1. Python's tradeoffs, conscious or not, turn out to be a serious
pain. In particular its control constructs are deficient and poorly
designed compared to CL's. Breaking out of nested loops is just a
pain without named blocks, catch/throw &c. Yes, you can use
exceptions. Programming in Python feels like banging nails into your
head after a while.
2. Address space issues will become serious for many applications
shortly, if they are not already. The system I'm working on, which
runs on machines so tiny I don't even know quite where they are (cheap
blades of some kind), is right up against address space limits: we
can't reload the data, instead we have to fork a new process and load
into that. As in the latter days of PDP11s, the problem isn't
physical memory - all the machines have 4GB, and I don't think it's a
problem for them to have more - but address space: 2GB isn't enough,
just like 64Kwords wasn't. I'm glad there's at least one fairly
convincing looking 64bit CL...
--tim
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> 2. Address space issues will become serious for many applications
> shortly, if they are not already. The system I'm working on, which
> runs on machines so tiny I don't even know quite where they are (cheap
> blades of some kind), is right up against address space limits: we
> can't reload the data, instead we have to fork a new process and load
> into that. As in the latter days of PDP11s, the problem isn't
> physical memory - all the machines have 4GB, and I don't think it's a
> problem for them to have more - but address space: 2GB isn't enough,
> just like 64Kwords wasn't. I'm glad there's at least one fairly
> convincing looking 64bit CL...
Oh yes. But then we'll probably have some still time concerning word length:
Assuming 4GB as your avg RAM and Moore's law to continue you'll be able to
address your avg RAM with 63 bits address space until the year:
2004 + 1.5 * log2 (2^63-2^32) =~ 2004 + 1.5*63 = 2098.5
;)
--
"But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
- Paul Graham.
Thomas Schilling <······@yahoo.de> writes:
> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>
> > 2. Address space issues will become serious for many applications
> > shortly, if they are not already. The system I'm working on, which
> > runs on machines so tiny I don't even know quite where they are (cheap
> > blades of some kind), is right up against address space limits: we
> > can't reload the data, instead we have to fork a new process and load
> > into that. As in the latter days of PDP11s, the problem isn't
> > physical memory - all the machines have 4GB, and I don't think it's a
> > problem for them to have more - but address space: 2GB isn't enough,
> > just like 64Kwords wasn't. I'm glad there's at least one fairly
> > convincing looking 64bit CL...
>
> Oh yes. But then we'll probably have some still time concerning word length:
> Assuming 4GB as your avg RAM and Moore's law to continue you'll be able to
> address your avg RAM with 63 bits address space until the year:
> 2004 + 1.5 * log2 (2^63-2^32) =~ 2004 + 1.5*63 = 2098.5
>
> ;)
Word length is no longer a problem for us. Give me a 128 bit machine
(and a market for it) and I'll give you a 128-bit lisp. But don't
wait until 2098; I won't wait that long...
> "But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
> - Paul Graham.
I started learning Lisp at age 31.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>
> I started learning Lisp at age 31.
>
I was 34 when I downloaded CMUCL and bought Graham's ANSI Common Lisp book
Jock Cooper <·····@mail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
| > I started learning Lisp at age 31.
|
| I was 34 when I downloaded CMUCL and bought Graham's ANSI Common Lisp book
+---------------
While I was briefly & superficially exposed to Lisp 1.5 when I
was 25 or so (can you say "Eliza"?), it wasn't until I was 46
that I seriously started learning and using Scheme, some time
later still to begin reading about Common Lisp (including "ANSI CL"
and "On Lisp"), and it wasn't until I was *56* that I started
seriously coding in Common Lisp (and dropped Scheme).
Oh, well, some of us are slow... ;-} ;-}
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
"Rob Warnock" <····@rpw3.org> wrote in message
···························@speakeasy.net...
> Jock Cooper <·····@mail.com> wrote:
> +---------------
> | Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> | > I started learning Lisp at age 31.
> |
> | I was 34 when I downloaded CMUCL and bought Graham's ANSI Common Lisp
book
> +---------------
>
> While I was briefly & superficially exposed to Lisp 1.5 when I
> was 25 or so
I guess most of what I know about Lisp I learned at 2 years old. The Lisp
Language I picked up later, maybe 18?
The point is, that many of the Lisp concepts stem from a way of thinking
about the world, which personally I found more natural than the artificial
ones foisted on me in the interim by the likes of FORTRAN, COBOL, PL/I, etc.
