting my code helped anyone
else. I hope to write some intermediate level tutorials to
help other persons learn Common Lisp. If it is the case that
writing code oneself helps, but reading other persons code
doesn't help, then I have an alternative way of presenting
the subtleties of precedence list computation. It uses lots
of single inheritance classes to create a striking visual
pattern and give the account some narrative drive. Here is
my first draft of the end of my tutorial:
######## start of draft of end of tutorial ############
CLOS goes all the way up, before it goes right
(progn
(defclass fs5()())
(defclass fs4(fs5)())
(defclass fs3(fs4)())
(defclass fs2(fs3)())
(defclass fs1(fs2)())
(defclass first-stack(fs1)())
(defclass ss5()())
(defclass ss4(ss5)())
(defclass ss3(ss4)())
(defclass ss2(ss3)())
(defclass ss1(ss2)())
(defclass second-stack(ss1)())
(defclass stack-base (first-stack second-stack)())
)
Editing the output of CMUCL to bring out the pattern
(pcl:class-precedence-list (find-class 'stack-base)) =>
(#< STACK-BASE >
#< FIRST-STACK >
#< FS1 >
#< FS2 >
#< FS3 >
#< FS4 >
#< FS5 >
#< SECOND-STACK >
#< SS1 >
#< SS2 >
#< SS3 >
#< SS4 >
#< SS5 >
#< STANDARD-OBJECT >)
See, it has gone all the way up the first stack of
classes, and only then moved onto the second.
But it will not violate local precedence, so ...
(progn
(defclass fs5()())
(defclass fs4(fs5)())
(defclass fs3(fs4)())
(defclass fs2(fs3)())
(defclass fs1(fs2)())
(defclass first-stack(fs1)())
(defclass ss5()())
(defclass ss4(ss5)())
(defclass ss3(ss4)())
(defclass ss2(ss3)())
(defclass ss1(ss2)())
(defclass second-stack(ss1)())
(defclass nuisance(fs3)())
(defclass stack-base (first-stack
second-stack
nuisance)())
)
(pcl:class-precedence-list (find-class 'stack-base)) =>
(#< STACK-BASE >
#< FIRST-STACK >
#< FS1 >
#< FS2 >
#< SECOND-STACK >
#< SS1 >
#< SS2 >
#< SS3 >
#< SS4 >
#< SS5 >
#< NUISANCE >
#< FS3 >
#< FS4 >
#< FS5 >
#< STANDARD-OBJECT >)
... it is blocked on `fs3' by `nuisance', and moves
on to doing the second stack of classes, before
coming back and finishing the first stack.
Now we can make mischief. I've taken the `nuisance'
class out of `stack-base', and moved it so that
it annoys `main', a class that inherits from
`stack-base'
(progn
(defclass fs5()())
(defclass fs4(fs5)())
(defclass fs3(fs4)())
(defclass fs2(fs3)())
(defclass fs1(fs2)())
(defclass first-stack(fs1)())
(defclass ss5()())
(defclass ss4(ss5)())
(defclass ss3(ss4)())
(defclass ss2(ss3)())
(defclass ss1(ss2)())
(defclass second-stack(ss1)())
(defclass stack-base (first-stack second-stack)())
(defclass nuisance(fs3)())
(defclass main(stack-base nuisance)())
)
Now, as you see from
(pcl:class-precedence-list (find-class 'stack-base)) =>
(#< STACK-BASE >
#< FIRST-STACK >
#< FS1 >
#< FS2 >
#< FS3 >
#< FS4 >
#< FS5 >
#< SECOND-STACK >
#< SS1 >
#< SS2 >
#< SS3 >
#< SS4 >
#< SS5 >
#< STANDARD-OBJECT >)
the precedence list for `stack-base' does all of the
first stack, followed by all of the second stack.
Meanwhile
(pcl:class-precedence-list (find-class 'main)) =>
(#< MAIN >
#< STACK-BASE >
#< FIRST-STACK >
#< FS1 >
#< FS2 >
#< SECOND-STACK >
#< SS1 >
#< SS2 >
#< SS3 >
#< SS4 >
#< SS5 >
#< NUISANCE >
#< FS3 >
#< FS4 >
#< FS5 >
#< STANDARD-OBJECT >)
shows that `main' has been affliced by `nuisance'.
Its class precedence list has to break off from
enumerating the first stack of classes, do the second
stack of classes and finish off `fs3', `fs4',
and `fs5' after `nuisance'. The classes in the
second stack have jumped into the middle of the
enumeration of the first stack of classes. This could
be a major shock to the programmer who wrote
`stack-base', and stop the class working when it
is subclassed in this way.
########## end of draft of end of tutorial ############
My main qualification for writing tutorials is that I am
learning Lisp myself. Thus I an intimately acquainted with
the confusions that assail and distress newbies. Although
this is a valuable qualification, it is has
disadvantages. In particular I will be depending on the
members of this list to catch my technical errors. This
worries me. There is plenty of enthusiasm for spotting
technical errors in short postings put directly on
comp.lang.lisp. However, if I write some lengthy tutorials,
etiquette will require that I put them on my website and
post the URL to the list. Are there enough folk willing to
follow a link, read a long tutorial and then point out the
technical errors?
> > Do they say /why/ they have an approximation scheme in the book? I
> > can't think of any reason for it: it doesn't seem to be easier to use
> > than the real thing and clearly it gives wrong results.
>
> They don't explicitly list a reason; my read was that this enabled you
> to figure out how your back-of-the-coaster class hierarchy would work
> out in practice without having to haul out a laptop at the bar.
I'm sure that I can come up with an explanation of the exact
scheme, suitable for beginners. It might take a few more
tries though :-(
Alan Crowe
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <kk9adldvxn3.fsf@glug.org>
····@cawtech.freeserve.co.uk (Alan S. Crowe) writes:
> Are there enough folk willing to [...]
estimated response volume is a poor (dis)inhibitor.
just do it and whoever helps, put them in THANKS.
thi
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3243869189008575@naggum.no>
* Alan S. Crowe
:
| shows that `main' has been affliced by `nuisance'.
Excellent example.
| My main qualification for writing tutorials is that I am learning Lisp
| myself. Thus I an intimately acquainted with the confusions that assail
| and distress newbies.
The problem with this is that you meet these things in a totally random
order. The point of a tutorial is to make order of the chaos. I am
fairly strongly convinced that the best way to make that order is to be
very knowledgeable and very observant when you try to teach a lot of
people the same material and have time to follow up on them to see how
they do and to correct your own mistakes. Hence I am extremely doubtful
of teaching material that has been written by other than teachers and
much prefer to fight my way through reference works when I have enough
glimpses of the order to at least not get lost in the chaos. However, as
a shining example of an excellent instruction on CLOS that helped me sort
out the order of the dense specification, Sonya Keene's book only gets
higher commendations from me as time goes on while the misnamed �ANSI
Common Lisp� by Paul Graham gets lower.
| There is plenty of enthusiasm for spotting technical errors in short
| postings put directly on comp.lang.lisp. However, if I write some
| lengthy tutorials, etiquette will require that I put them on my website
| and post the URL to the list. Are there enough folk willing to follow a
| link, read a long tutorial and then point out the technical errors?
People who did you this kind of service deserve to be co-authors at the
very least. But when you do this, you implicitly argue that none of the
existing material is good enough and ask people who may think it is
better than yours to help make yours better than everything else. This
may be a tall order. I doubt that you want to make this argument
explicitly, however, so I instead wonder what tutorials and other works
on CLOS you have read before you decided to write your own tutorial.
--
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:
> Excellent example.
Thank you.
> However, as
> a shining example of an excellent instruction on CLOS that helped me sort
> out the order of the dense specification, Sonya Keene's book only gets
> higher commendations from me ....
I should leave off writing about CLOS until I have checked
out this book. No point reinventing the wheel.
> People who did you this kind of service deserve to be co-authors at the
> very least.
Standard book practise is to acknowledge one's technical
reviewers in the preface, not to list them as co-authors.
> But when you do this, you implicitly argue that none of the
> existing material is good enough
This inference is invalid. The merit of a tutorial is a
function of the student. Consequently tutorials are not, in
general, comparable. For example, Alice may prefer Issiah's
tutorial to Jacob's, while Bob may think Jacob's much
superior to Issiah's. There is no uncontroversial ordering.
The strongest inference to be drawn directly from my desire
to write my own tutorials is that I do not believe that all
tastes are fully catered for.
Alan Crowe
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3243948070365135@naggum.no>
* Alan S. Crowe
| Standard book practise is to acknowledge one's technical reviewers in the
| preface, not to list them as co-authors.
Standard book practice is for the most knowledgeable people to write the
book and for reviewers to be at approximately the same level of general
expertise, but not vastly superior to the author in specific expertise.
I have reviewed books that were published and manuscripts for books that
I recommended against publishing. I have reviewed graduate and doctorate
theses and advised students at both levels in specific areas. People
have called on my expertise in this fashion for more than 10 years. I
have worked with and in the publishing industry and have written four
chapters on a book on SGML (with an incredibly helpful copy-editor that
taught me more about English than years of study) that was not published
because writing it caused me to decide to leave the field because it was
impossible for me to work with such an inferior technical solution --
something I had glossed over while I only helped people understand its
more complicated points. I am still credited in several books on SGML
for having helped the authors both understand points better and for
suggesting improvements to their writing. Never have I seen a book
published by a novice for novices, nor heard of such a thing, but that
does not mean it does not exist -- the likelihood that I would purchase
it or read it is zero, as it would undoubtedly have an off-putting title
and cover, probably including the target audience "dummies" or "the
complete idiot". I recently reviewed a book in which the author could
only be understood to apologize for his lack of mastery of the subject
when he chatted endlessly about how hard it was to linearize the material
and where he used more promises of what was to come and repetitions of
what he had discussed than actual new information in each paragraph, how
this and that feature in the topic he discussed "is not easy" to use and
understand. It was torture to read and try to lift it to some readable
level. I was quite handsomely rewarded for my effort but the book may
never be published. I think I speak with some authority on how reviewers
are treated.
When the reviewer has done much of the writing, or coaching, or even
education of the author, the reviewers deserve to be named co-authors. I
quite firmly stand by this. I know book publishing, and your tutorial
is, with all due respect a tutorial on the Net, not a published book.
| > But when you do this, you implicitly argue that none of the
| > existing material is good enough
|
| This inference is invalid.
No, it most certainly is a valid inference. Such terminology belongs to
the realm of logic, and logic is concerned with structure of the argument,
not with the truth of its premises. An inference does not become invalid
simply because you disagree with parts of it. Acquire precision!
| The merit of a tutorial is a function of the student.
What a odd statement.
| There is no uncontroversial ordering. The strongest inference to be
| drawn directly from my desire to write my own tutorials is that I do not
| believe that all tastes are fully catered for.
Which even more strongly suggests that you enumerate what you have
already read and, with no small amount of irony, explain why you are
still a "newbie" in your own eyes.
--
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:
> Never have I seen a book published by a novice for
> novices, nor heard of such a thing,...
You have not heard of this thing from me. I have thirty
years of experience of programming computers in languages
other than Lisp. My first attempt to learn Lisp was in 1978,
learning from John R. Allen's book, Anatomy of LISP. Since I
did not have access to an implementation, I tried to write
one in assembler for my 6809 machine. My garbage collector,
based on the Schorr-Waite graph marking algorithm, passed a
few test cases, but other commitments supervened. I never
had a prompt to type at.
Now, 24 years later, I have a prompt to type at, for the
first time. I find that I am no better at herding brackets
than the distressed teenage newbies who sometimes post on
this list, but I am learning much faster, because I have
overcome analogous difficulties many times before. I should
write about taming the paren panther, the fierce funcall,
and the dangerous defvar now, while the wounds are
healing. In a year's time, the scars will have faded, and I
will no longer remember what made it seem so hard at the
time.
Alan Crowe
From: Kurt B. Kaiser
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <m3wuoegu4d.fsf@float.attbi.com>
····@cawtech.freeserve.co.uk (Alan S. Crowe) writes:
> You have not heard of this thing from me. I have thirty
> years of experience of programming computers in languages
> other than Lisp. My first attempt to learn Lisp was in 1978,
> learning from John R. Allen's book, Anatomy of LISP.
Good heavens. A great book but definitely the deep end of the pool.
> Since I did not have access to an implementation, I tried to write
> one in assembler for my 6809 machine. My garbage collector, based on
> the Schorr-Waite graph marking algorithm, passed a few test cases,
> but other commitments supervened. I never had a prompt to type at.
But you had a good time and learned a lot, I'll bet.
> Now, 24 years later, I have a prompt to type at, for the first
> time. I find that I am no better at herding brackets than the
> distressed teenage newbies who sometimes post on this list, but I am
> learning much faster, because I have overcome analogous difficulties
> many times before. I should write about taming the paren panther,
> the fierce funcall, and the dangerous defvar now, while the wounds
> are healing. In a year's time, the scars will have faded, and I will
> no longer remember what made it seem so hard at the time.
I agree. The idea would be to write the book immediately, while you
still have the newbie attitude, but resist the urge to publish for a
couple of years. During that time polish it and flesh it out while
trying to avoid the arcana. As Erik points out, a good beginner book
really needs to be polished by use and feedback. If written for a raw
beginner, IMHO it should not be too dry or longer than 200 pages. The
temptation is to be too inclusive.
I find "The Little Lisper" a pretty tedious for a beginner, even
though it's short.
Maybe one of the reasons that C has been so successful is K&R: not too
long, but complete and very readable.
I had a chance to work with an older gentleman who had never used a
computer. In less than six months he progressed (with minimal
coaching from me -- I can't claim success :) to installing Debian
Testing on his machine. It was interesting to see the things that
were causing him trouble.
What's the best raw beginner book on Common Lisp? Or maybe its not a
suitable beginner's language?
KBK
From: Lieven Marchand
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <87y98uf6u3.fsf@wyrd.be>
···@shore.net (Kurt B. Kaiser) writes:
> What's the best raw beginner book on Common Lisp? Or maybe its not a
> suitable beginner's language?
That's an interesting question. I think you need to understand the
problems some of the Common Lisp constructs are trying to solve before
you can see the necessity of the complexity of the solution. Common
Lisp tries to hit the 'as simple as possible, but no simpler' spot and
succeeds on most cases, but it isn't immediately obvious if all you
measure it by are toy programs.
--
Hai koe, zei de stier,
Kom mee met mij in de wei,
Dan zijn we tweezaam.
Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be>
>
> What's the best raw beginner book on Common Lisp? Or maybe its not a
> suitable beginner's language?
>
> KBK
imho, this is: Stephen Slade, "Object-Oriented Common Lisp", which is
like a tutorial with lots of useful (but terse) examples.
-klaus
Alan S. Crowe wrote in message <··············@cawtech.freeserve.co.uk>...
>·······@ai.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown) writes:
>
>> Well, certainly one hopes that the code is computing it in agreement
>> with the spec. The question is whether reading (or writing, as Alan
>> Crowe did in another recent post) code to compute the CPL will improve
>> one's intuition for the process. Alan, any thoughts on that?
>
>Writing it helped me alot.
Let me ask you this. Do you thnk you need an intuition for the corner cases
of the CPL derivation?
