Seriously, I started writing the post as a parody of "lisp sucks for
games", but it turned out to be a bit less light-hearted then
originally intended.
Blame Kenny for "no such thing as bad publicity". At the very worst,
it will make some people think of what it is that they are missing in
C++ and what that Lisp thing is.
P.S. I'm not Mike Cox, I don't develop Xbox OS, I'm not a CL noob,
and I did not fake the moon landing photos.
Neo-LISPer wrote:
> Seriously, I started writing the post as a parody of "lisp sucks for
> games", but it turned out to be a bit less light-hearted then
> originally intended.
>
Duh. That's what happens when you cross-post on three high-traffic
groups, two of which have little context to understand it to be a
parody...
You have posted the above explanation to the one newsgroup which did
have that context, so, unless you repeated your "STILL sucks"
clarification post to c.l.c++ and c.g.d.p.m and it just hasn't shown up
in my newsfeed yet, I humbly suggest it might be a good idea to clarify
on the other groups too...
> P.S. I'm not Mike Cox,
Aha! But he would say that! ;-)
From: Neo-LISPer
Subject: Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games
Date:
Message-ID: <87654y9yyr.fsf@yahoo.com>
David Golden <············@oceanfree.net> writes:
> You have posted the above explanation to the one newsgroup which did
> have that context, so, unless you repeated your "STILL sucks"
> clarification post to c.l.c++ and c.g.d.p.m and it just hasn't shown up
> in my newsfeed yet, I humbly suggest it might be a good idea to clarify
> on the other groups too...
Nay. Let's leave art open to interpretation. Besides, I meant what I wrote.
> > P.S. I'm not Mike Cox,
>
> Aha! But he would say that! ;-)
But I am Mike Cox! Thank Satan for Goedel.
Neo-LISPer wrote:
> Blame Kenny for "no such thing as bad publicity". At the very worst,
> it will make some people think of what it is that they are missing in
> C++ and what that Lisp thing is.
I realized what that phrase "no such thing as bad publicity" means,
when I observed the phenomenon where people manufacture lies about
Lisp. Of course publicity can have detrimental effects. But the point
is, it's possible to turn and mitigate it.
In other words, it only means, "When life gives you lemons, make
lemonade."
If you wish to learn more about public relations, I suggest these
audios/videos:
http://www.lehetmasavilag.hu/chomsky.html
http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm
I personally dislike usenet people going around saying X sucks without
seriously considering other views; I just think they're jerks. It
inspires some of your audience to invent negative lies about Lisp.
However, if you were going to go through with such an antisocial
tactic, you need to give people some place to go. "So Lisp is great.
Fine. Do I go home now, or should I look at something?"
Also, you could've gained a tiny bit of righteous indignation by
pointing out how innocent Lisp users were so viciously attacked one
day by the bad bad Microsoftie's article.
Double-plus ungood.
MfG,
Tayssir
Incidentally, I didn't at all mean to imply I disliked YOU. I
understand that you made a parody that maybe didn't go well, and I've
certainly done worse. ;) I can certainly be a hot head...
MfG,
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Neo-LISPer wrote:
> > Blame Kenny for "no such thing as bad publicity". At the very
worst,
> > it will make some people think of what it is that they are missing
in
> > C++ and what that Lisp thing is.
>
> I realized what that phrase "no such thing as bad publicity" means,
> when I observed the phenomenon where people manufacture lies about
> Lisp. Of course publicity can have detrimental effects. But the point
> is, it's possible to turn and mitigate it.
>
> In other words, it only means, "When life gives you lemons, make
> lemonade."
>
> If you wish to learn more about public relations, I suggest these
> audios/videos:
> http://www.lehetmasavilag.hu/chomsky.html
> http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm
>
> I personally dislike usenet people going around saying X sucks
without
> seriously considering other views; I just think they're jerks. It
> inspires some of your audience to invent negative lies about Lisp.
> However, if you were going to go through with such an antisocial
> tactic, you need to give people some place to go. "So Lisp is great.
> Fine. Do I go home now, or should I look at something?"
>
> Also, you could've gained a tiny bit of righteous indignation by
> pointing out how innocent Lisp users were so viciously attacked one
> day by the bad bad Microsoftie's article.
>
> Double-plus ungood.
>
>
> MfG,
> Tayssir
Neo-LISPer wrote:
> Seriously, I started writing the post as a parody of "lisp sucks for
> games", but it turned out to be a bit less light-hearted then
> originally intended.
>
> Blame Kenny for "no such thing as bad publicity".
I believe actually you were thinking of Gabriel's "pick a fight". But
the responsibility is all yours; you are not free to be not free. (Sartre)
At the very worst,
> it will make some people think of what it is that they are missing in
> C++ and what that Lisp thing is.