I think that's why when I glommed onto Lisp it stuck with me, though I
didn't start using it professionally until many years later (at 27).
So I'd have to say I started learning Lisp at 2, though I didn't know at the
time that that was what I was doing :-).
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote in message news:<·············@franz.com>...
> Thomas Schilling <······@yahoo.de> writes:
> > "But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
> > - Paul Graham.
>
> I started learning Lisp at age 31.
Starting age 30 over here.
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote in message news:<·············@franz.com>...
>> Thomas Schilling <······@yahoo.de> writes:
>> > "But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
>> > - Paul Graham.
>>
>> I started learning Lisp at age 31.
>
> Starting age 30 over here.
Used Interlisp at 22 for a year, but started learning Common Lisp at 46.
--
gak
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote in message news:<·············@franz.com>...
>> Thomas Schilling <······@yahoo.de> writes:
>> > "But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
>> > - Paul Graham.
>>
>> I started learning Lisp at age 31.
>
> Starting age 30 over here.
33 here.
marc
On 22 Apr 2004 07:43:12 -0700, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
>> "But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
>> - Paul Graham.
>
> I started learning Lisp at age 31.
I started when I was 35. Someone here even later?
Edi Weitz wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2004 07:43:12 -0700, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>"But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
>>>- Paul Graham.
>>
>>I started learning Lisp at age 31.
>
>
> I started when I was 35. Someone here even later?
No, but I started when I was 28, which is also above Graham's cutoff.
Sixteen years later I'm still learning Lisp.
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:06:23 +0000, mikel wrote:
> Edi Weitz wrote:
>
>> On 22 Apr 2004 07:43:12 -0700, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>"But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
>>>>- Paul Graham.
>>>
>>>I started learning Lisp at age 31.
>>
>>
>> I started when I was 35. Someone here even later?
>
> No, but I started when I was 28, which is also above Graham's cutoff.
> Sixteen years later I'm still learning Lisp.
I was 12 when I learned Lisp - unfortunately not CL though, it was
"PC-LISP" (dynamic scope was still very much in fashion). When I was 26 I
learned Scheme and now, aged 28, I really want to finally teach myself CL
(Real Soon Now, when I get some spare time!)
So I guess I'll both confirm *and* contradict Paul Graham's remark ;-)
Cheers,
Bill.
--
Dr. William Bland www.abstractnonsense.com
Computer Programmer awksedgrep (Yahoo IM)
Any sufficiently advanced Emacs user is indistinguishable from magic
mikel <·····@evins.net> writes:
> No, but I started when I was 28, which is also above Graham's
> cutoff. Sixteen years later I'm still learning Lisp.
I first had a look at it when I was 25, decided Prolog was more fun,
but then finally started learning lisp at the age of 27. Now I'm
42 and still learning :-)
--
(espen)
Edi Weitz <···@agharta.de> wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2004 07:43:12 -0700, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
>
> >> "But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
> >> - Paul Graham.
> >
> > I started learning Lisp at age 31.
>
> I started when I was 35. Someone here even later?
No, but I was 35 also, and that was just a year plus ago, right around
the time that PG wrote that.
Michael
Edi Weitz wrote:
> I started when I was 35. Someone here even later?
Well techincally I started when I was about 1 year old.
I started to order things into lists and generate
vast amounts of garbage. I would classify that as the
garbage collection method as the cleanup always happened
after I had finished with the activity. (My Mom would
make me clean up). I would also begin to create functions
to remember how to do things in a conceptual sense. I
did not like details, and it has continued with a distaste
for static typing.
Wade
Wade Humeniuk <····································@telus.net> writes:
> Edi Weitz wrote:
>
> > I started when I was 35. Someone here even later?
>
> Well techincally I started when I was about 1 year old.
> I started to order things into lists and generate
> vast amounts of garbage.
Ah, yes, the old bibop (big bag of poop) method...
But were they already linked lists, even at that age, or were they
all allocated in a heap?
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig wrote:
> Wade Humeniuk <····································@telus.net> writes:
>
>
>>Edi Weitz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I started when I was 35. Someone here even later?
>>
>>Well techincally I started when I was about 1 year old.
>>I started to order things into lists and generate
>>vast amounts of garbage.
>
>
> Ah, yes, the old bibop (big bag of poop) method...
>
> But were they already linked lists, even at that age, or were they
> all allocated in a heap?