I have programmed CL for about seven years now and twice developed GUI
frameworks in which I beat on multiple-inheritance like I was its daddy, and
until this silly thread came up (1) i did not know the algorithm and (2) i
never got surprised by how a class's CPL panned out (in generic function
dispatch and other manifestations of the CPL). Mind you, I regularly get
myself into a knot with a god-forsaken hierarchy and /then/ I get surprises,
but by then I have been aware for a while that I needed to refactor the
whole mess and the surprise just pushes me over the edge (unless I kludge a
workaround).
When I look at published examples which manifest CPL surprises, they are
thoroughly unconvincing semantically. As in, screw the CPL, lose that
hierarchy! That's OK for those papers since they just want to show that
surprises are avoidable, so all that matters is that they show a corner case
which a beter algorithm can handle without surprises. But such stuff does
not impact real-world development, and being able to intuit the CPL over the
keyboard is a real-world development concern, so as far as me being able to
/intuit/ the CPL over the board -- why?
As has been my experience, I wager any real world surprise will appear only
in a class hierarchy needing fixing anyway, which will eliminate the
surprise. (Yes, this is a Challenge.)
As for /intuiting/ how (defclass a (b c)()) will pan out, that is not going
to happen anyway. Any case hairy enough to produce a surprise will require
some scratch paper and a pencil to work out, even with a surpriseless
algorithm. For one thing, the source for the defclass forms of b and c
likely will not be at hand.
Bottom line: this is not a newbie concern, this is not even a concern for a
seasoned CLOS developer. it's just a curiosity.
> Are there enough folk willing to
>follow a link, read a long tutorial and then point out the
>technical errors?
You would not be the first to go this route. The amount of feedback you get
may depend on what folks think of what they find when they get to your site;
the better it looks, the more feedback you will get.
>I'm sure that I can come up with an explanation of the exact
>scheme, suitable for beginners.
I'll be interested in the example class hierarchy. :)
Good luck with the tutorial project, btw.
"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Let me ask you this. Do you thnk you need an intuition for the corner cases
> of the CPL derivation?
One poster offered some class definitions including
(defclass c (d e)())
and ended by computing the class precedence list for his
most specific class as ...e...d...
That just had to be wrong, because CLOS always respects the
local ordering; d will always come before e, whenever c is
amongst the superclasses.This felt to me like a bug in the
book the poster had been studying.
> As has been my experience, I wager any real world surprise will appear only
> in a class hierarchy needing fixing anyway, which will eliminate the
> surprise. (Yes, this is a Challenge.)
I've found your comments very helpful. They suggest to me a
three part structure for a tutorial:
Part I: Bring out the importance of the local order implied
by the list of superclasses.
Ia Typically the set of superclasses is only partially
ordered by the local orderings of the direct superclasses.
Ib Typically each generic function is defined on a proper
subset of the set of superclasses.
Ic Typically a generic function is defined on a subset of
the superclasses that /is/ totally ordered by the local
orderings. So for each generic function, one can work out
the applicable method, without needing a total ordering on
the superclasses.
Teach the skill of using the local orderings to find
applicable methods on a generic function by generic function
basis.
Part II: Sometimes a generic function is defined on a subset
of the superclasses that is only partially ordered by the
local orderings.
Teach suspicion. Why is the code getting so complicated?
Does the application push the programmer to write such
subtle code, or is the programmer letting the code get in a
tangle, with complications not inherent in the application?
Perhaps there is a conceptual error in the design of the
program and there are really two generic functions. Give
them different names, and watch the problem vanish.
Part III: Sometimes one really does need to know CPL.
But not often, so go away and write some code, and come back
if you need to.
Grandparents before uncles
That covers most cases, so go away and write some more code,
and come back again if you need to.
Finish half done classes before going on to new ones
How the algorithm accomplishes this
Non-monotonicity.
> Good luck with the tutorial project, btw.
Thanks. I've got a tutorial on `let' for parenphobic beginners
nearly finished, so I'm going to concentrate on finishing
it, and leave CLOS for a while.
Alan Crowe
Jeremy H. Brown wrote in message ...
>Stepping back from terms like "mastery" and "power" for a moment, it
>is at least the case in programming that the more one understands
>about one's programming tools, the more productive one can be.
>
>And in my case, at least, I'm a tool junkie --- I want to know how
>they all work, all the details, just so I *know*.
A tool junkie who gives up on a tool's documentation when it gets harder
than, well, shopping? Not.
> As you can probably tell,
>I haven't really reached that point yet with CLOS, but we'll see how
>things develop.)
So it is too soon for one judgment but not too soon for "too complex" and
"heinous details"?
Keep digging.
k,c
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Jeremy H Brown wrote:
> > Anyhow, given that agreement as a starting point, one can ask the
> > question "Should one who claims mastery of Common Lisp be able to
> > accurately compute the MI precedence list in corner cases?"
>
> I don't know if I've mastered CL. I wouldn't want to claim I have
> really mastered any system as it seems like rather an arrogant and
> `final' statement: `OK, I've done CL now, what's next?'. On the other
> hand I've written fairly substantial applications in CL, which use a
> fair amount of the language including many of the `obscure' bits like
> extensive use of pathnames, non-standard method combinations,
> non-global specials, package system hackery &c &c.
>
> I can't accurately compute the precedence list in all cases. I can do
> it in simple cases, and I can write code such that it doesn't depend
> on fine details of the ordering in most cases, and given the spec and
> some time I can compute it in all cases (though I'd probably actually
> do this by just asking the implementation to compute it for me).
...and this brings us full circle. The question I was trying (and
apparently flailing and failing) to answer when I started this whole
thread was this one from Bulent Murtezaoglu:
> Outside of MOP, what is hard to understand about CLOS that makes
> mastering it so difficult?
While it's arrogant to claim to have mastered any system, it is
considerably less arrogant to claim to have mastered the Java object
model, say, than CLOS. There's simply less rope there. (Of course
there's a lot less power, too.)
> I have occasionally been bitten by this, but I've occasionally been
> bitten by not knowing what all the active condition handlers are too,
> by writing search algorithms which failed to terminate, and many other
> things. For me that's a part of programming - I'm not as good at
> computing things reliably as the machine is and sometimes it gives me
> answers I didn't expect.
Definitely.
Jeremy
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3DAAEAE7.50207@web.de>
Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
> While it's arrogant to claim to have mastered any system, it is
> considerably less arrogant to claim to have mastered the Java object
> model, say, than CLOS. There's simply less rope there. (Of course
> there's a lot less power, too.)
In order to provide some evidence for my other recent post on this
thing, here is an exceptional (or corner) case in Java.
Assume you need to write a class that implements two interfaces from two
different libraries. Assume furthermore that you don't have control over
these libraries (for example, because they are supplied by third party
vendors).
So for example the might look like this:
public interface intFromVendorA {
public String draw(int amount);
}
public interface intFromVendorB {
public int draw(int amount);
}
This is an example where you are in deep trouble! The following will
produce a compile-time error and Java provides no way of dealing with
this situation.
public class myClass implements intFromVendorA, intFromVendorB {
}
Of course, this is an exceptional situation and doesn't occur too often
in practice - but when it occurs you have lost...
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> writes:
> In order to provide some evidence for my other recent post on this
> thing, here is an exceptional (or corner) case in Java.
>
> Assume you need to write a class that implements two interfaces from
> two different libraries. Assume furthermore that you don't have
> control over these libraries (for example, because they are supplied
> by third party vendors).
>
> So for example the might look like this:
>
> public interface intFromVendorA {
>
> public String draw(int amount);
>
> }
>
> public interface intFromVendorB {
>
> public int draw(int amount);
>
> }
>
> This is an example where you are in deep trouble! The following will
> produce a compile-time error and Java provides no way of dealing with
> this situation.
>
> public class myClass implements intFromVendorA, intFromVendorB {
> }
>
> Of course, this is an exceptional situation and doesn't occur too
> often in practice - but when it occurs you have lost...
Honestly, I'd guess this type of situation happens more often than
confusing situations in CLOS. There are two distinctions I'd make:
a) this isn't complicated in the way that CLOS MI prediction is
complicated; it's a simpler corner case.
b) "when it occurs you have lost" is, of course, not a sentence you
have to say as often WRT to CLOS due to its greater flexibility.
So maybe you've just identified one of the key simplicity-vs.-power
issues that make it easier to "master" Java than CLOS: whenever
something potentially confusing comes up, Java simply says "you can't
do that", while CLOS provides a mechanism (a perhaps
necessarily-complex one) for managing the situation.
Jeremy
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3DAAFA30.7020601@web.de>
Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
>
>>In order to provide some evidence for my other recent post on this
>>thing, here is an exceptional (or corner) case in Java.
[...]
> Honestly, I'd guess this type of situation happens more often than
> confusing situations in CLOS. There are two distinctions I'd make:
>
> a) this isn't complicated in the way that CLOS MI prediction is
> complicated; it's a simpler corner case.
> b) "when it occurs you have lost" is, of course, not a sentence you
> have to say as often WRT to CLOS due to its greater flexibility.
>
> So maybe you've just identified one of the key simplicity-vs.-power
> issues that make it easier to "master" Java than CLOS: whenever
> something potentially confusing comes up, Java simply says "you can't
> do that", while CLOS provides a mechanism (a perhaps
> necessarily-complex one) for managing the situation.
I think you're trying to label the wrong things. It's not the languages
that are simple or complex, but it's the tasks that are simple or complex.
Java is a language that is designed for solving simple tasks, while
Common Lisp is designed for solving complex tasks. However, CLOS is as
simple as possible for the issues it can solve.
Equally, I don't think you can "master" programming languages, but you
can rather "master" programming tasks. Java is designed for simple
tasks, so I cannot master the complex tasks with Java by definition.
(And in my experience, tasks always get very complicated in the long
run, even if they seem to be very simple at first. That's also a fact
that the proponents of scripting languages don't get right IMHO.)
Here is an analogy: Heart surgery is a complex and difficult task, but
you wouldn't blame the tools that are used by the surgeon, right?
Maybe you already see it like this, but you should take into account
what impression you give to other people when you state that Common Lisp
is complex and difficult. Many people tend to react by choosing a
purportedly simpler tool that is seemingly easier to master but in fact
makes things more complicated (or even unsolvable) in the long run.
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> writes:
> I think you're trying to label the wrong things. It's not the
> languages that are simple or complex, but it's the tasks that are
> simple or complex.
I think that both things are true, actually.
> Java is a language that is designed for solving simple tasks, while
> Common Lisp is designed for solving complex tasks. However, CLOS is as
> simple as possible for the issues it can solve.
I'm not qualified to judge that statement at this point.
> Equally, I don't think you can "master" programming languages, but you
> can rather "master" programming tasks. Java is designed for simple
> tasks, so I cannot master the complex tasks with Java by
> definition.
I'm not quite sure I buy this argument. CL sans CLOS is a pretty
simple language (simpler --- in a good way --- than Java in many
respects), but I certainly wouldn't claim that you can't master
complex tasks with it. It's more a question of how much tool-building
you have to do before you actually get around to solving your problem.
CLOS provides you with a very large hammer (or maybe the world's
biggest swiss army knife?), compared to Java's ball-peen hammer.
> (And in my experience, tasks always get very complicated
> in the long run, even if they seem to be very simple at first. That's
> also a fact that the proponents of scripting languages don't get right
> IMHO.)
Agreed.
> Here is an analogy: Heart surgery is a complex and difficult task, but
> you wouldn't blame the tools that are used by the surgeon, right?
Certainly not, but, to pursue the analogy, the tools the surgeon uses
are by and large a collection of simple tools (or at least, tools with
simple interfaces), rather than a pair of swiss army knives.
> Maybe you already see it like this, but you should take into account
> what impression you give to other people when you state that Common
> Lisp is complex and difficult. Many people tend to react by choosing a
> purportedly simpler tool that is seemingly easier to master but in
> fact makes things more complicated (or even unsolvable) in the long
> run.
I would hope that any impression people take away from my posts
includes the realization that I'm a rank CLOS amateur. But I stand by
my assertion that CLOS is complex. I'll grant that the difficulty it
presents is a function of how it is taught/learned.
Jeremy
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3243617698978891@naggum.no>
* Jeremy H. Brown
| I would hope that any impression people take away from my posts
| includes the realization that I'm a rank CLOS amateur.
No problem there.
| But I stand by my assertion that CLOS is complex.
Of course. People who actually have significant experience in both
teaching and using it should adopt your view, instead.
Troll. No doubt about 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: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3DAC0387.9070900@web.de>
Hi Jeremy,
I am quite busy at the moment, so I only throw a few thoughts into the
discussion.
Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
>
>>I think you're trying to label the wrong things. It's not the
>>languages that are simple or complex, but it's the tasks that are
>>simple or complex.
>
> I think that both things are true, actually.
No, I don't think so. Try to use the facilities - not for toy examples
that illustrate the corner cases, but for actual real-world examples.
>>Java is a language that is designed for solving simple tasks, while
>>Common Lisp is designed for solving complex tasks. However, CLOS is as
>>simple as possible for the issues it can solve.
>
> I'm not qualified to judge that statement at this point.
Then, perhaps, it is wiser to wait until you have gained more experience
to be able to judge it from a better perspective. When I entered the
world of Common Lisp, and soon thereafter c.l.l not so long ago, I also
had some wild ideas how to simplify and "improve" things. Now, I know
that this is not a wise approach, but unfortunately it happens all the
time. (I know this from the patterns community also, where many pattern
newbies want to radically change the pattern approach without actually
having a complete picture.)
>>Equally, I don't think you can "master" programming languages, but you
>>can rather "master" programming tasks. Java is designed for simple
>>tasks, so I cannot master the complex tasks with Java by
>>definition.
>
> I'm not quite sure I buy this argument.
So why do you think are they working on things like genericity,
aspect-oriented programming and other extensions to Java? Why do you
think the have added reflection to Java, and other more sophisticated
"meta" facilities to C#? Such things are eventually needed!
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: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <ey37kgk7uqt.fsf@cley.com>
* Jeremy H Brown wrote:
> So maybe you've just identified one of the key simplicity-vs.-power
> issues that make it easier to "master" Java than CLOS: whenever
> something potentially confusing comes up, Java simply says "you can't
> do that", while CLOS provides a mechanism (a perhaps
> necessarily-complex one) for managing the situation.
Right. And this is one of the things that I (and others) said ages
ago. CLOS is only complicated if you want to do complicated things.
Like MI - it's much simpler in Java because it isn't there at all.
And I hear it's quite exciting in C++.
--tim
"Jeremy H. Brown" <·······@ai.mit.edu> wrote in message
····················@suspiria.ai.mit.edu...
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> > This is an example where you are in deep trouble! The following will
> > produce a compile-time error and Java provides no way of dealing with
> > this situation.
> >
> > public class myClass implements intFromVendorA, intFromVendorB {
> > }
> >
> > Of course, this is an exceptional situation and doesn't occur too
> > often in practice - but when it occurs you have lost...
>
> Honestly, I'd guess this type of situation happens more often than
> confusing situations in CLOS. There are two distinctions I'd make:
>
> a) this isn't complicated in the way that CLOS MI prediction is
> complicated; it's a simpler corner case.
> b) "when it occurs you have lost" is, of course, not a sentence you
> have to say as often WRT to CLOS due to its greater flexibility.
>
> So maybe you've just identified one of the key simplicity-vs.-power
> issues that make it easier to "master" Java than CLOS: whenever
> something potentially confusing comes up, Java simply says "you can't
> do that", while CLOS provides a mechanism (a perhaps
> necessarily-complex one) for managing the situation.
I think you are touching here on a guiding principle in the design of lisp:
freedom and flexibility over simplicity and safety[1] Where other languages
avoid difficult problems lisp addresses them and IMO does so with only the
complexity that is necessary to define the problem precisely. But really
this should not be any problem whatsoever for anyone who does not really
want that freedom - just don't use it. But when the day comes and you need
it, lo and behold it is there!
I can't tell you how many times that has happened to me as I learn more and
more lisp, some quirky seeming syntax or extra keyword agrument to a
function I never understood and never investigated is suddenly exactly what
I needed. That is a great feeling for me when programming. As for CLOS,
like the rest, just use as little or as much as you need. If as you say,
you must thouroughly understand something before you are comfortable using
it then bite the bullet and put in the effort!
As for "mastery" well, its not easy to define and who cares anyway and my
philosophy is that when you need to use it, there is little difference
between knowing it by heart and knowing how to find out quickly. Memorizing
dusty corners is not, by and large, an efficient use of brain cells.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
[1] safety in terms of not letting the programmer get themself in trouble
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3u1jo60pw.fsf@cley.com>
* Coby Beck wrote:
> I think you are touching here on a guiding principle in the design of lisp:
> freedom and flexibility over simplicity and safety[1] Where other languages
> avoid difficult problems lisp addresses them and IMO does so with only the
> complexity that is necessary to define the problem precisely. But really
> this should not be any problem whatsoever for anyone who does not really
> want that freedom - just don't use it. But when the day comes and you need
> it, lo and behold it is there!
Right, and this is the critical point: for some reason people think
it's OK for a language to just punt on difficult problems. `Multiple
inheritance is hard to get right, and even if you do a lot of work to
get it right there are going to be obscure bits. I know: let's just
leave it out!' Languages designed like this are small and easy to
understand. But there's a problem: the world turns out to be complex
and hard to understand, and the programs people write to do stuff in
the world need to be complex and hard to understand too. MI for
instance, is partly about *modelling things that happen in the world*:
I'm a programmer *and* a guitarist *and* a photographer *and* a
convenient-thing-for-cats-to-sit-on and about a thousand other things.
The program that simulates me needs to model all these multiple
properties. Since I'm written in Lisp, all of this is done using MI
in CLOS. If I was written in Java, then apart from being four times
as large and a tenth as fast, I'd contain a partial, buggy
implementation of MI, or more likely *several incompatible* partial,
buggy implementations of MI. Imagine if scientists thought like this:
`calculus is hard to get right, and even when you do get it right
there are some obscure corners: let's just leave it out.' So let's
just not bother with any developments in physics since about 1600
then, shall we? The only reason that language designers can make
these kinds of decisions without people laughing in their faces is
because computer `science' is actually run by the early medieval
church, which doesn't hold with too much of this heretical modern
stuff itself, and will burn you for heresy if you suggest it.
Well, I'll risk the stake: we need MI and its ilk. So it's hard in
places - just get over it: the world is hard in places too. Epicycles
can't hack it, in case you hadn't noticed, *however* complex you make
them.
--tim
Jeremy H. Brown wrote in message ...
>Shortly after initiating this thread, I wound up leaving town
>unexpectedly...
Better than "the dog ate my news reader", I guess.
Dude, you are /such/ a troll! That article contained the most amazing
word-twisting, dodging, slipping, and weaseling-outs!! You are a true master
of spin, if not CPL-guessing.
Now tell me. I belatedly realized you had made the delightful subject change
to "CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping". So this whole thing is a hoax, yes?
Excellent.
kenny
clinisys
"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Jeremy H. Brown wrote in message ...
> >Shortly after initiating this thread, I wound up leaving town
> >unexpectedly...
>
> Better than "the dog ate my news reader", I guess.
Well, that happened too, but I didn't figure it merited mention.[1]
> Dude, you are /such/ a troll! That article contained the most amazing
> word-twisting, dodging, slipping, and weaseling-outs!!
I take it back. Random personal attack is not beneath you. Sorry I
had you misjudged.
> You are a true master of spin, if not CPL-guessing.
I love you too, Kenny. Dare I ask you to expand the acronym CPL?
> Now tell me. I belatedly realized you had made the delightful subject change
> to "CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping". So this whole thing is a hoax, yes?
> Excellent.
I set that subject line when I first tried to answer Bulent
Murtezaoglu's question about why CLOS is relatively hard to master; I
was making fun of my own lack of understanding[2]. That said, the
original post itself was an honest attempt on my part to answer the
question, even if it wasn't a success in that department.
Jeremy
[1] It's a joke, son.
[2] In other words, it was a joke, son.
·······@ai.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown) writes:
> "Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> > You are a true master of spin, if not CPL-guessing.
>
> I love you too, Kenny. Dare I ask you to expand the acronym CPL?
And then it hit me: "Class Precedence List". Sigh.
Jeremy
Jeremy H. Brown wrote in message ...
> [kenny wrote...]
>> Dude, you are /such/ a troll! That article contained the most amazing
>> word-twisting, dodging, slipping, and weaseling-outs!!
>
>I take it back. Random personal attack is not beneath you. Sorry I
>had you misjudged.
Random? Nah, based on your words. I'd break it out line-by-line, but that
would be troll-feeding.
>Dare I ask you to expand the acronym CPL?
class-precedence-list
>
>> Now tell me. I belatedly realized you had made the delightful subject
change
>> to "CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping". So this whole thing is a hoax, yes?
>> Excellent.
>
>I set that subject line when I first tried to answer Bulent
>Murtezaoglu's question about why CLOS is relatively hard to master; I
>was making fun of my own lack of understanding[2].
No, that /excellent/ quip clearly makes fun of "lack of effort", not lack of
understanding.
Look, I am confused. This seems like hide-and-seek, with you running out
into the unguarded space of "CLOS is too complex" then, once spotted,
dashing back to the home tree of the CPL sort algorithm being surprising in
corner cases.
So far the only specific thing we have you clearly on record about is not
being able to work out mentally the CPL. otoh, you did mention in the OP
before/after/around. Plz clarify: What else besides "the internalization of
CLOS's CPL algotrithm" cannot be mastered with fair and reasonable effort?
k,c
"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Jeremy H. Brown wrote in message ...
> >I set that subject line when I first tried to answer Bulent
> >Murtezaoglu's question about why CLOS is relatively hard to master; I
> >was making fun of my own lack of understanding[2].
>
> No, that /excellent/ quip clearly makes fun of "lack of effort", not lack of
> understanding.
That too, actually, now that you mention it; it was part of an
admission, along with the admission that I hadn't yet (and still
haven't, but it's on the list) read Keene's book, that my answer
wasn't as informed as it could be.
> Look, I am confused. This seems like hide-and-seek, with you running out
> into the unguarded space of "CLOS is too complex" then, once spotted,
> dashing back to the home tree of the CPL sort algorithm being surprising in
> corner cases.
>
> So far the only specific thing we have you clearly on record about is not
> being able to work out mentally the CPL. otoh, you did mention in the OP
> before/after/around.
In my original post, I really only singled out those two issues -- MI
prediction, and use of before/after/around. The first one I think has
been beaten to death at this point.
The second one is one of those things where I think the application is
obvious, but in the hands of the inexperienced, it's a big gun pointed
at their toes. I feel much the same way about, say,
operator-overloading in C++: it lets expert programmers do really good
stuff, but it also lets average programmers create incomprehensible
code.
(Don't get me wrong, I know before/after/around is useful. I quite
like elisp's advising functions, which give you before-after-around
options on a per-function basis; it's great for hooking into someone
else's code without having to modify it. But control-flow becomes
entirely non-obvious to someone who is simply inspecting the text of
the original package without realizing that mine has advised it.)
Beyond those two issues, I haven't (yet?) identified other specific
features whose complexity troubles me. But there is somewhat more
detail to master than in other systems, e.g. CLOS doesn't conflate
object model with namespace management, so if I want to have generic
functions of the same name but which perform different functions and
take different lambda-lists, I have to explicitly place them in
separate namespaces. I don't *object* to this; it's pretty tasteful,
in fact. But it adds another dimension to the space the programmer
has to work with... thus, more complexity.
> Plz clarify: What else besides "the internalization of CLOS's CPL
> algotrithm" cannot be mastered with fair and reasonable effort?
Nothing. That said, it will take more effort --- that is, it will be
harder --- than learning about simpler object models in other
languages, in terms of simply learning the wealth of primitives, in
terms of understanding the larger design space you're working in, and
in terms of learning to work well in that space with those primitives.
Finally, in reviewing my original post, I noticed that I expressed the
opinion that "CLOS' complexity overwhelms the advantages it enables",
which I suspect is what actually touched off some peoples' ire. So I
would like to take this opportunity to explicitly back away from that
statement, since I'm really not in a position yet to judge the
advantages it enables.
So today's statement instead is that to this newbie, CLOS was an
intimidating edifice. No commonly-used object system of which I am
aware has been the subject of multiple books on its own. None offers
the wealth of options, control --- details --- that CLOS does. And
coming in from knowing other languages, it was (and to some degree
still is) not at all obvious what advantages one gains from investing
the time to learn this wealth of detail.
Jeremy
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3y9906ejx.fsf@cley.com>
* Jeremy H Brown wrote:
> (Don't get me wrong, I know before/after/around is useful. I quite
> like elisp's advising functions, which give you before-after-around
> options on a per-function basis; it's great for hooking into someone
> else's code without having to modify it. But control-flow becomes
> entirely non-obvious to someone who is simply inspecting the text of
> the original package without realizing that mine has advised it.)
But this is completely different than the CLOS case. Although CLOS
does not enforce any notion of `protocols', it should be possible to
look at a bit of code which defines classes and some methods on them
and know how the code works *for those classes*. If you go defining
other methods on the same GFS for the same classes then, unless the
original protocol explicitly says that you are expected to do this, it
is almost certainly a modularity violation. You should be
subclassing, or defining your own GFs.
I haven't described this well, and there are always exceptions, but
the CLOS case is really very different than the kind of thing that
advice provides. Unfortunately there isn't a very good source for
descriptions of CLOS-based protocol design, which is of necessity
rather different than `modern OO' protocol design which has spawned
the (now presumably unfashionable) patterns literature, since there
are more players - multiple inheritance, method combinations you don't
have to do by hand, and multimethods.
--tim
Jeremy H. Brown wrote in message ...
>"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>> Jeremy H. Brown wrote in message ...
>> Look, I am confused. This seems like hide-and-seek, with you running out
>> into the unguarded space of "CLOS is too complex" then, once spotted,
>> dashing back to the home tree of the CPL sort algorithm being surprising
in
>> corner cases.
>>
>> So far the only specific thing we have you clearly on record about is not
>> being able to work out mentally the CPL. otoh, you did mention in the OP
>> before/after/around.
>
>In my original post, I really only singled out those two issues -- MI
>prediction, and use of before/after/around. The first one I think has
>been beaten to death at this point.
I think if you had started a thread taking issue with the CPL algorithm,
proposing an alternative of course, that would have been dandy. But such an
obscure issue hardly justifies your slamming CLOS.
>
>The second one is one of those things where I think the application is
>obvious, but in the hands of the inexperienced...
So what? This is programming, not operating a toaster. Inexperienced
programmers need to program, study doc, and ask questions on c.l.l. -- not
shoot their mouths off denigrating a the best OO tool extant.
>
>(Don't get me wrong, I know before/after/around is useful.
No sh*t, einstein. But next you say the complexity troubles you. But other
places you concede that power is like that. So... nope, can't make sense of
your position.
> But there is somewhat more
>detail to master than in other systems,...
You are a tool junkie, yes? You /like/ tools that go to eleven. It's one
more, isn't it? You don't want to get to ten and have nowhere to go, do you?
I am so confused...
> if I want to have generic
>functions of the same name but which perform different functions and
>take different lambda-lists,
...then you have not read the doc, which explains that is not how this tool
works.
>
>> Plz clarify: What else besides "the internalization of CLOS's CPL
>> algotrithm" cannot be mastered with fair and reasonable effort?
>
>Nothing. That said, it will take more effort --- that is, it will be
>harder --- than learning about simpler object models in other
>languages, in terms of simply learning the wealth of primitives, in
>terms of understanding the larger design space you're working in, and
>in terms of learning to work well in that space with those primitives.
This is sad. You seem to be conceding that CLOS (or any tool) is more
powerful precisely because of the richer feature set. Suppose now one has
been thru Java and CLOS basic training (screw mastery): which will take more
effort to /program with/? ie, Given any interesting application, which tool
will make it easier to shape a solution to fit the problem?
If your answer is "the more sophisticated tool" [and below I see perhaps it
is an open question to you], consider for a moment what it is like to tackle
an interesting problem with a tool /insufficent/ to the complexity of the
application. Hell on wheels, yes? And the deeper you get into the problem,
and as the application gets extended to satisfy requirements, you simply
reach deeper levels of hell, yes?
Now we know you have not taken the trouble to learn CLOS, but you might
concede that that would be a finite task, and one requiring not a descent
into hell, but rather a little perserverance and practice (as opposed to
pure spec reading). The effort of learning a tool has an upper bound, the
pain of using an insufficient tool does not.
>coming in from knowing other languages, it was (and to some degree
>still is) not at all obvious what advantages one gains from investing
>the time to learn this wealth of detail.
Doesn't matter what other languages you know. What matters is, what
interesting problems have you tackled? If nothing much, the Apple II Integer
Basic probably seems to offer everything you could ask of a language.
So maybe we are back at /your/ limitations: inexperienced, uninformed,
unread. Funny thing is, if you had had the decency to say upfront that you
were clueless and /ask questions/, your "feel the love" remark would have
been heartfelt and not sarcasm; folks would have just helped you.
k,c
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Doesn't matter what other languages you know. What matters is, what
> interesting problems have you tackled? If nothing much, the Apple II Integer
> Basic probably seems to offer everything you could ask of a language.
No way man, Applesoft Basic with FP is *essential*. Going without
reals? That's just sick.
Michael, I like hacking unlambda
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, ·······@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) transmitted:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Doesn't matter what other languages you know. What matters is, what
>> interesting problems have you tackled? If nothing much, the Apple II Integer
>> Basic probably seems to offer everything you could ask of a language.
>
> No way man, Applesoft Basic with FP is *essential*. Going without
> reals? That's just sick.
Which begs the question: How many languages and vendors lie in this
way by describing their rational number schemes as providing "real
numbers"?
CL's reference to "real" is in the "REALPART" function, which does
something 'honest' with complex numbers.
C is reasonably honest, in calling its FP values "float" values (or
'double', if you prefer).
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ····················@" "454aa"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/sap.html
"Women who seek to be equal to men lack ambition. "
-- Timothy Leary
In article <···············@suspiria.ai.mit.edu>, ·······@ai.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown) wrote:
> (As an aside: Keene's book is not mentioned in question 1-2, "Lisp
> books, introductions, documentation, periodicals, journals, and
> conference proceedings,", of the 1997-era comp.lang.lisp FAQ at
> <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/comp/comp.lang.lisp.html>.
It is mentioned in
[5-1] What documentation is available about object-oriented
programming in Lisp?