>
Well my memories of the time are practically non-existent. BUT, with
my own children (who have thankfully are long past the diaper stage),
it seemed like linked lists (how many diapers a day?). I would think
mark (smell) and sweep (wipe) was the collection method:
disposable diapers (huggies) and frequent changes.
Wade
Wade Humeniuk <····································@telus.net> writes:
> Duane Rettig wrote:
> > Wade Humeniuk <····································@telus.net> writes:
> >
>
> >>Edi Weitz wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I started when I was 35. Someone here even later?
> >>
> >>Well techincally I started when I was about 1 year old.
> >>I started to order things into lists and generate
> >>vast amounts of garbage.
> > Ah, yes, the old bibop (big bag of poop) method...
>
> > But were they already linked lists, even at that age, or were they
>
> > all allocated in a heap?
>
> Well my memories of the time are practically non-existent. BUT, with
> my own children (who have thankfully are long past the diaper stage),
> it seemed like linked lists (how many diapers a day?). I would think
> mark (smell) and sweep (wipe) was the collection method:
> disposable diapers (huggies) and frequent changes.
Yes. My own parents didn't have the gc technology (or it was much too
expensive); they used the malloc/free (grab a cloth diaper from the
clean pile / wash and put back) approach. It wasn't too bad, except that
the coalescing phase of the free operation was fairly involved and
required its own mini mark-and-sweep every time. When my wife and I had
our kids, we started with the malloc/free, because memory (disposables)
was just too expensive. But as all things do, memory got cheaper, and
we started using the gc method. Now our kids are having kids, and I
don't think they know what malloc/free is. They do have this newfangled
gadget, which allows one to twist a reclaimed object into a plastic
linked-list, and then that gets stuffed into a container, so you don't
have to worry about extra bits or bites getting leaked...
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> Wade Humeniuk <····································@telus.net> writes:
>
>> Duane Rettig wrote:
>> > Wade Humeniuk <····································@telus.net> writes:
>> >
>>
>> >>Edi Weitz wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>I started when I was 35. Someone here even later?
>> >>
>> >>Well techincally I started when I was about 1 year old.
>> >>I started to order things into lists and generate
>> >>vast amounts of garbage.
>> > Ah, yes, the old bibop (big bag of poop) method...
>>
>> > But were they already linked lists, even at that age, or were they
>>
>> > all allocated in a heap?
>>
>> Well my memories of the time are practically non-existent. BUT, with
>> my own children (who have thankfully are long past the diaper stage),
>> it seemed like linked lists (how many diapers a day?). I would think
>> mark (smell) and sweep (wipe) was the collection method:
>> disposable diapers (huggies) and frequent changes.
>
> Yes. My own parents didn't have the gc technology (or it was much too
> expensive); they used the malloc/free (grab a cloth diaper from the
> clean pile / wash and put back) approach.
You were lucky. My folks used reference counting....
--
~jrm
Joe Marshall wrote:
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>
>
>>Wade Humeniuk <····································@telus.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Duane Rettig wrote:
>>>
>>>>Wade Humeniuk <····································@telus.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>Edi Weitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I started when I was 35. Someone here even later?
>>>>>
>>>>>Well techincally I started when I was about 1 year old.
>>>>>I started to order things into lists and generate
>>>>>vast amounts of garbage.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, yes, the old bibop (big bag of poop) method...
>>>
>>>>But were they already linked lists, even at that age, or were they
>>>
>>>>all allocated in a heap?
>>>
>>>Well my memories of the time are practically non-existent. BUT, with
>>>my own children (who have thankfully are long past the diaper stage),
>>>it seemed like linked lists (how many diapers a day?). I would think
>>>mark (smell) and sweep (wipe) was the collection method:
>>>disposable diapers (huggies) and frequent changes.
>>
>>Yes. My own parents didn't have the gc technology (or it was much too
>>expensive); they used the malloc/free (grab a cloth diaper from the
>>clean pile / wash and put back) approach.
Wow, they made that work? Being Lisp children, me and my two brothers
shared clothing, so my parents could never be sure when to throw it in
the washing machine--one of us might still be in those diapers! And I am
a lot older than you guys, so this is was before GC. Our family just
lived in a house until it filled up with dirty diapers, then we knocked
it down and built a new one.
kenny
--
Home? http://tilton-technology.com
Cells? http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Cello? http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cello/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
Edi Weitz wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2004 07:43:12 -0700, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
>
>>> "But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn
>>> Lisp." - Paul Graham.