> To approximate the precedence list of a class, you:
> - traverse its subclasses in depth-first order
> - when there are more than one subclasses for a class, traverse them
> from left to right
> - when there are multiple paths from the bottommost class to some
> superclass, only the last (rightmost, deepest) path should traverse
> that superclass and those above it.
>
> Does anyone here know of superior approximation rules?
I'm not sure what you mean by "approximation", but check out:
* Hyperspec: 4.3.5 Determining the Class Precedence List
* Keene: Chapter 6 Class Inheritance
* Graham Ansi Common Lisp: 11.5 Precedence
If the only thing you want to know is the preceding list of
an existing class, use the function CLASS-PRECEDENCE-LIST. The
function is not part of ANSI Common Lisp but your implementation
probably has it.
····@mac.mac.com (Takehiko Abe) writes:
> In article <···············@suspiria.ai.mit.edu>, ·······@ai.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown) wrote:
>
> > (As an aside: Keene's book is not mentioned in question 1-2, "Lisp
> > books, introductions, documentation, periodicals, journals, and
> > conference proceedings,", of the 1997-era comp.lang.lisp FAQ at
> > <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/comp/comp.lang.lisp.html>.
>
> It is mentioned in
>
> [5-1] What documentation is available about object-oriented
> programming in Lisp?
"Doh." Perhaps in some future versoin the maintainers could add a
forward reference from 1-2 to 5-1 to avoid other people making my
mistake; 1-2 provides such a long list of reading material that I
simply hadn't expected to find more elsewhere.
> > To approximate the precedence list of a class, you:
> > - traverse its subclasses in depth-first order
> > - when there are more than one subclasses for a class, traverse them
> > from left to right
> > - when there are multiple paths from the bottommost class to some
> > superclass, only the last (rightmost, deepest) path should traverse
> > that superclass and those above it.
> >
> > Does anyone here know of superior approximation rules?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "approximation", but check out:
>
> * Hyperspec: 4.3.5 Determining the Class Precedence List
> * Keene: Chapter 6 Class Inheritance
> * Graham Ansi Common Lisp: 11.5 Precedence
By approximation rules, I mean a set of simple rules you can more or
less execute in your head as you write a piece of code that will
usually predict how class precedence will actually work out.
> If the only thing you want to know is the preceding list of
> an existing class, use the function CLASS-PRECEDENCE-LIST. The
> function is not part of ANSI Common Lisp but your implementation
> probably has it.
That's quite useful once you've written your code, but doesn't help
with the problem of predicting what will happen before you've typed it
in.
Actually, I'm sure someone here can help me with this. I'm using
cmucl, and while I can explicitly specify class-precedence-list as a
member of the pcl package:
------
* (pcl:class-precedence-list (class-of 5))
(#<Built-In-Class FIXNUM {281D421D}> #<Built-In-Class INTEGER {281D4175}>
#<Built-In-Class RATIONAL {281D3535}> #<Built-In-Class REAL {281D35CD}>
#<Built-In-Class NUMBER {281D2BA5}>
#<Built-In-Class KERNEL::GENERIC-NUMBER {281D2C3D}>
#<Built-In-Class T {281BEE2D}>)
------
If I try to just use it straight, I get
------
* (class-precedence-list (class-of 5))
Warning: This function is undefined:
CLASS-PRECEDENCE-LIST
------
If I try to import it, I get
------
* (import 'pcl:class-precedence-list)
Importing these symbols into the COMMON-LISP-USER package causes a name conflict:
(PCL:CLASS-PRECEDENCE-LIST)
------
I'm clearly missing something here; can someone clear this up for me?
Thanks,
Jeremy
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <65w56leq.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
·······@ai.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown) writes:
> Actually, I'm sure someone here can help me with this. I'm using
> cmucl, and while I can explicitly specify class-precedence-list as a
> member of the pcl package:
>
> ------
> * (pcl:class-precedence-list (class-of 5))
>
> (#<Built-In-Class FIXNUM {281D421D}> #<Built-In-Class INTEGER {281D4175}>
> #<Built-In-Class RATIONAL {281D3535}> #<Built-In-Class REAL {281D35CD}>
> #<Built-In-Class NUMBER {281D2BA5}>
> #<Built-In-Class KERNEL::GENERIC-NUMBER {281D2C3D}>
> #<Built-In-Class T {281BEE2D}>)
> ------
>
> If I try to just use it straight, I get
>
> ------
> * (class-precedence-list (class-of 5))
At this point, you have just interned a symbol named
"CLASS-PRECEDENCE-LIST" in the COMMON-LISP-USER package. Since this
is a brand new symbol, it has no function definition leading to this error:
> Warning: This function is undefined:
> CLASS-PRECEDENCE-LIST
> ------
> * (import 'pcl:class-precedence-list)
>
> Importing these symbols into the COMMON-LISP-USER package causes a name conflict:
> (PCL:CLASS-PRECEDENCE-LIST)
This is conflicting with the symbol you typed above. You can unintern
CL-USER::CLASS-PRECEDENCE-LIST before importing the other symbol.
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> ·······@ai.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown) writes:
>
> > Actually, I'm sure someone here can help me with this. I'm using
> > cmucl, and while I can explicitly specify class-precedence-list as a
> > member of the pcl package:
> >
> > ------
> > * (pcl:class-precedence-list (class-of 5))
> >
> > (#<Built-In-Class FIXNUM {281D421D}> #<Built-In-Class INTEGER {281D4175}>
> > #<Built-In-Class RATIONAL {281D3535}> #<Built-In-Class REAL {281D35CD}>
> > #<Built-In-Class NUMBER {281D2BA5}>
> > #<Built-In-Class KERNEL::GENERIC-NUMBER {281D2C3D}>
> > #<Built-In-Class T {281BEE2D}>)
> > ------
> >
> > If I try to just use it straight, I get
> >
> > ------
> > * (class-precedence-list (class-of 5))
>
> At this point, you have just interned a symbol named
> "CLASS-PRECEDENCE-LIST" in the COMMON-LISP-USER package. Since this
> is a brand new symbol, it has no function definition leading to this error:
>
> > Warning: This function is undefined:
> > CLASS-PRECEDENCE-LIST
>
>
> > ------
> > * (import 'pcl:class-precedence-list)
> >
> > Importing these symbols into the COMMON-LISP-USER package causes a name conflict:
> > (PCL:CLASS-PRECEDENCE-LIST)
>
> This is conflicting with the symbol you typed above. You can unintern
> CL-USER::CLASS-PRECEDENCE-LIST before importing the other symbol.
Ah, thank you, that cleared it right up.
Jeremy
·······@ai.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown) writes:
> ------
> * (class-precedence-list (class-of 5))
> Warning: This function is undefined:
> CLASS-PRECEDENCE-LIST
> ------
>
> If I try to import it, I get
>
> ------
> * (import 'pcl:class-precedence-list)
>
> Importing these symbols into the COMMON-LISP-USER package causes a name conflict:
> (PCL:CLASS-PRECEDENCE-LIST)
> ------
>
> I'm clearly missing something here; can someone clear this up for me?
This is because the reader has seen the the symbol
CLASS-PRECEDENCE-LIST (at your first attempt) and so it is interned in
the current *package*. If you start with a fresh image (or go to
another package, or unintern the symbol before importing it) import
will work as intended.
Some of what I've written above may not be precise (apologies for the
inaccuracies) but one thing is sure: your problem has nothing to do
with CLOS.
Andras
······@math.bme.hu (Simon Andr�s) writes:
> This is because the reader has seen the the symbol
> CLASS-PRECEDENCE-LIST (at your first attempt) and so it is interned in
> the current *package*. If you start with a fresh image (or go to
> another package, or unintern the symbol before importing it) import
> will work as intended.
Yep, that was the case.
> Some of what I've written above may not be precise (apologies for the
> inaccuracies) but one thing is sure: your problem has nothing to do
> with CLOS.
Yeah, no argument there. I'm just learning my way through a lot of
stuff, package-system and interning behaviors included.
Thanks,
Jeremy
In article <···············@suspiria.ai.mit.edu>, ·······@ai.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown) wrote:
> By approximation rules, I mean a set of simple rules you can more or
> less execute in your head as you write a piece of code that will
> usually predict how class precedence will actually work out.
The basic rules as presented by Keene are:
1. A class always has precedence over its superclasses.
2. Each class definition set the precedence order of its
direct superclasses.
So you write your code with these simple rules in mind. I think
worrying too much about CPL before coding is not productive.
Actually, whether you define a class foo such that:
(defclass foo (a b) ...) or
(defclass foo (b a) ...)
does not matter most of the time. When a precedence order does
matter, the CLOS is flexible enough that you can go back, and
examine and redefine the classes on the spot. So let's start
writing some code. [you should get a copy of Keene first though.]
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <3DAAE897.6010200@web.de>
Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
>>Sorry, but the CLOS features you described as complex seem pretty
>>straightforward to most of us.
>
> The followup discussion to your post suggests that many people here
> --- actually including yourself --- agree that predicting the
> precedence list in MI situations can be difficult. (The particular
> examples that I ran into comes from Winston & Horn's book "Lisp", 3rd
> edition. I'll append it to this post for the entertainment of the
> masses.)
Hm, generally I think you are right insofar newbies perceive CLOS as
very complex when they look at it as a whole. However, I don't think you
can rightfully conclude that (part of) CLOS is difficult. I just think
that newbies are overwhelmed by the amount of features, and that they
most probably confuse their feelings with a perceived complexity that
doesn't exist in reality - but that can be solved for example by reading
a good tutorial that explains the features in the right order.
> My assumption in my initial post was that claiming language mastery
> implied that one had good intuition not just for the basics of the
> language, but also for the corner cases.
I have never seen any single language that doesn't have "dark corners".
Even a conceptually very simple language like Oberon has problematic
issues that their designers have overlooked for a long time. And that is
a language whose definition spans just a few pages.
You should not judge a language by the way it deals with exceptional
cases; you should not do so just because they are exceptions. You can
judge a language by its regular behavior, and what options a language
provides in case its view on how to resolve exceptional cases conflicts
with your view on how it should be done.
The real power of Common Lisp lies in the fact that for almost all
issues you can think of that might arise you can find a workaround on
your own by exploiting the many hooks that Common Lisp provides.
Especially, the many features of CLOS exist for exactly that reason.
For example, after having studied method combinations in CLOS for a few
days, I was able to come up with my own method combination that
simulates the various Java method call mechanisms, and it was a breeze
after I have understood the essential idea - this is real power! I
wouldn't even think about doing this in other OOP languages I know so
far (except, perhaps, for Smalltalk which I don't know in detail).
>>>Jeremy
>>>PS Is Erik Naggum always so full of poisonous bile?
>>
>>No, it depends on the article, and given your sloppy piece I think he
>>showed admirable restraint.
>
> Actually, several people, again including yourself, politely pointed
> out what they considered to be the limitations of my post. Erik was
> the only one who felt the need to be belligerent and rude in his
> initial response, and I called him on it.
You should perhaps take into account that Erik always intends to give
statements about the actual contents of your (or anyone else's) posts,
and not statements about you (or anyone else) as a person. I don't think
he always succeeds in doing so, but that's his actual intent. His
initial response _can_ be interpreted according to his stated intent.
> Anyhow, here are some potentially-confusing class precedence examples
> paraphrased from Winston and Horn's "Lisp", 3rd edition.
My conjecture is that you can provide confusing examples for any language.
Would you agree?
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> writes:
> Hm, generally I think you are right insofar newbies perceive CLOS as
> very complex when they look at it as a whole. However, I don't think
> you can rightfully conclude that (part of) CLOS is difficult. I just
> think that newbies are overwhelmed by the amount of features, and that
> they most probably confuse their feelings with a perceived complexity
> that doesn't exist in reality - but that can be solved for example by
> reading a good tutorial that explains the features in the right order.
If I were to turn this around, and say that CLOS is truly complex, but
that presentation of its features in the right order makes the
complexity tractable even to newcomers, would you maybe agree with me?
> I have never seen any single language that doesn't have "dark
> corners". Even a conceptually very simple language like Oberon has
> problematic issues that their designers have overlooked for a long
> time. And that is a language whose definition spans just a few pages.
No argument there. I think such dark corners generally represent a
failure of thought on the part of the designers than a deliberate
decision to go with complexity.
> You should not judge a language by the way it deals with exceptional
> cases; you should not do so just because they are exceptions. You can
> judge a language by its regular behavior, and what options a language
> provides in case its view on how to resolve exceptional cases
> conflicts with your view on how it should be done.
Fair enough, although how frequent the exceptional cases arise is a
legitimate criterion for judgement as well. As yet, I have no real
sense of how often these arise in practice with CLOS; I was spooked
early on by the fact that Winston and Horn had to dedicate an entire
appendix to explain how the class precedence list is actually
computed. I fully grant that it may turn out to be irrelevant 99% of
the time --- but it is spooky to a newcomer (or at least this
newcomer) to even be told that the situation exists.
> The real power of Common Lisp lies in the fact that for almost all
> issues you can think of that might arise you can find a workaround on
> your own by exploiting the many hooks that Common Lisp
> provides. Especially, the many features of CLOS exist for exactly that
> reason.
>
> For example, after having studied method combinations in CLOS for a
> few days, I was able to come up with my own method combination that
> simulates the various Java method call mechanisms, and it was a breeze
> after I have understood the essential idea - this is real power! I
> wouldn't even think about doing this in other OOP languages I know so
> far (except, perhaps, for Smalltalk which I don't know in detail).
Check. (Also see my answer to your previous post.)
> You should perhaps take into account that Erik always intends to
> give statements about the actual contents of your (or anyone else's)
> posts, and not statements about you (or anyone else) as a person. I
> don't think he always succeeds in doing so, but that's his actual
> intent. His initial response _can_ be interpreted according to his
> stated intent.
I grant your point. I could go on about choice of tone and etc, but I
think everything I'd say has been said by others in other threads, and
I'd rather wrap up the flaming about personality issues.
> > Anyhow, here are some potentially-confusing class precedence examples
> > paraphrased from Winston and Horn's "Lisp", 3rd edition.
>
> My conjecture is that you can provide confusing examples for any language.
>
> Would you agree?
I would, Although I'd say that there are languages which provide you
with more and less ability to do so; in which it is more and less
likely that you will actually encounter these situations in practice;
and in which it is more and less likely that the complex situation was
deliberately inserted by the designers vs. being the result of
failure-of-thought on their part.
Jeremy
> Fair enough, although how frequent the exceptional cases arise is a
> legitimate criterion for judgement as well. As yet, I have no real
> sense of how often these arise in practice with CLOS; I was spooked
> early on by the fact that Winston and Horn had to dedicate an entire
> appendix to explain how the class precedence list is actually
> computed. I fully grant that it may turn out to be irrelevant 99%
> of the time --- but it is spooky to a newcomer (or at least this
> newcomer) to even be told that the situation exists.
I think you will find Richard Gabriel's paper, "Lisp: Good News Bad
News How To Win Big" helpful here. A quotation from that paper
follows:
I and just about every designer of Common Lisp and CLOS has had
extreme exposure to the MIT/Stanford style of design. The essence
of this style can be captured by the phrase "the right thing." To
such a designer it is important to get all of the following
characteristics right:
Simplicity--the design must be simple, both in
implementation and interface. It is more important for the
interface to be simple than the implementation.
Correctness--the design must be correct in all observable
aspects. Incorrectness is simply not allowed.
Consistency--the design must not be inconsistent. A design
is allowed to be slightly less simple and less complete to
avoid inconsistency. Consistency is as important as
correctness.
Completeness--the design must cover as many important
situations as is practical. All reasonably expected cases
must be covered. Simplicity is not allowed to overly reduce
completeness.
I believe most people would agree that these are good
characteristics. I will call the use of this philosophy of design
the "MIT approach." Common Lisp (with CLOS) and Scheme represent
the MIT approach to design and implementation.
The idea here is that when you see something like the appendix on CPL
you are in the presence of "the right thing." Note especially that
when one trades off between simplicity and completeness, completeness
is supposed to have some degree of priority. So this appendix is
telling you that CLOS will do "the right thing" in a fairly obscure
area. The existence of this appendix shows how "the right thing"
mentality operates.
But if you are used to a "worse is better" approach you will see this
same appendix and think, "If they are covering this case in some
detail, it must be really important to understand it, because it will
probably come up often."
But it won't.
As you use Lisp (and other systems) you get a feel for things like
this. Personally when I saw that appendix some years ago, I thought,
"In the unlikely event that I ever have this problem it's nice to know
that there's somewhere I can look to see what's going on."
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
"In America, we have a two-party system. There is the stupid party.
And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid
party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something
that is both stupid and evil. This is called -- bipartisanship."
--Republican congressional staffer
Jeremy H. Brown 2002-10-14T02:01:46Z:
> [*] This approximation scheme, which I was taught by the same book
> these examples come from, is as follows: [...]
Do they say /why/ they have an approximation scheme in the book? I
can't think of any reason for it: it doesn't seem to be easier to use
than the real thing and clearly it gives wrong results.
--
Janne Rinta-M�nty
I'm learning Common Lisp from Graham, and
I'm reading Chapter 11, CLOS, at the moment,
so I found it very helpful to be warned that
the depth-first, right-to-left, up-to-join algorithm
is not the real thing.
Now that I've found
4.3.5 Determining the Class Precedence List
http://www.lisp.org/HyperSpec/Body/sec_4-3-5.html
I think that the real thing is pretty straight
forward. Basically, the programmer lays down the
law about the order of the classes, and CLOS does
as its bloody well told.
So, (defclass bottom (a b c)) says that
bottom < a < b < c
while (defclass a (c d)) and (defclass b (c d)) say
that
a < c < d and b < c < d
There is only one way to stitch these three together
bottom < a < b < c
a < c < d
b < c < d
so
bottom < a < b < c < d
I thought it would be fun to try and write some
Lisp to do this calculation.
A least element is an element such that there
is no smaller one. Since we are going to be
working with partial ordering, there could be
several such elements, so the first job is to
write a version of MIN that returns a complete
list of least elements.
;;;; Take a set, represented by a list,
;;;; and a partial order, represented by
;;;; a function, and return the list of
;;;; least elements
;;;;
;;;; (po a b) returns true when a precedes b
;;;;
(defun least-elements (set po); po = Partial Order
(let (accumulator)
(dolist (candidate set)
(when (notany (lambda (other)
(funcall po other candidate))
(remove candidate set))
(push candidate accumulator)))
(reverse accumulator)))
The hyper-spec atomises (defclass bottom (a b c))
into { bottom<a, a<b, b<c }. I don't need to go so
far. It is enough to represent the total order on
the classes as a list (bottom a b c). The data
defining the partial order is conveniently just a
list of lists, with one list per defclass, giving
the total order it specifies on the classes it
mentions, so I extract the ordering information
from
(defclass bottom (a b c))
(defclass a (c d))
(defclass b (c d))
and store it thus
(setq ascending-chains
'((bottom a b c)
(a c d)
(b c d)))
Next I need a function to compute the partial order
from the data.
;;;; The partial order is computed by searching
;;;; a list of ascending chains
(defun po (smaller larger )
(some (lambda(ascending-chain)
(member larger
(member smaller ascending-chain)))
ascending-chains))
Notice my exploitation of the clever definition of
member whereby
(member 3 '(1 2 3 4 5 6 7)) => (3 4 5 6 7)
This is enough to hand crank Jeremy Brown's first
example
(least-elements '(bottom a b c d ) #'po) => (BOTTOM)
(least-elements '(b c d a ) #'po) => (A)
(least-elements '(b c d ) #'po) => (B)
(least-elements '(c d ) #'po) => (C)
(least-elements '(d ) #'po) => (D)
We can try this on Jeremy's second example
(setq ascending-chains '((bottom a b c)
(a c e)
(b c d)))
but we get stuck at the end
(least-elements '(d e) #'po) => (D E)
This is what the hyper-spec is talking about when it
says
When the topological sort must select a class from
a set of two or more classes, none of which are
preceded by other classes with respect to R, the
class selected is chosen deterministically, as
described below.
There is a little bit more to computing class
precedence lists than just doing what the programmer
said. Sometimes there is a tie for which class comes
next and we need a tie-breaker.
First a little predicate to detect a tie:
(defun just-one-p (list)
(if (null list)(error "Inconsistant")
(null (cdr list))))
Then we can cons up a precedence list. The loop
start with the list of classes, and moves them,
one by one to the precedence list. It is straight
forward, unless there is a tie.
(defun precedence-list ()
(do ((classes (reduce #'union ascending-chains)
(remove next-one classes))
(precedence-list () (cons next-one
precedence-list))
next-one)
((null classes)(reverse precedence-list))
(let ((least-elements
(least-elements classes
#'po)))
(setf next-one
(if (just-one-p least-elements)
(car least-elements)
(tie-break least-elements
precedence-list))))))
First a couple of comment-functions
(defun direct-super-class-list(sub-class)
(cdr (assoc sub-class ascending-chains)))
(defun direct-super-class-p(super-class sub-class)
(member super-class
(direct-super-class-list sub-class)))
I like using comments as function names. The calling
code doesn't get cluttered with comments, because it
is not cluttered with stuff requiring comments; a
double benefit.
Then the tie-break itself. The hyper-spec says
Sometimes there are several classes from SC with
no predecessors. In this case select the one that
has a direct subclass rightmost in the class
precedence list computed so far.
To find the rightmost subclass, we pass in the
reverse of the precedence list. So the formal
parameter gets named "rev-prec-list", and the
call
(tie-break least-elements precedence-list)
is correct, because the do-loop in "precedence-list"
is consing it up in reverse order.
(defun tie-break (super-classes rev-prec-list)
(dolist (sub-class rev-prec-list)
(dolist (super-class super-classes)
(if (direct-super-class-p super-class sub-class)
(return-from tie-break super-class))))
(error "Not a partial ordering"))
Now we can do example 1
(let ((ascending-chains
'((bottom a b c)
(a c d)
(b c d))))
(precedence-list)) => (BOTTOM A B C D)
and example 2
(let ((ascending-chains
'((bottom a b c)
(a c e)
(b c d))))
(precedence-list)) => (BOTTOM A B C D E)
The hyper-spec has
Examples of Class Precedence List Determination
http://www.lisp.org/HyperSpec/Body/sec_4-3-5-2.html
(defclass pie (apple cinnamon) ())
(defclass apple (fruit) ())
(defclass cinnamon (spice) ())
(defclass fruit (food) ())
(defclass spice (food) ())
(defclass food () ())
Which we can also do
(let ((ascending-chains
'((pie apple cinnamon)
(apple fruit)
(cinnamon spice)
(fruit food)
(spice food)
(food))))
(precedence-list))
=> (PIE APPLE FRUIT CINNAMON SPICE FOOD)
Alan Crowe
From: ilias
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <an80v3$qf2$1@usenet.otenet.gr>
Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
[...]
>
> Jeremy
>
> PS Is Erik Naggum always so full of poisonous bile? I didn't expect
> everyone to agree with me, and indeed, many people didn't, but he was
> just out of control. All I was trying to do was provide a coherent
> answer to a question I was asked.
Bitter:
·················································@usenet.otenet.gr
Sheeps:
·················································@usenet.otenet.gr
Immunity:
·················································@usenet.otenet.gr
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <ey365wnzosy.fsf@cley.com>
* Jeremy H Brown wrote:
> Your points regarding using subsets of CLOS are entirely correct, but
> they miss the fact that I was responding to the question "Why is it
> harder to master CLOS than <foo>?" I don't think I could claim to
> have mastered the technology by using only a subset of its abilities.
Yes, but the issue is this quote:
I've always gotten frustrated with its complexity while reading
the spec and wound up ignoring most of it. So I think that'd be
my major complaint in a nutshell: it's extremely complex.
This sounds to me like you're doing something backwards and trying to
understand all the hard bits first. And the answer is not to do that.
Understand the easy bits, rely on the fact that the system is well
designed so the hard bits don't get in the way if you don't use them,
and then as you want to do more complex things the hard bits are
sitting there waiting for you. Compare this to a system which doesn't
provide the hard bits: there you spend about the same time doing the
easy stuff, and then you write the hard stuff yourself, each time.
Other than playing, I don't think I'd used user-defined method
combinations in something like 12-13 years of using CLOS (or PCL
before it was quite CLOS), and they'd never hurt me as a result.
Earlier this year I found that I wanted an idiom which standard method
combination did not provide (specifically, I want around-like methods
which run least-specific outermost). So I spent an hour reading the
spec and wrote a method combination, and then a few more hours
converting a bunch of GFs to use it and testing to see if user-defined
MCs had lower performance than predefined ones (they didn't for the
implementation I was using).
You could argue that this means I hadn't mastered CLOS. But I think
that's wrong. For instance if you asked me *now* to write a method
combination, or tell you what all the predefined method combinations
are, I couldn't. But I know it can be done, and I know where the
manual is. That is mastering in my world, because if it's not then
I've never mastered anything.
--tim
From: Len Charest
Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
Date:
Message-ID: <ancnfv$5vm$1@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov>
Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
>
> PS Is Erik Naggum always so full of poisonous bile?
"...ooooh short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but..."
Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
> PS Is Erik Naggum always so full of poisonous bile?
No, but when he is not, Erik Naggum posts five-page diatribes explaining
some common sense idea that could have been expressed in one short sentence.
Someone ought to write a FAQ on the egomaniacal buffoon and direct newbies
to it.
Cheers,
Oleg
* Jeremy H Brown wrote:
> At the primitives level, I agree with you. Ditto for syntax
> (excepting macros.) But CLOS is a *hard* thing to *master*; the Java
> object model is comparatively trivial. And libraries, well,
> "standard" Java libraries are breeding like rats, so you can never
> master the "entire" language at that level.
The Java object model may be simple, but once you've mastered it you
have to spend a whole lot more time mastering a whole repertoire of
tricks and techniques to make it actually useful. And then you spend
the rest of your life repeatedly working around the limitations. CLOS
is a bit more complicated, of course, but once you've understood it
you can actually get on and do stuff.
--tim
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Basile STARYNKEVITCH
> | Learning CommonLisp is a very significant task!
I disagree.
> More utter nonsense! It takes significantly /less/ time to master
> Common Lisp than to master C++ or Java or even Perl or Python.
C++, Java and Perl, I agree. Python, I disagree.
From my experience Python has a lower threshold (and lower ceiling)
than Common Lisp. We schedule 1-2 weeks (40-80 work hours) to get
a non-programmer over the threshold of Common Lisp, and we schedule
1-2 days (8-16 work hours) to get them over the threshold of Python.
By over the threshold, I mean capable of writing code on their own
with an understand of the syntax and common primitives.
Norvig is converting _A.I.: A Modern Approch_ to Python because it
is easier to read. (Although I am disappointed that Norvig chose
to abandon Lisp, atleast he didn't use Java or C++)
> Programming under Windows requires about two orders of magnitude
> more stuff to learn than the language.
Python makes Windows programming almost fun.
I don't want to start a language war, Common Lisp is worth the effort
to learn. Python is a good language for scripts (throw away programs)
and for introducing people to programming. I have been using Logo
(Lisp without parenthesis) in a 7-8th grade programming club, this
year I am going to try Python.
Thanks,
Jeff Sandys
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:38:35 GMT, Jeff Sandys <·······@juno.com> wrote:
> Norvig is converting _A.I.: A Modern Approch_ to Python because it
> is easier to read. (Although I am disappointed that Norvig chose
I seem to remember a different rationale, i.e. the wider availabilty of
Python libraries, especially for GUI.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
In article <····························@4ax.com>,
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:38:35 GMT, Jeff Sandys <·······@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Norvig is converting _A.I.: A Modern Approch_ to Python because it
> > is easier to read. (Although I am disappointed that Norvig chose
>
> I seem to remember a different rationale, i.e. the wider availabilty of
> Python libraries, especially for GUI.
AIMA was never using Lisp. The book uses some pseudo code.
Examples were/are available in several languages, separately.
1. edition - http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~russell/aima.html
2. edition will be here : http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:38:35 GMT, Jeff Sandys <·······@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Norvig is converting _A.I.: A Modern Approch_ to Python because it
> > is easier to read. (Although I am disappointed that Norvig chose
>
> I seem to remember a different rationale, i.e. the wider availabilty
> of Python libraries, especially for GUI.
I can't find the page now that I got this list from, but the rationale
he gave is at <http://lemonodor.com/archives/000015.html>. I would
include the list of reasons here, but I think it would just invite
pointless flaming.
John Wiseman
In article <···············@panix3.panix.com>,
Carl Shapiro <·············@panix.com> wrote:
> About six months ago I had a brief discussion with Richard Stallman
> where I asked him a question similar to yours. His reply was that,
> "Common Lisp is eeeeeenormous!".
Hmm.
·····@k7:~ > l /usr/local/cmucl/bin/lisp
-rwxr-xr-x 1 1000 1000 358257 Feb 5 2001
/usr/local/cmucl/bin/lisp*
·····@k7:~ > l /usr/bin/emacs
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2979192 Jan 22 2001 /usr/bin/emacs*
One of these things is eight times bigger than the other...
-- Bruce
Bruce Hoult wrote:
> ·····@k7:~ > l /usr/local/cmucl/bin/lisp
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 1000 1000 358257 Feb 5 2001
> /usr/local/cmucl/bin/lisp*
>
> ·····@k7:~ > l /usr/bin/emacs
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2979192 Jan 22 2001 /usr/bin/emacs*
>
> One of these things is eight times bigger than the other...
The CMUCL lisp* is just the loader; locate lisp.core for the guts.
On my machine the CMUCL 18d lisp.core file is 23MB.
Now, GCL is rather small (but it isn't a full ANSI CL at this time).
Paul
In article <·················@motorola.com>,
Paul Dietz <············@motorola.com> wrote:
> Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> > ·····@k7:~ > l /usr/local/cmucl/bin/lisp
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 1000 1000 358257 Feb 5 2001
> > /usr/local/cmucl/bin/lisp*
> >
> > ·····@k7:~ > l /usr/bin/emacs
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2979192 Jan 22 2001 /usr/bin/emacs*
> >
> > One of these things is eight times bigger than the other...
>
>
> The CMUCL lisp* is just the loader; locate lisp.core for the guts.
> On my machine the CMUCL 18d lisp.core file is 23MB.