>>
>> I started learning Lisp at age 31.
>
> I started when I was 35. Someone here even later?
36 and just starting. ;-)
Well, okay, that was the second time. If you count a very small intro during
college (kcl at the time) and a bit of Scheme just after graduation, that
would make it in my early 20's. I have this theory that 20-something's
can't stand the parenthesis, though. By the time you reach your 30's you
have been through enough programming to understand that things like the
parens are actually a benefit, not a hindrance, etc.
--
Dave Roberts
·············@re-move.droberts.com
http://www.findinglisp.com/blog
Edi Weitz wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2004 07:43:12 -0700, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>"But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
>>>- Paul Graham.
>>
>>I started learning Lisp at age 31.
>
>
> I started when I was 35. Someone here even later?
61 - about a year ago.
I guess I'm not too old to teach a young dog new tricks ...
No, wait, I mean ... What *was* that saying, anyway :-) :-)
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote in message
> I started learning Lisp at age 31.
45 here. (scheme at 37)
Graham did convince me - him and Kenny Tilton.
Just finished Graham's Common Lisp. Starting PAIP.
I started learning Pascal at 19, C at 20, Lisp (VLisp, Scheme, and
Franz) at 21.
I started learning Perl at 34. I started learning Python at 38.
I am still doing (Common) Lisp. I am glad I am not doing the other two
(or three or four) :)
Cheers
marco
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Yet another Lisp Myth debunked (was: Two unrelated remarks)
Date:
Message-ID: <4oepilpai.fsf_-_@franz.com>
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> Thomas Schilling <······@yahoo.de> writes:
[ ... ]
> > "But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
> > - Paul Graham.
>
> I started learning Lisp at age 31.
It seems as though this quip to what even I thought was a generally
true statement has caused a flurry of anecdotal evidence to the
contrary. Of course, it is only anecdotal and self-selecting, but
I am surprised by the numbers and especially by individuals whom I
would have thought had started Lisp much earlier in life. Very
interesting.
Perhaps in analyzing the saying "You can't teach an old dog new
tricks", there's an age difference between "an old dog" and
"an old Lisp dog".
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig wrote:
>>>"But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
>>>- Paul Graham.
>
> It seems as though this quip to what even I thought was a generally
> true statement has caused a flurry of anecdotal evidence to the
> contrary. Of course, it is only anecdotal and self-selecting, but
> I am surprised by the numbers and especially by individuals whom I
> would have thought had started Lisp much earlier in life. Very
> interesting.
To be pedantic, PG only said that *he* couldn't convince programmers of
a certain age of the value of Lisp.
That said, I myself am a counterexample, as his writings were part of my
motivation.
I'd be inclined to think that the over 25 market would be more likely to
be receptive to radical new :-) technologies. They've worked long enough
with the industry standards not to believe the hype, and are receptive
to solutions to the problems they've come to understand.
Younger programmers would be more susceptible to expensive marketing
campaigns by the usual vendors, and more focused on the skills listed in
the employment ads.
--
Cameron MacKinnon
Toronto, Canada
Cameron MacKinnon <··········@clearspot.net> writes:
> Duane Rettig wrote:
> >>>"But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
> >>>- Paul Graham.
> > It seems as though this quip to what even I thought was a generally
>
> > true statement has caused a flurry of anecdotal evidence to the
> > contrary. Of course, it is only anecdotal and self-selecting, but
> > I am surprised by the numbers and especially by individuals whom I
> > would have thought had started Lisp much earlier in life. Very
> > interesting.
>
> To be pedantic, PG only said that *he* couldn't convince programmers
> of a certain age of the value of Lisp.
Pedantry is only effective (in annoying people) if it is correct, and
you've gone and refuted your own pedantry.
But to practice a little one-upsmanship on your pedantry, that is not
actually what PG said.
Consider the four phrases:
"I don't expect for myself to convince ..."
"I don't expect us to convince ..."
"I don't expect this article to convince ..."
"I don't expect anyone to convince ..."
All four interpretations are equally correct, and might be applicable
depending on the context. If you look at the article from which the
statement came (http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html) and especially the
surrounding paragraph, it is clear that he intended the third meaning,
not the first. However, even with that interpretation the statement
is false, since many I have talked to have attested to coming to
Common Lisp based on his books _and_ his articles, including this one,
and I wouldn't doubt that some are over 25.