True. 20127744 bytes here for 18c. But then emacs has a *lot* of other
stuff, too. My /usr/share/emacs is 24 MB, and I haven't installed any
extras myself.
-- Bruce
Hello!
Paul Dietz <············@motorola.com> wrote:
>[...]
>Now, GCL is rather small (but it isn't a full ANSI CL at this time).
clisp is also not too bug, and, while it's not completely ANSI, I don't
really think making it completely compliant would really bloat it too
much any more.
Kind regards,
Hannah.
Hello!
Hannah Schroeter <······@schlund.de> wrote:
>[...]
>clisp is also not too bug, and, while it's not completely ANSI, I don't
^i
>really think making it completely compliant would really bloat it too
>much any more.
I should learn to type again.
Kind regards,
Hannah.
Bruce Hoult wrote:
> Hmm.
>
> ·····@k7:~ > l /usr/local/cmucl/bin/lisp
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 1000 1000 358257 Feb 5 2001
> /usr/local/cmucl/bin/lisp*
>
> ·····@k7:~ > l /usr/bin/emacs
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2979192 Jan 22 2001 /usr/bin/emacs*
>
> One of these things is eight times bigger than the other...
I think its time to call the childrens television workshop...
;)
Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> writes:
> ·····@k7:~ > l /usr/local/cmucl/bin/lisp
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 1000 1000 358257 Feb 5 2001
> /usr/local/cmucl/bin/lisp*
>
> ·····@k7:~ > l /usr/bin/emacs
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2979192 Jan 22 2001 /usr/bin/emacs*
>
> One of these things is eight times bigger than the other...
These days Gnu Emacs is just as obese as the next piece of modern
bloated software. Hell, even a LispM world load with Zmacs has a
smaller on-disk footprint than Gnu Emacs. Fortunately, we have an
over-abundance of hardware which can effortlessly digest today's
gluttonous applications.
Sorry for preaching to the choir...
Carl Shapiro <·············@panix.com> writes:
> Friedrich Dominicus <·····@q-software-solutions.com> writes:
>
> > I suggest asking RMS why they do not use Common Lisp. Might be an
> > interesting reply (well getting none, says enough too)
>
> About six months ago I had a brief discussion with Richard Stallman
> where I asked him a question similar to yours. His reply was that,
> "Common Lisp is eeeeeenormous!".
I can't believe that. It's do brain damaged. I wonder why they make
Guile bigger and bigger if they do not like that.
Thy try to implement a CLOS like OO system see:
http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/gnu-guile-projects.html#Core
please see the #Core at the end! This means a OO system is though to
be essential part of Guile
Than see the zillions of libraries they are working on.
Another thing which drive me nuts is that some 4 weeks or so ago RMS
posted to the gnu.sources newsgroups and mentioned Guile-Emacs. I
tried to find the most acutal version and found this:
Guile Emacs is a variant of Emacs which is integrating the Guile extension language in addition to Emacs Lisp so to provide a better programming environment for both Emacs users and Guile users.
This version of Guile Emacs is a quick hack; it provides a minimum modification to GNU Emacs. The goal of this project is not to replace the Emacs internals by Guile but to utilize the Guile Scheme interpreter as well as the Emacs Lisp interpreter simultaneously. The project replacing the internals is being done separately, and these two projects will be merged in the future.
Well the quick hack page date back to 07/2000 !!! How intensively are
they working?
Friedrich
Friedrich Dominicus <·····@q-software-solutions.com> writes:
> Another thing which drive me nuts is that some 4 weeks or so ago RMS
> posted to the gnu.sources newsgroups and mentioned Guile-Emacs. I
> tried to find the most acutal version and found this:
[snip]
> Well the quick hack page date back to 07/2000 !!! How intensively are
> they working?
(sssssh!) What, are you complaining? It looks like Guile-Emacs will
never happen. I mean, if we're lucky. *I* would rather stick with
elisp than deal with Guile. And if the FSF eventually does dump
elisp, XEmacs would probably do the same, and that would leave me with
the following options: (1) Go into an Emacs time-warp, and stick with
the last stable elisp-based emacs; (2) fork and become an Elisp-Emacs
maintainer; or (3) fork, do major development, and become a CL-Emacs
developer/maintainer.
(1) Sounds fine, except it would necessarily turn into (2), unless I
go into a complete computing time-warp. I had planned on sticking
with Emacs-20.7 for as long as I could, but then I got Mac OS X, and
couldn't easily get 20.7 to compile on it. So, now I'm running 21.
It was that or essentially maintain my own fork. And personally, I
don't want to maintain Emacs.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@maelstrom.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) wrote:
> Friedrich Dominicus <·····@q-software-solutions.com> writes:
>
>> Another thing which drive me nuts is that some 4 weeks or so ago RMS
>> posted to the gnu.sources newsgroups and mentioned Guile-Emacs. I
>> tried to find the most acutal version and found this:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Well the quick hack page date back to 07/2000 !!! How intensively are
>> they working?
>
> (sssssh!) What, are you complaining? It looks like Guile-Emacs will
> never happen. I mean, if we're lucky. *I* would rather stick with
> elisp than deal with Guile. And if the FSF eventually does dump
> elisp, XEmacs would probably do the same, and that would leave me with
> the following options: (1) Go into an Emacs time-warp, and stick with
> the last stable elisp-based emacs; (2) fork and become an Elisp-Emacs
> maintainer; or (3) fork, do major development, and become a CL-Emacs
> developer/maintainer.
>
> (1) Sounds fine, except it would necessarily turn into (2), unless I
> go into a complete computing time-warp. I had planned on sticking
> with Emacs-20.7 for as long as I could, but then I got Mac OS X, and
> couldn't easily get 20.7 to compile on it. So, now I'm running 21.
> It was that or essentially maintain my own fork. And personally, I
> don't want to maintain Emacs.
I don't think it's terribly likely that XEmacs would dump elisp, as it
would require retargeting millions of lines of existing elisp code.
The only way it would make /any/ sense to do is if there were
excellent tools in place to automate this, that is, to transform
colloquial elisp code into pretty nearly colloquial Guile code.
If the tools proved good enough to allow something like this to
happen, then they'll surely be good enough that you could
transparently keep writing elisp, perhaps keeping a "timewarp" copy
around to debug in, and redeploy into Guile as needed.
That all being said, Guile doesn't seem to be particularly better than
elisp (and I'm /not/ saying that snidely; in the context here, I'm
trying to give Guile the /most/ benefit of the doubt).
-> It is not /manifestly/ faster;
-> It doesn't bytecode compile for compactness/faster parsing.
The one thing it /does/ have that elisp /doesn't/ that can be regarded
as Rather Valuable is threading, notably via:
(call-with-new-thread THUNK ERROR-THUNK).
It is not at all obvious that porting stuff that Really Needs Threads
would necessarily automate terribly well. I suspect that if Gnus, the
most conspicuous example of something that would benefit vastly, got
ported over, threading wouldn't go in 'for free,' but would rather
require quite a lot of rewriting of Guile code. In the absence of
native code/byte compilers, there's no /vast/ performance win.
My sneaking suspicion is that the "redo in Guile" idea will die
quietly. If it doesn't, it will more than likely lead to a greater
schism than the XEmacs/GNU Emacs schism...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ··········@" "enworbbc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/rdbms.html
People can be set wondering by loading obscure personal patchable
systems, and sending bug reports. Who would not stop and wonder upon
seeing "Experimental TD80-TAPE 1.17, MegaDeath 2.5..."? The same for
provocatively-named functions and variables in stack traces.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
Espen Vestre wrote:
> synthespian <···········@debian-rs.org> writes:
>
>> Lisp in Python. Interesting.
>
> A Common Lisp implementation of Python would be more interesting,
> especially if the python code compiled to efficient CL code.
Yes, if Python is really so close to Common Lisp on the semantic level
as some people say, a good Python-2-CL compiler could convince some
people to take a closer look at Common Lisp. The performance would play
an important part here - as far as I remember Python's performance is
not that good, right?
Pascal
My experience is that there is a very big gap between the performance
of Python and CL (CMUCL compiler). Indeed it is because of the
performance issues that I moved away from using Python for Web
applications - it was fine for the simple interface stuff but as soon
as I wanted to have more complex calculations such as using Bayesian
networks or automatic crosslinking it ran out of steam. With the
current application (an on-line peer-review system for graduate
students) the difference was about 40-50 fold and it was necessary to
improve the speed to give a satisfactory user experience. Additionally
learning Lisp has been interesting and the expressiveness of the
language has opened my eyes to more elegant algorithms for solving the
problems which gives additional benefits.
>>>>> "Pascal" == Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
Pascal> Espen Vestre wrote:
>> synthespian <···········@debian-rs.org> writes:
>>
>>> Lisp in Python. Interesting.
>> A Common Lisp implementation of Python would be more
>> interesting, especially if the python code compiled to
>> efficient CL code.
Pascal> Yes, if Python is really so close to Common Lisp on the
Pascal> semantic level as some people say, a good Python-2-CL
Pascal> compiler could convince some people to take a closer look
Pascal> at Common Lisp. The performance would play an important
Pascal> part here - as far as I remember Python's performance is
Pascal> not that good, right?
Pascal> Pascal
--
John
Pascal Costanza a �crit:
>
> Espen Vestre wrote:
> > synthespian <···········@debian-rs.org> writes:
> >
> >> Lisp in Python. Interesting.
> >
> > A Common Lisp implementation of Python would be more interesting,
> > especially if the python code compiled to efficient CL code.
>
> Yes, if Python is really so close to Common Lisp on the semantic level
> as some people say, a good Python-2-CL compiler could convince some
> people to take a closer look at Common Lisp. The performance would play
> an important part here - as far as I remember Python's performance is
> not that good, right?
As for much of Lisp code (or C code etc)... performance is at first a matter
of knowing the inner 'language' (means : interpreter and/or compiler)
mechanism and writing the appropriate algorithme.
But it's a fact that outstanding execution speed is not the first strength of
Python. Still, the question is : is it fast enough for your needs ?
Laotseu
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 10:56:27PM +0200, laotseu wrote:
> As for much of Lisp code (or C code etc)... performance is at first a matter
> of knowing the inner 'language' (means : interpreter and/or compiler)
> mechanism and writing the appropriate algorithme.
Actually I would put this optimization last. Exploiting peculiarities
of your compiler should be the last thing you do, if at all. Choice of
algorithm does not depend on language. You simply need to know which
language constructs provide the behavior you are looking for. Of
course, a language may more conveniently express certain algorithms than
others.
For example, in the case of Python (language) the `list' type is in fact
a vector with O(1) access. In Common Lisp, `list's are linked-lists and
have O(n) access time for arbitrary elements. Whatever the compiler
happens to do is unimportant at this level; the language defines these
particular data-structures and all conforming implementations of the
language should follow this definition.
(It is unfortunate that Python (language) chose the name `list' for what
is not a list, this seems to have resulted in a great deal of confusion,
as witnessed in another recent thread)
--
; 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> wrote in message news:<·····················@lain.res.cmu.edu>...
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 10:56:27PM +0200, laotseu wrote:
> > As for much of Lisp code (or C code etc)... performance is at first a matter
> > of knowing the inner 'language' (means : interpreter and/or compiler)
> > mechanism and writing the appropriate algorithme.
>
> Actually I would put this optimization last. Exploiting peculiarities
> of your compiler should be the last thing you do, if at all. Choice of
> algorithm does not depend on language.
Theorically (? not sure this is the right english word ?) no. But
practically, you have to implement the algorithm in a particular
language, so the language does matter.
But I was not talking about optimisation, just about the choice of the
right construct for a particular language, *and* (as a distinct step)
writing the good algorithm.
An exemple of choosing the right construct could be, in C, wether to
use a 'dynamic array' (ie : int **int_array) with realloc() or a
linked list, depending on the intended use of the data structure.
There are cases where you could use one or the other construct for
implementing the same algorithm, but with significant difference when
it come to performance.
> You simply need to know which
> language constructs provide the behavior you are looking for. Of
> course, a language may more conveniently express certain algorithms than
> others.
Ok, that's exactly what I meant.
> For example, in the case of Python (language) the `list' type is in fact
> a vector with O(1) access. In Common Lisp, `list's are linked-lists and
> have O(n) access time for arbitrary elements. Whatever the compiler
> happens to do is unimportant at this level; the language defines these
> particular data-structures and all conforming implementations of the
> language should follow this definition.
> (It is unfortunate that Python (language) chose the name `list' for what
> is not a list, this seems to have resulted in a great deal of confusion,
> as witnessed in another recent thread)
That's was I was talking about when I said "knowing the inner language
mechanisms". I had read the thread you're talking about, and it is an
exemple of not choosing the appropriate construct for a given
language.
Sorry if my point wasn't clear...
Laotseu
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 12:45:00AM -0700, Laotseu wrote:
> Matthew Danish <·······@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message news:<·····················@lain.res.cmu.edu>...
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 10:56:27PM +0200, laotseu wrote:
> > > As for much of Lisp code (or C code etc)... performance is at first a matter
> > > of knowing the inner 'language' (means : interpreter and/or compiler)
> > > mechanism and writing the appropriate algorithme.
> >
[snip]
> That's was I was talking about when I said "knowing the inner language
> mechanisms". I had read the thread you're talking about, and it is an
> exemple of not choosing the appropriate construct for a given
> language.
I interpreted your statement as meaning ``knowing compiler internals''
which is a somewhat different thing.
I see that we agree, however. Sorry for the confusion.
--
; 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> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 10:56:27PM +0200, laotseu wrote:
> > As for much of Lisp code (or C code etc)... performance is at first a matter
> > of knowing the inner 'language' (means : interpreter and/or compiler)
> > mechanism and writing the appropriate algorithme.
> Actually I would put this optimization last. Exploiting peculiarities
> of your compiler should be the last thing you do, if at all. Choice of
> algorithm does not depend on language. You simply need to know which
> language constructs provide the behavior you are looking for. Of
> course, a language may more conveniently express certain algorithms than
> others.
> For example, in the case of Python (language) the `list' type is in fact
> a vector with O(1) access. In Common Lisp, `list's are linked-lists and
> have O(n) access time for arbitrary elements. Whatever the compiler
> happens to do is unimportant at this level; the language defines these
> particular data-structures and all conforming implementations of the
> language should follow this definition.
> (It is unfortunate that Python (language) chose the name `list' for what
> is not a list, this seems to have resulted in a great deal of confusion,
> as witnessed in another recent thread)
Is it really "not a list" though? Only in the sense that 'list' in CS
has come to be a term of art for "linked list". If data types share the
same methods, then it's reasonable to want a term that refers to this
equivalence class. I.e. a linked list and a vector have the exact same
functions available to a client programmer, the only difference is the
performance characteristics of both. If 'list' had not come to mean
'linked list', then I would tend to say that 'linked list' and 'vector'
are different implementations of the abstract idea of 'list' (which
would represent any data type with these methods), and this is what
someone coming to CS with no preconceptions, but an understanding of the
outside world concept of 'list' is likely to think.
In the domain of applications Python is designed for, a vector list is
probably a more appropriate choice than a linked list, well over half
the time. So making it the default, and easiest to use version of the
abstract 'list' seems a reasonable choice.
What's unfortunate to me is that 'list' has been coopted as a term of
art to mean something much more specific within the CS community. If
that were not so, there would be no confusion (IMO) in Python (or
Applescript, which makes the same choice) calling a vector a 'list'.
Michael
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
> What's unfortunate to me is that 'list' has been coopted as a term
> of art to mean something much more specific within the CS community.
> If that were not so, there would be no confusion (IMO) in Python (or
> Applescript, which makes the same choice) calling a vector a 'list'.
Well, 'list' has meant 'linked list' in computer science for as long
as I've known anything about it.
Imagine if you started talking to electronics people about `chokes'.
You said, "Here's a 1k choke, and here's a 1meg choke."
They look at you funny. "Those are resistors. Chokes are inductors."
You reply, "They are resistive chokes. The ones you are thinking of
are inductive chokes. Both oppose or 'choke' the flow of current.
Also, resistors are the more appropriate choice in far more than half
the applications of chokes, so making 'resistive choke' the default
meaning of 'choke' seems like a reasonable choice."
After that there's silence, except for a choking sound.
--
-Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
"In America, we have a two-party system. There is the stupid
party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the
stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do
something that is both stupid and evil. This is called --
bipartisanship." --Republican congressional staffer
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> wrote:
> > What's unfortunate to me is that 'list' has been coopted as a term
> > of art to mean something much more specific within the CS community.
> > If that were not so, there would be no confusion (IMO) in Python (or
> > Applescript, which makes the same choice) calling a vector a 'list'.
>
> Well, 'list' has meant 'linked list' in computer science for as long
> as I've known anything about it.
> Imagine if you started talking to electronics people about `chokes'.
> You said, "Here's a 1k choke, and here's a 1meg choke."
The difference here is that people who know nothing of CS, and who would
look at you funny when you say "linked list" can nonetheless get a
pretty good idea of the abstract "sequence" type when you say "list".
These days, a lot of such people are called on to do things remarkably
like programming on little training, and the languages they are using
are things like Python and Applescript, precisely because they are
geared to be understandable fairly rapidly by those who've had little or
no training in CS. That's not necessarily a bad thing, just a question
of playing to one's audience. An interesting question is whether the
tradeoffs made that make the language completely unpalatable to those
who know what they are doing.
I'll admit that calling them sequences is a pretty reasonable idea
(since that still suggests the abstract type to laypeople), and I, if I
were designing those languages and thought of it, probably would have
done so.
Michael, and I'm obviously dragging this way OT for c.l.l so I will shut
up now.
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
* Michael Sullivan wrote:
> What's unfortunate to me is that 'list' has been coopted as a term of
> art to mean something much more specific within the CS community. If
> that were not so, there would be no confusion (IMO) in Python (or
> Applescript, which makes the same choice) calling a vector a 'list'.
Well, communities develop jargon and technical language, and it's
usually good to stick to that jargon and language. I don't know if
it's prevalent outside CL, but CL uses the term `sequence' for things
that are either (proper) lists or vectors. It's a good term, I think.
--tim
laotseu wrote:
> Pascal Costanza a �crit:
[...]
>>Yes, if Python is really so close to Common Lisp on the semantic level
>>as some people say, a good Python-2-CL compiler could convince some
>>people to take a closer look at Common Lisp. The performance would play
>>an important part here - as far as I remember Python's performance is
>>not that good, right?
>
> As for much of Lisp code (or C code etc)... performance is at first a matter
> of knowing the inner 'language' (means : interpreter and/or compiler)
> mechanism and writing the appropriate algorithme.
>
> But it's a fact that outstanding execution speed is not the first strength of
> Python. Still, the question is : is it fast enough for your needs ?
Sorry, I didn't mean to bash Python because of its lack of performance.
However, it seems to be feasible to translate Python to Common Lisp and
would give Python a performance boost nearly for free, wouldn't it?
Even if speed is not one of your concerns you wouldn't refuse it, would
you? ;)
Pascal
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Pascal Costanza wrote:
> The performance would play an important part here - as far as I
> remember Python's performance is not that good, right?
Right. In my experience, Python is typically 5x to 50x slower than
Common Lisp (CMUCL). Similar numbers are cited in
<http://www.norvig.com/python-lisp.html>.
However, with things such as Psyco <http://psyco.sourceforge.net/> one
can get very significant speed improvement (2x-20x, in my experience)
bringing the difference between Python and Common Lisp down to the
same order of magnitude, say 2x-5x. For example, for the Fibonacci
numbers program from the Great Computer Language Shootout
<http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/bench/fibo/>, if I add to the
Python source:
import psyco
psyco.bind(fib)
I obtain, for fib(37)=39088169, practically the CMUCL time:
Python raw ....... 77.71 sec
Python + Psyco ... 1.63 sec
CMUCL ............ 1.42 sec
OCaml ............ 0.42 sec
Just to illustrate where one can get when the bottlenecks in the
Python source code are well "psycoable".
T.
I'm thinking pretty soon the light bulb has to go on and the Pythonians
will ask themselves, "Why the Hell don't we just use Lisp?!"
:)
kenny
clinisys
synthespian wrote:
> Hi --
>
> Lisp in Python. Interesting.
> Comments from lispers would be an interesting read too :-)
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/py4fun/lisp/lisp.html
>
> Cheers
>
> Henry
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Micro$oft-Free Human 100% Debian GNU/Linux
> KMFMS "Bring the genome to the people!
> www.debian.org - www.debian-br.cipsga.org.br - www.debian-rs.org
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> I'm thinking pretty soon the light bulb has to go on and the
> Pythonians will ask themselves, "Why the Hell don't we just use
> Lisp?!"
I think the answer to this question is obvious. Python has many
advantages over CL:
o it's totally free (including the versions that are analogous to what
in the CL community are considered commercial-grade.
o it interfaces very cleanly with Java (note: I'm talking about Jython
here, really...not Python per se). This allows developers to
leverage the substantial amount of work out there that's been done by
the Java community.
o It's a fine language, with some of the same benefits that CL has
(first class functions, runs interpreted or compiled, etc.)
o it's good for both scripting and for large-scale programs
o it runs on just about every platform...probably even more portable
than CLISP (it basically runs wherever there's a working gcc).
It's also more accepted. There's significant momentum behind
Python/Jython that is undeniable. Many websites are switching over to
Python/Jython. The Jython ones often take advantage of J2EE libraries
as well.
CL has a strong case as well...but if CL ever had a rival, it would be
Jython.
Oh...and in about 3/4 of a meg, you can download a simple Java library
(plugin) that implements a complete Jython interpreter right into the
browser. Additional libraries are delivered on-demand. That is my
current understanding, and it is a brilliant design. I don't love
Python syntax, but many people do...and considering that many people
also don't like Lisp's sexp's, it's not something to argue over.
bottom line: there is a very strong argument that Jython has several
important advantages over CL. While I think that the overall idea
expressed in the link Lisp-in-Python paper was not that useful or
interesting, I do see parallels in Python and CL already, and also
places where Jython took the more pragmatic route.
dave
Dave Bakhash wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>I'm thinking pretty soon the light bulb has to go on and the
>>Pythonians will ask themselves, "Why the Hell don't we just use
>>Lisp?!"
>
>
> I think the answer to this question is obvious. Python has many
> advantages over CL:
>
> o it's totally free (including the versions that are analogous to what
...
> o it interfaces very cleanly with Java (note: I'm talking about Jython
...
> o It's a fine language, with some of the same benefits that CL has
...
> o it's good for both scripting and for large-scale programs
...
> o it runs on just about every platform...probably even more portable
> than CLISP (it basically runs wherever there's a working gcc).
>
....
All that is nice (and I mean that), but what i meant was, all these
people working on Python could instead be working on a free CL
implementation, saving themselves the effort of defining a new language.
They would even have CMUCL to start from, a pretty decent head start.
I remember poking around the Python site and discovering a very long
list of "stuff we need to get around to". What a waste for those items
that boiled down to finishing/extending the language per se.
kenny
clinisys
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:56:59 -0300, Kenny Tilton wrote:
> Dave Bakhash wrote:
>> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>I'm thinking pretty soon the light bulb has to go on and the Pythonians
>>>will ask themselves, "Why the Hell don't we just use Lisp?!"
>>
>>
>> I think the answer to this question is obvious. Python has many
>> advantages over CL:
>>
>> o it's totally free (including the versions that are analogous to what
> ...
>> o it interfaces very cleanly with Java (note: I'm talking about Jython
> ...
>> o It's a fine language, with some of the same benefits that CL has
> ...
>
>> o it's good for both scripting and for large-scale programs
> ...
>
>> o it runs on just about every platform...probably even more portable
>> than CLISP (it basically runs wherever there's a working gcc).
>>
> ....
>
> All that is nice (and I mean that), but what i meant was, all these
> people working on Python could instead be working on a free CL
> implementation, saving themselves the effort of defining a new language.
> They would even have CMUCL to start from, a pretty decent head start.
>
> I remember poking around the Python site and discovering a very long
> list of "stuff we need to get around to". What a waste for those items
> that boiled down to finishing/extending the language per se.
>
> kenny
> clinisys
Yeah.
But those batteries included are nice.
Henry
_________________________________________________________________
Micro$oft-Free Human 100% Debian GNU/Linux
KMFMS "Bring the genome to the people!
[Kenny Tilton]
:
: All that is nice (and I mean that), but what i meant was, all these
: people working on Python could instead be working on a free CL
: implementation, saving themselves the effort of defining a new language.
: They would even have CMUCL to start from, a pretty decent head start.
The CMUCL compiler is actually called Python. I tend to think this would
cause some serious confusion. :-)
--
Knut Arild Erstad
Don't try to solve serious matters in the middle of the night.
-- Philip K. Dick
··········@ii.uib.no (Knut Arild Erstad) writes:
> : All that is nice (and I mean that), but what i meant was, all these
> : people working on Python could instead be working on a free CL
[...]
> The CMUCL compiler is actually called Python. I tend to think this would
> cause some serious confusion. :-)
Yup. As an SBCL hacker, the thought of having "all these people
working on Python" is very appealing ;-)
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 01:56:59 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> ,
undoubtedly inspired by the Great Cthulu wrote:
>All that is nice (and I mean that), but what i meant was, all these
>people working on Python could instead be working on a free CL
>implementation, saving themselves the effort of defining a new language.
>They would even have CMUCL to start from, a pretty decent head start.
And how much market share or mind share does CMUCL have, compared to
Python or Ruby ?
Dave Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> o it's totally free (including the versions that are analogous to what
> in the CL community are considered commercial-grade.
>
> o it interfaces very cleanly with Java (note: I'm talking about Jython
> here, really...not Python per se). This allows developers to
> leverage the substantial amount of work out there that's been done by
> the Java community.
>
> o It's a fine language, with some of the same benefits that CL has
> (first class functions, runs interpreted or compiled, etc.)
>
> o it's good for both scripting and for large-scale programs
>
> o it runs on just about every platform...probably even more portable
> than CLISP (it basically runs wherever there's a working gcc).
If you use the Java features of Jython then the code doesn't run on
(the C implementation of) Python and hence it doesn't run on just
about every platform, just the ones you have a JVM for. On the other
hand if one programs for the (C implementation of) Python that runs on
just about every platform then one cannot use the Java features of
Jython. Therefore it seems to me that you are comparing Common Lisp
to two languages with two orthogonal features (the ability to use Java
libraries and the ability to run anywhere there is a gcc) not one
which has all features.
> Oh...and in about 3/4 of a meg, you can download a simple Java library
> (plugin) that implements a complete Jython interpreter right into the
> browser. Additional libraries are delivered on-demand. That is my
> current understanding, and it is a brilliant design.
One can do something similar with Kawa or SISC which are based on
Scheme, which while not Common Lisp is perhaps closer than [JP]ython.
Hey,
·······@dino.dnsalias.com (Stephen J. Bevan) wrote in message news:
> Therefore it seems to me that you are comparing Common Lisp
> to two languages with two orthogonal features (the ability to use Java
> libraries and the ability to run anywhere there is a gcc) not one
> which has all features.
Not at all. Jython runs, AFAIK, straight from Java. Java tends to be
portable to just about any platform that anyone out there cares about
-- VAX/VMS, OS/2, Linux, AIX, HPUX, SCO, Win32, BSDs...the list goes
on forever. I don't think people have a problem with the portability
of the JVM. It's more or less become the epitome of portability.
Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned Python, as its portability is more of
a function of gcc than the JVM.
But my point was mostly that [JP]ython are portable languages, more so
than the free CL implementations, and have many features lacking in
the analogous CL implementations. Jython, by virtue of Java, has more
features than any CL I am aware of.
> > Oh...and in about 3/4 of a meg, you can download a simple Java library
> > (plugin) that implements a complete Jython interpreter right into the
> > browser. Additional libraries are delivered on-demand. That is my
> > current understanding, and it is a brilliant design.
>
> One can do something similar with Kawa or SISC which are based on
> Scheme, which while not Common Lisp is perhaps closer than [JP]ython.
the bottom line is that Scheme sucks, and I would personally much
rather code in Jython than in Scheme. Unlike Scheme, Python has an OO
model, and that model happens to work well with Java, which is the
reason for its success. The mismatch between CLOS and Java would is
so severe that if CL were to attempt to use Java's libraries (as in
JIL), you have to part from CLOS in some ways...similarly to how CL
implementations of Corba don't allow for specializing on more than one
argument.
My point, all-in-all, is that Jython is probably here to stay. And it
has set a precedent (at least, to me) as the first successful "hybrid"
language. Python had demonstrated its success (at least, in a
particular niche) well before Jython was out and stable. Jython just
added tons of value to an already-successful language by bringing in
Java/JVM technology.
Jython may not be the last of these languages that compile to the JVM,
and work well with Java and its OO model. But it is a clean language
that is many programmers consider a pleasure to program in. I don't
view it as a threat to CL...just as one of the better alternatives. I
think that a good Jython programmer understands the advantage of
leveraging Java. I am working with someone now who uses Jython, and I
know first-hand just how productive Jython development can be. It's
always been very obvious that CL suffers from a lack of standard
libraries. Java does not. Java suffers from poor language design.
Python does not (except for the whitespace madness, and some other
cruft). So while Jython might have some mild shortcomings, CL has a
huge defficiency that Jython doesn't.
dave
dave
Dave Bakhash wrote:
> The mismatch between CLOS and Java is
> so severe that if CL were to attempt to use Java's libraries (as in
> JIL), you have to part from CLOS in some ways...similarly to how CL
> implementations of Corba don't allow for specializing on more than one
> argument.
Huh? Could you explain in which sense the mismatch between Java's object
model and CLOS is so severe? There are some differences but I don't have
the impression they are severe.
Background: I am currently implementing a JVM in Common Lisp, and the
translation of Java's object model to CLOS seems to be doable as of yet
by way of dedicated method combinations. If there really is some serious
hindrance I would surely be interested in knowing this upfront. ;)
Pascal
Quoth Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>:
> Dave Bakhash wrote:
>> The mismatch between CLOS and Java is so severe that if CL were to
>> attempt to use Java's libraries (as in JIL), you have to part from
>> CLOS in some ways...similarly to how CL implementations of Corba
>> don't allow for specializing on more than one argument.
>
> Huh? Could you explain in which sense the mismatch between Java's
> object model and CLOS is so severe? There are some differences but I
> don't have the impression they are severe.