Note also that in the article the parenthesized phrase (over 25) is a
link to an article by a high school graduate. Interestinly, this article
was not about learning Common Lisp, but about learning Scheme. Perhaps
there is some correlation there.
> That said, I myself am a counterexample, as his writings were part of
> my motivation.
And indeed, you are not the only one who has mentioned being a
counterexample even to the first interpretation of PG's statement.
> I'd be inclined to think that the over 25 market would be more likely
> to be receptive to radical new :-) technologies. They've worked long
> enough with the industry standards not to believe the hype, and are
> receptive to solutions to the problems they've come to understand.
I agree with this argument, but it leads me to the opposite conclusion -
that the older one gets the more one wants to go with the tried and
true, or at least with the grounded, not with the radical new...
> Younger programmers would be more susceptible to expensive marketing
> campaigns by the usual vendors, and more focused on the skills listed
> in the employment ads.
Agreed.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig wrote:
> But to practice a little one-upsmanship on your pedantry, that is not
> actually what PG said.
>
> Consider the four phrases:
>
> "I don't expect for myself to convince ..."
>
> "I don't expect us to convince ..."
>
> "I don't expect this article to convince ..."
>
> "I don't expect anyone to convince ..."
"I don't expect not to convince ..." - You can't just add words and say
it's a valid interpretation. English doesn't work that way.
Phrases one and three are, effectively, the same. To argue otherwise is
to suggest that PG had better arguments than those he presented in his
article, but he was saving them for some other time. In rhetoric, you
have to assume that your opponent is marshalling his best arguments.
> All four interpretations are equally correct, and might be applicable
> depending on the context. If you look at the article from which the
> statement came (http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html) and especially the
> surrounding paragraph, it is clear that he intended the third meaning,
> not the first.
From the top of the article:
"April 2001, rev. April 2003
This article is derived from a talk given at the 2001 Franz Developer
Symposium."
So I'd say PG was preaching to the converted, or at least to those
willing to be swayed.
> However, even with that interpretation the statement
> is false, since many I have talked to have attested to coming to
> Common Lisp based on his books _and_ his articles, including this one,
> and I wouldn't doubt that some are over 25.
That he was wrong doesn't nullify his expectations. We have to assume
that his statement, about what he expected, was true at the time he made
it. Or do you think he was pulling our collective leg?
--
Cameron MacKinnon
Toronto, Canada
Cameron MacKinnon <··········@clearspot.net> writes:
> Duane Rettig wrote:
> > But to practice a little one-upsmanship on your pedantry, that is not
> > actually what PG said.
> > Consider the four phrases:
>
> > "I don't expect for myself to convince ..."
>
> > "I don't expect us to convince ..."
>
> > "I don't expect this article to convince ..."
>
> > "I don't expect anyone to convince ..."
>
>
> "I don't expect not to convince ..." - You can't just add words and
> say it's a valid interpretation. English doesn't work that way.
Well, of course English doesn't work the way in which you've just
demonstrated, but it certainly does work by elision; a good portion
of communication skills is based on what is _not_ said.
The antecedent of the prepositional phrase "to convince..." is elided.
It is not the preposition at the beginning of the sentence, which is
in fact the subject for the transitive verb "expect". Note that expect
is missing its object, as well, and that object ends up serving as the
subject of the prepositional verb-phrase "to convince".
The reader/hearer of such elision is the one who supplies the elided
object/antecedent, which can be any word whose subjective form can serve
as the subject of the phrase "<subject> <tense> convince(s) anyone ...
to learn Lisp", and which can thus be any one of "myself (I)", "us (we)",
"this article", or "anyone" (or other objects, as well), but
which _cannot_ be "not", which is never a noun (unless enclosed
in double-quotes).
> Phrases one and three are, effectively, the same.
I disagree.
> To argue otherwise
> is to suggest that PG had better arguments than those he presented in
> his article, but he was saving them for some other time.
So argued. PG has written many articles at various times, and I'm sure
if you looked closely they would not all be completely consistent,
but even if they were, and he had said all that he had had to say,
then why would he write the other articles? If he writes on top of the
pinnacle of his own writing, then further writing would be redundant.
> In rhetoric, you have to assume that your opponent is marshalling
> his best arguments.
If you do that, you'll lose some of your arguments. There are a
number of reasons why a rhetorical opponent doesn't always marshal
his best arguments.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig wrote:
> Cameron MacKinnon <··········@clearspot.net> writes:
>
>
>>Duane Rettig wrote:
>>
>>>>>"But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
>>>>>- Paul Graham.
>>>
>>>It seems as though this quip to what even I thought was a generally
>>
>>>true statement has caused a flurry of anecdotal evidence to the
>>>contrary. Of course, it is only anecdotal and self-selecting, but
>>>I am surprised by the numbers and especially by individuals whom I
>>>would have thought had started Lisp much earlier in life. Very
>>>interesting.
>>
>>To be pedantic, PG only said that *he* couldn't convince programmers
>>of a certain age of the value of Lisp.
>
>
> Pedantry is only effective (in annoying people) if it is correct, and
> you've gone and refuted your own pedantry.
>
> But to practice a little one-upsmanship on your pedantry, that is not
> actually what PG said.
>
> Consider the four phrases:
>
> "I don't expect for myself to convince ..."
>
> "I don't expect us to convince ..."
>
> "I don't expect this article to convince ..."
>
> "I don't expect anyone to convince ..."
>
> All four interpretations are equally correct, and might be applicable
> depending on the context. If you look at the article from which the
> statement came (http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html) and especially the
> surrounding paragraph, it is clear that he intended the third meaning,
> not the first. However, even with that interpretation the statement
> is false, since many I have talked to have attested to coming to
> Common Lisp based on his books _and_ his articles, including this one,
> and I wouldn't doubt that some are over 25.
That does not make his statement false. He said he did not expect to
convince. That (non) expectation going unfulfilled does not change what
he expected.
Now /that/ pedantry should be annoying. :)
kt
--
Home? http://tilton-technology.com
Cells? http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Cello? http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cello/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Yet another Lisp Myth debunked
Date:
Message-ID: <7jw69cq3.fsf@comcast.net>
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> Pedantry is only effective (in annoying people) if it is correct...
Technically, it would be a stretch to call it `pedantry'.
I trust I have achieved the desired effect.
--
~jrm
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:35:38 -0400, Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
> Younger programmers would be [...] more focused on the skills
> listed in the employment ads.
We don't have much choice. As a young(ish) programmer, I don't have a lot
of successful projects I can list when I apply for a job. I can give a
list of languages that I am more or less fluent in, but the only one that
people seem to pay any attention to is Java. Most interviewers I've
talked to have been a *lot* more interested in the fact that I can write
Java than the fact that I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, or that I've been
programming computers since I was 9 years old. I do have projects I've
done in my spare time that I consider successes. Unfortunately, again,
the interviewers I've come into contact with ask me to restrict the
discussion to "commercial" projects. I would hope that, as I get older,
I'll be able to list successful commercial projects and then when asked
what language I would use for the project I'm being interviewed for I'll
say "Lisp". Perhaps I'm naive to think the successful projects will
outweigh the "weird" choice of languages in any interviewer's mind?
Cheers,
Bill.
--
Dr. William Bland www.abstractnonsense.com
Computer Programmer awksedgrep (Yahoo IM)
Any sufficiently advanced Emacs user is indistinguishable from magic
"William Bland" <····@abstractnonsense.com> wrote in message
···································@abstractnonsense.com...
> Perhaps I'm naive to think the successful projects will
> outweigh the "weird" choice of languages in any interviewer's mind?
In order to get by the HR keyword scans you have to list languages,
projects, etc. that they care about.
Speaking from personal experience...
If you are looking for a job where they don't care about the language you
used, you aren't looking for a programming job. From what I've seen,
companies hire "C++ programmers" and "Java programmers". They don't care
what they've done before for the most part, other than to demonstrate they
know about CMM, or other methodological ways to develop software in the
large.
The back door, as it were, is to get in based on other kinds of
requirements, e.g., technologies and non-programming skills. For instance,
if you have a demonstrated ability to get DARPA awards, nobody is going to
care if you use Lisp to execute the contract; they're hiring you for your
ability to bring money in to the business. Similarly if you understand
unsupervised learning techniques deeply, they will bring you in to architect
and teach their staff those techniques (assuming they already have bought,
or you can sell them, that it's relevant to their product or interest).
Companies need people to lead them into the future. Sell that, not "Lisp."
Cameron MacKinnon <··········@clearspot.net> wrote in message news:<······················@golden.net>...
> Duane Rettig wrote:
> >>>"But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
> >>>- Paul Graham.
> >
> > It seems as though this quip to what even I thought was a generally
> > true statement has caused a flurry of anecdotal evidence to the
> > contrary. Of course, it is only anecdotal and self-selecting, but
> > I am surprised by the numbers and especially by individuals whom I
> > would have thought had started Lisp much earlier in life. Very
> > interesting.