>
> Background: I am currently implementing a JVM in Common Lisp, and
> the translation of Java's object model to CLOS seems to be doable as
> of yet by way of dedicated method combinations. If there really is
> some serious hindrance I would surely be interested in knowing this
> upfront. ;)
This seems a somewhat "extreme" claim.
To be sure, I'd not expect to get "multiple dispatch for free" in the
process of FFIing out to a set of Java libraries.
The most I'd expect out of a "Java library binding" would be to have
access to the methods as they are, with the types as specified by the
library, which, being defined in a language that doesn't offer
multiple dispatch, would clearly not include MD instances.
This rather parallels the way that I'd expect an initial binding to
(say) PostgreSQL or Sleepycat DB databases to consist of a bunch of C
calls, and not much more. (The CL binding for Sleepycat DB does not
include any 'multiple dispatch,' FYI, and that distresses me exactly
NOT AT ALL. It does not contain a single DEFMETHOD, and that does not
leave me particularly aghast...)
Not that anything would prevent adding some macrology for
WITH-TRANSACTION or WITH-DATABASE or WITH-QUERY, or of adding some
handy-dandy generic functions to map requested arguments onto those
actually offered by the "alien/FFI" functions.
Multiple dispatch is handy and all, but it only actually /occurs/ if
there are multiple methods defined with varying type signatures, and
CORBA and Java both seem to reflect examples of things where that
won't directly happen.
--
(concatenate 'string "aa454" ·@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/spiritual.html
"...make -k all to compile everything in the core distribution. This
will take anywhere from 15 minutes (on a Cray Y-MP) to 12 hours."
-- X Window System Release Notes
Christopher Browne wrote:
> Quoth Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>:
>
>>Background: I am currently implementing a JVM in Common Lisp, and
>>the translation of Java's object model to CLOS seems to be doable as
>>of yet by way of dedicated method combinations. If there really is
>>some serious hindrance I would surely be interested in knowing this
>>upfront. ;)
>
> This seems a somewhat "extreme" claim.
>
> To be sure, I'd not expect to get "multiple dispatch for free" in the
> process of FFIing out to a set of Java libraries.
Perhaps there's a misunderstanding here: I am not writing an FFI-like
thing, but rather a kind of JIT that translates Java bytecode into Lisp
code at runtime. So this essentially produces true CLOS classes and
methods. I think you are quite free to do anything you want with the
outcome afterwards.
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
hey,
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in message news:<···········@newsreader2.netcologne.de>...
> > The mismatch between CLOS and Java is
> > so severe that if CL were to attempt to use Java's libraries (as in
> > JIL), you have to part from CLOS in some ways...similarly to how CL
> > implementations of Corba don't allow for specializing on more than one
> > argument.
>
> Huh? Could you explain in which sense the mismatch between Java's object
> model and CLOS is so severe? There are some differences but I don't have
> the impression they are severe.
>
> Background: I am currently implementing a JVM in Common Lisp, and the
> translation of Java's object model to CLOS seems to be doable as of yet
> by way of dedicated method combinations. If there really is some serious
> hindrance I would surely be interested in knowing this upfront. ;)
I am no expert in Jython or the underlying Java. However, I think my
point is correct, though it could use some clarification.
Part of the misunderstanding has to do with not just using existing
Java libraries, but defining new ones. In order to do this, CL must
constrain its OO system significantly. Here are some of the reasons:
o CLOS supports multiple inheritance; Java does not
o CLOS provides a programmable method dispatch mechanism
(method combination) that is not present in Java. for SMC alone,
that
means :before/:after/:around methods that don't exist in the Java
OO
framework.
o CLOS methods belong to a generic function -- not a class, as in
Java.
This presents namespace issues as well as deeper semantic
problems.
These are issues that can be solves through macro-level constraints,
meaning that the programmer will have to depart from using
DEFMETHOD/DEFGENERIC/DEFCLASS (among others) to really work well with
Java, similar to corba:define-method in LispWorks.
If you're just using the pre-existing Java libraries, that may not be
quite so challenging. But actually programming in parallel to Java,
and providing additional libraries and behavior -- usable by pure Java
programmers -- would probably help you to see this mismatch.
dave
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: JVM in CL, was Re: Lisp in Python
Date:
Message-ID: <3D931AAD.1000501@web.de>
Dave Bakhash wrote:
> hey,
>
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in message news:<···········@newsreader2.netcologne.de>...
[...]
>>Huh? Could you explain in which sense the mismatch between Java's object
>>model and CLOS is so severe? There are some differences but I don't have
>>the impression they are severe.
>>
>>Background: I am currently implementing a JVM in Common Lisp, and the
>>translation of Java's object model to CLOS seems to be doable as of yet
>>by way of dedicated method combinations. If there really is some serious
>>hindrance I would surely be interested in knowing this upfront. ;)
>
> I am no expert in Jython or the underlying Java. However, I think my
> point is correct, though it could use some clarification.
>
> Part of the misunderstanding has to do with not just using existing
> Java libraries, but defining new ones. In order to do this, CL must
> constrain its OO system significantly. Here are some of the reasons:
[...]
> If you're just using the pre-existing Java libraries, that may not be
> quite so challenging. But actually programming in parallel to Java,
> and providing additional libraries and behavior -- usable by pure Java
> programmers -- would probably help you to see this mismatch.
OK, now I understand your concern, thanks for clarification. At the
moment I am only thinking about how to make Java programs run inside of
a Common Lisp environment, or to be more specific, how to translate them
to CLOS classes and methods at runtime/loadtime. So this would
especially allow Common Lispers to use Java libraries, and modify them
for example with before/after/around advices etc.
I haven't yet thought about how Java programmers can make use of Common
Lisp libraries in such a scenario. And I don't think it's too important:
The design of my JVM will result in some conventions and some
macros/functions that allow you to provide classes explicitly for Java;
they would additionally need to be declared as Java classes with
"native" method declarations. (In this context, "native" of course means
"implemented in Common Lisp", not as native code of the platform. ;) So
accessing Common Lisp from Java wouldn't be automatic, but feasible. Do
you agree?
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
Hey Dave!
You wrote:
>...
> Part of the misunderstanding has to do with not just using existing
> Java libraries, but defining new ones. In order to do this, CL must
> constrain its OO system significantly. Here are some of the reasons:
>
> o CLOS supports multiple inheritance; Java does not
Yes it does. Java has multiple inheritance of interfaces. It just
leaves MI of implementation to the coder/compiler.
> o CLOS provides a programmable method dispatch mechanism
>...
> o CLOS methods belong to a generic function -- not a class, as in
> Java.
>...
A CLOS MOP for the JVM would probably use classes for generic functions.
Overloading would make the resulting classes mostly useful directly
with plain Java.
For those who want full CLOS functionality from Java, they would either
rely on a reflection-style dispatch API or use an enhanced compiler
(Generics for Java completed it's public review a year ago and
supposedly will be included in JDK 1.5).
It is important to distinguish between capabilities of the JVM versus
the extremely limited syntax of the Java Language. While implementing
CLOS for the JVM would certainly require some clever design, I don't
believe there is any insurmountable technical impediment.
jim
Jim White wrote:
> It is important to distinguish between capabilities of the JVM versus
> the extremely limited syntax of the Java Language. While implementing
> CLOS for the JVM would certainly require some clever design, I don't
> believe there is any insurmountable technical impediment.
You are right, there would be no conceptual barrier; but it would be
really hard to do.
There aren't too many differences between the Java language and the JVM;
compiling to the JVM is more or less the same as compiling to Java
source code. The JVM performs many typechecks and bytecode verification
at loadtime that disallow many potential workarounds. The JVM spec
requires a conforming implementation to perform these checks - in the
early days of Java you could switch off (some stages of) bytecode
verification, but that's not permitted anymore.
Pascal
·····@alum.mit.edu (Dave Bakhash) writes:
> Not at all. Jython runs, AFAIK, straight from Java. Java tends to be
> portable to just about any platform that anyone out there cares about
> -- VAX/VMS, OS/2, Linux, AIX, HPUX, SCO, Win32, BSDs...the list goes
> on forever. I don't think people have a problem with the portability
> of the JVM.
If you don't mind non-native ports perhaps. However, on *BSD one
either has to run an older native port (FreeBSD) or run under Linux
compatability which means that some things don't work :-<
> the bottom line is that Scheme sucks, and I would personally much
> rather code in Jython than in Scheme. Unlike Scheme, Python has an OO
> model, and that model happens to work well with Java, which is the
> reason for its success.
Kawa has a OO model that seems to work well with Java too. Obviously
if one uses it, one is no longer programming in standard Scheme but
since the comparison here is with Jython, standards clearly aren't an
issue.
If someone prefers Jython to Kawa or SISC, that's fine by me,
I was just pointing out that if someone wants an interactive
environment that can leverage various Java features, there are couple
of Scheme based ones available. That's obviously not the same as
having a Common Lisp available but some might find it a closer fit
than Python.
hey,
just in case people are interested in this thread, they really should
check out JiL from Franz:
http://www.franz.com/support/documentation/6.2/doc/jil.htm
Since this is probably the most advanced CL system out there that
compiles to JVM bytecodes, tracing this project will determine how much
of CL will fit the Java OO model. I havn't been following it closely,
but I don't remember them supporting CLOS, and then mapping it into
Java. Does anyone who uses JiL care to comment?
dave
·······@dino.dnsalias.com (Stephen J. Bevan) writes:
> [...] On the other hand if one programs for the (C implementation of)
> Python that runs on just about every platform then one cannot use the
> Java features of Jython.
Actually, though I caught this a bit late, I believe this is somewhat
misleading. Basically, to clarify, most people who "program Python"
do their best to avoid C-level programming. There are times, surely,
where you might feel you need to go to C, but those are rare. And
again, with all the Java libraries out there, it is most likely the case
that whatever you wanted to do in C you could just as easily do in Java
-- and that's if it hasn't already been done for you.
dave
In the last exciting episode, Dave Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> wrote::
> ·······@dino.dnsalias.com (Stephen J. Bevan) writes:
>
>> [...] On the other hand if one programs for the (C implementation of)
>> Python that runs on just about every platform then one cannot use the
>> Java features of Jython.
>
> Actually, though I caught this a bit late, I believe this is somewhat
> misleading. Basically, to clarify, most people who "program Python"
> do their best to avoid C-level programming. There are times, surely,
> where you might feel you need to go to C, but those are rare. And
> again, with all the Java libraries out there, it is most likely the case
> that whatever you wanted to do in C you could just as easily do in Java
> -- and that's if it hasn't already been done for you.
It's kind of the same difference as "programming mostly in C, with
occasional resort to assembler to pull in some MMX instructions." :-)
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ·············@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lisp.html
"If you want to talk with some experts about something, go to the bar
where they hang out, buy a round of beers, and they'll surely talk
your ear off, leaving you wiser than before.
If you, a stranger, show up at the bar, walk up to the table, and ask
them to fax you a position paper, they'll tell you to call their
office in the morning and ask for a rate sheet." -- Miguel Cruz
Dave Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> ·······@dino.dnsalias.com (Stephen J. Bevan) writes:
>
> > [...] On the other hand if one programs for the (C implementation of)
> > Python that runs on just about every platform then one cannot use the
> > Java features of Jython.
>
> Actually, though I caught this a bit late, I believe this is somewhat
> misleading.
> [snipped stuff about avoiding C-level programming in Python]
I can't connect your remark about what I wrote being misleading with
what I wrote since I made no mention of C-level programming in Python.
·······@dino.dnsalias.com (Stephen J. Bevan) writes:
> I can't connect your remark about what I wrote being misleading with
> what I wrote since I made no mention of C-level programming in Python.
You wrote:
> If you use the Java features of Jython then the code doesn't run on
> (the C implementation of) Python and hence it doesn't run on just
> about every platform, just the ones you have a JVM for. On the other
> hand if one programs for the (C implementation of) Python that runs on
> just about every platform then one cannot use the Java features of
> Jython. Therefore it seems to me that you are comparing Common Lisp
> to two languages with two orthogonal features (the ability to use Java
> libraries and the ability to run anywhere there is a gcc) not one
> which has all features.
I think there's been a simple misunderstanding. If you stick to writing
in Python, then it shouldn't matter what you're using, Jython or
Python, provided that the libraries are supported. What you said was:
> ·······@dino.dnsalias.com (Stephen J. Bevan) writes:
>
> > [...] On the other hand if one programs for the (C implementation
> > of) Python that runs on just about every platform then one cannot
> > use the Java features of Jython.
I was making the point that Jython wasn't actually "orthogonal" to
Python, but more a superset of it, in the sense that it supports the
same kinds of features, and yet takes advantage of the portability,
browser pluggability, and library extensibility.
I guess this stuff gets confusing...but I'm not really advocating
Python; I'm advocating the way Jython provided an implementation of
Python, and in doing so, also provided an easier way to get to the JVM
and Java libraries. That's all.
dave
Dave Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> I think there's been a simple misunderstanding.
Indeed there has. I think it is based on the following :-
o it runs on just about every platform...probably even more portable
than CLISP (it basically runs wherever there's a working gcc).
This was the last item in your list of advantages of Python over CL.
All the other advantages were common to both the Java-based version
(Jython) and the C-based version, but as written the above is specific
to the C-based version. If you had never mentioned the above
advantage and written Jython everywhere (i.e. ignored the original
C-based version of Python completely) then I would not have commented
on this point at all.
I would still have followed up with the note about Kawa and SISC since
if one is happy with to programming for a single-implementation
language such as Jython then Kawa and SISC both share many of the
features you list as advantages for Jython, with one obvious advantage
from a Lisp perspective being that syntactically and semantically they
are members of the Lisp family of languages (let's not get too picky
about the fact that they are members of the Lisp-1 rather than Lisp-2
subsets).
In article <···············@nerd-xing.mit.edu>, Dave Bakhash
<·····@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>I think the answer to this question is obvious. Python has many
>advantages over CL:
>
> o it's totally free (including the versions that are analogous to what
> in the CL community are considered commercial-grade.
But of course there are many definitions of the word free. Common
Lisp is "free enough" for many.
Or: In Common Lisp, white space is free. Python, from what I understand,
is "compiler free".
> o It's a fine language, with some of the same benefits that CL has
> (first class functions, runs interpreted or compiled, etc.)
As you know Dave, it lacks other key features (e.g., macros).
> o it's good for both scripting and for large-scale programs
Does the lack of (a) compile(r) hinder Python's effectiveness
for large-scale programs?
>CL has a strong case as well...but if CL ever had a rival, it would be
>Jython.
>
>Oh...and in about 3/4 of a meg, you can download a simple Java library
>(plugin) that implements a complete Jython interpreter right into the
>browser. Additional libraries are delivered on-demand. That is my
>current understanding, and it is a brilliant design. I don't love
>Python syntax, but many people do...and considering that many people
>also don't like Lisp's sexp's, it's not something to argue over.
>
>bottom line: there is a very strong argument that Jython has several
>important advantages over CL. While I think that the overall idea
>expressed in the link Lisp-in-Python paper was not that useful or
>interesting, I do see parallels in Python and CL already, and also
>places where Jython took the more pragmatic route.
If you go the Jython route, does this mean you get a compiler?
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 16:02:18 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> ,
undoubtedly inspired by the Great Cthulu wrote:
>I'm thinking pretty soon the light bulb has to go on and the Pythonians
>will ask themselves, "Why the Hell don't we just use Lisp?!"
I wish..