>
> To be pedantic, PG only said that *he* couldn't convince programmers of
> a certain age of the value of Lisp.
>
> That said, I myself am a counterexample, as his writings were part of my
> motivation.
>
> I'd be inclined to think that the over 25 market would be more likely to
> be receptive to radical new :-) technologies. They've worked long enough
> with the industry standards not to believe the hype, and are receptive
> to solutions to the problems they've come to understand.
>
> Younger programmers would be more susceptible to expensive marketing
> campaigns by the usual vendors, and more focused on the skills listed in
> the employment ads.
Absolutely. Especially given that companies like Microsoft and Sun do
their best to indoctrinate college students with Java and C# hype.
>>>>> "Cameron" == Cameron MacKinnon <··········@clearspot.net> writes:
Cameron> Younger programmers would be more susceptible to expensive
Cameron> marketing campaigns by the usual vendors, and more focused on
Cameron> the skills listed in the employment ads.
I think that younger programmers are mostly susceptible to the current
cool trends more than advertising as such. It is not that advertising
is not able to influence the trends but it does not decide it.
The current craze with Java is based kostly on Javas ability to the
hall-of-PL-fame as the internet programming language, in part inspired
by clever marketing but just as much by being at the right place at
the right time.
When I was a young programmer (late 80's) the cool language, at least
in my local corner of academia, was C. This was not based on marketing
but on the macho-attitude of Real Programmers which had a great appeal
on misguided wannabees such as myself.
On the other hand, a two-point dataset is not that convincing. I do
not know whether young programmers of the 70's were flocking to COBOL
due to the prospects in the work place? It may be that the C cult was
kind of a rebellion against the mainstream, a bit like the punk
movement within music. Certainly, programming in C is the equivalent
of shaving your head and punching needles through your flesh while
bickering about the black and futureless world.
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech | christian ··@ defun #\. dk
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
- ·······@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> It seems as though this quip to what even I thought was a generally
> true statement has caused a flurry of anecdotal evidence to the
> contrary. Of course, it is only anecdotal and self-selecting, but
> I am surprised by the numbers and especially by individuals whom I
> would have thought had started Lisp much earlier in life. Very
> interesting.
Some people decide to stop learning already in their twenties (are
these the same people that stick to their high school friends and
think that the prom (or equivalent) was the summit of their lives?),
other people keep learning their whole life.
My 70 year old mother is not too bad, she is somewhat reluctant to
replacing OS 9 with OS X on her mac, but yesterday she let my 12 year
old daughter teach her how to operate her new cellular efficiently ;-)
--
(espen)
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
>Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>
>> Thomas Schilling <······@yahoo.de> writes:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> > "But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
>> > - Paul Graham.
>>
>> I started learning Lisp at age 31.
>
>It seems as though this quip to what even I thought was a generally
>true statement has caused a flurry of anecdotal evidence to the
>contrary. Of course, it is only anecdotal and self-selecting, but
>I am surprised by the numbers and especially by individuals whom I
>would have thought had started Lisp much earlier in life. Very
>interesting.
>
>Perhaps in analyzing the saying "You can't teach an old dog new
>tricks", there's an age difference between "an old dog" and
>"an old Lisp dog".
Hello Anti-Myth,
I know a few other old Lisp dogs, including me. I started at 33.
Francis
From: Johan Kullstam
Subject: Re: Yet another Lisp Myth debunked (was: Two unrelated remarks)
Date:
Message-ID: <87vfjm2ja5.fsf@sophia.axel.nom>
Francis Leboutte <··········@algo.be> writes:
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
>
> >Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> >
> >> Thomas Schilling <······@yahoo.de> writes:
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >> > "But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
> >> > - Paul Graham.
> >>
> >> I started learning Lisp at age 31.
> >
> >It seems as though this quip to what even I thought was a generally
> >true statement has caused a flurry of anecdotal evidence to the
> >contrary. Of course, it is only anecdotal and self-selecting, but
> >I am surprised by the numbers and especially by individuals whom I
> >would have thought had started Lisp much earlier in life. Very
> >interesting.
> >
> >Perhaps in analyzing the saying "You can't teach an old dog new
> >tricks", there's an age difference between "an old dog" and
> >"an old Lisp dog".
>
> Hello Anti-Myth,
>
> I know a few other old Lisp dogs, including me. I started at 33.
I think I was 33 as well. I did a lot of computing during the 80s and
learned the popular stuff from that era such as Basic, Pascal, various
flavors of assembler and later, C and Matlab. No one ever talked
about Lisp.
I do recall vaguely some Scientific American articles by Hoffstader
(sp?) describing lisp and thinking it seemed neat, but I had no
computer system accessible at the time.
Emacs and a frustration expressed about the popular languages C, and
especially C++ in the comp.emacs prompted Erik Naggum to suggest
Lisp. I figured it was worth a look and got the aluminium book, the
Graham pair and Norvig PAIP. I still do not do much in Lisp
(mostly I do matlab) but I really found it to be a mind stretcher. I
am now a better programmer in the other languages for it, and I am
also less satisfied with them.
I figure many Lisper come to it when older because it sure doesn't
have much mindshare (although it seems to be doing better than it has
in a long time). From the posts in this newsgroup, a few life-long
learner types searching for something that sucks a little less seem to
keep finding it.
--
Johan KULLSTAM
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> I started learning Lisp at age 31.
Around 27 here, but got a lot more serious about it around 30.
--
Steven E. Harris :: ········@raytheon.com
Raytheon :: http://www.raytheon.com
"Steven E. Harris" <········@raytheon.com> wrote in message
····················@L75001820.us.ray.com...
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>
> > I started learning Lisp at age 31.
>
> Around 27 here, but got a lot more serious about it around 30.
33, haven't stopped to look back yet ;)
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote in message news:<·············@franz.com>...
> > "But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
> > - Paul Graham.
>
> I started learning Lisp at age 31.
At 28 myself (almost two years ago). It makes much sense to me that it
takes people quite a few years to orientate towards Lisp. Are the
other programming language related newsgroups this old (or mature if
you like)? I don't think so.
Well, I don't even know if this newsgroup is old at all. Perhaps we
should move/continue this demographic survey on the RoadToLisp pages?
Gabor
Gabor Melis wrote:
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote in message news:<·············@franz.com>...
>
>>>"But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
>>>- Paul Graham.
>>
>>I started learning Lisp at age 31.
>
>
> At 28 myself (almost two years ago). It makes much sense to me that it
> takes people quite a few years to orientate towards Lisp. Are the
> other programming language related newsgroups this old (or mature if
> you like)? I don't think so.
>
> Well, I don't even know if this newsgroup is old at all. Perhaps we
> should move/continue this demographic survey on the RoadToLisp pages?
We could certainly cull new datapoints from there. As for me:
Common Lisp: 44
Logo: 34
kenny
--
Home? http://tilton-technology.com
Cells? http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Cello? http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cello/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
On 8728 day of my life Kenny Tilton wrote:
> We could certainly cull new datapoints from there. As for me:
>
> Common Lisp: 44
> Logo: 34
No wonder: Logo is for children, and CL is for adults. So you
switched to CL 10 years later...
:)
--
Ivan Boldyrev
Your bytes are bitten.
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote in message news:<·············@franz.com>...
> Thomas Schilling <······@yahoo.de> writes:
>
> > Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> >
> > > 2. Address space issues will become serious for many applications
> > > shortly, if they are not already. The system I'm working on, which
> > > runs on machines so tiny I don't even know quite where they are (cheap
> > > blades of some kind), is right up against address space limits: we
> > > can't reload the data, instead we have to fork a new process and load
> > > into that. As in the latter days of PDP11s, the problem isn't
> > > physical memory - all the machines have 4GB, and I don't think it's a
> > > problem for them to have more - but address space: 2GB isn't enough,
> > > just like 64Kwords wasn't. I'm glad there's at least one fairly
> > > convincing looking 64bit CL...
> >
> > Oh yes. But then we'll probably have some still time concerning word length:
> > Assuming 4GB as your avg RAM and Moore's law to continue you'll be able to
> > address your avg RAM with 63 bits address space until the year:
> > 2004 + 1.5 * log2 (2^63-2^32) =~ 2004 + 1.5*63 = 2098.5
> >
> > ;)
>
> Word length is no longer a problem for us. Give me a 128 bit machine
> (and a market for it) and I'll give you a 128-bit lisp. But don't
> wait until 2098; I won't wait that long...
>
> > "But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp."
> > - Paul Graham.
>
> I started learning Lisp at age 31.
PHP at 12, Java at 13, CL at 14, now Scheme at 15. Does your taste in
languages improve with age?