It did not work. Ignition was not achieved. I think the mistake you made
was that they really could not argue with what you said. Also, you did
not respond to any responses. What is the sound of one war flaming?
I suggest you try a Java forum next. This time begin with a lot of
claims that really will not hold up, as well as a few solid winners such
as macros and multiple-inheritance and dynamic typing (but watch out for
the Groovy comeback).
The idea is to draw them out into the open with the weak arguments, then
cut them down unmercilessly by continuing the engagement exclusively in
re the winning points. Classic MMORPG tactic against dangerous NPCs.
:)
kenny
--
Cells? Cello? Celtik?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
From: Neo-LISPer
Subject: Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games
Date:
Message-ID: <871xfm9csm.fsf@yahoo.com>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Neo-LISPer wrote:
>
> At the very worst,
> > it will make some people think of what it is that they are missing in
> > C++ and what that Lisp thing is.
>
> It did not work. Ignition was not achieved. I think the mistake you
> made was that they really could not argue with what you said. Also,
> you did not respond to any responses. What is the sound of one war
> flaming?
Flaming is not my thing.
> I suggest you try a Java forum next.
Now, Java I know little about. You do it!
> This time begin with a lot of
> claims that really will not hold up,
This would actually satisfy my definition of trolling.
> as well as a few solid winners
> such as macros and multiple-inheritance and dynamic typing (but watch
> out for the Groovy comeback).
>
> The idea is to draw them out into the open with the weak arguments,
> then cut them down unmercilessly by continuing the engagement
> exclusively in re the winning points. Classic MMORPG tactic against
> dangerous NPCs.
OTOH, once you are found to be a liar, everything else you said is
suspect.
But give it a go if you feel like it. I will not be the one to judge.
Neo-LISPer wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>Neo-LISPer wrote:
>>
>> At the very worst,
>>
>>>it will make some people think of what it is that they are missing in
>>>C++ and what that Lisp thing is.
>>
>>It did not work. Ignition was not achieved. I think the mistake you
>>made was that they really could not argue with what you said. Also,
>>you did not respond to any responses. What is the sound of one war
>>flaming?
>
>
> Flaming is not my thing.
(a) omigod, you took me seriously! Thanks! No one else around here does.
(b) Well, yes, flaming is your thing, in effect. You made an
inflammatory post and when people took the trouble to respond you fell
silent. I know you were not trolling, but you conducted yourself like a
troll when you did not follow-up with good faith debate. That was
inconsiderate to those who took the trouble to respond. So spare us the
high-and-mighty moral superiority pose, otay?
kenny
--
Cells? Cello? Celtik?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
From: Neo-LISPer
Subject: Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games
Date:
Message-ID: <87sm81b02t.fsf@yahoo.com>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Neo-LISPer wrote:
>
> > Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> >
> >>Neo-LISPer wrote:
> >>
> >> At the very worst,
> >>
> >>>it will make some people think of what it is that they are missing in
> >>>C++ and what that Lisp thing is.
> >>
> >>It did not work. Ignition was not achieved. I think the mistake you
> >>made was that they really could not argue with what you said. Also,
> >>you did not respond to any responses. What is the sound of one war
> >>flaming?
> > Flaming is not my thing.
>
> (a) omigod, you took me seriously! Thanks! No one else around here
> does.
Here, you are saying you didn't mean it: don't reply to flamers...
> (b) Well, yes, flaming is your thing, in effect. You made an
> inflammatory post and when people took the trouble to respond you fell
> silent. I know you were not trolling, but you conducted yourself like
> a troll when you did not follow-up with good faith debate. That was
> inconsiderate to those who took the trouble to respond. So spare us
> the high-and-mighty moral superiority pose, otay?
And here, you are saying I'm "inconsiderate" if I don't.
P.S. No reason to explain. I understand.
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games
Date:
Message-ID: <87ekjkisdc.fsf@nyct.net>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> (a) omigod, you took me seriously! Thanks! No one else around here does.
You've scolded us enough for taking you seriously that we follow your
advice. :)
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games
Date:
Message-ID: <87acu8isc5.fsf@nyct.net>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> That was inconsiderate to those who took the trouble to respond. So
> spare us the high-and-mighty moral superiority pose, otay?
Kenny, have you been using IRC lately?!?
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
In article <··············@nyct.net>, Rahul Jain <·····@nyct.net>
wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> > That was inconsiderate to those who took the trouble to respond. So
> > spare us the high-and-mighty moral superiority pose, otay?
>
> Kenny, have you been using IRC lately?!?
Oh shut up and go help Neo-Lisper, he wants to troll a Java newsgroup
next.
:)
kenny
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games
Date:
Message-ID: <87hdobapr0.fsf@nyct.net>
Kenneth Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Oh shut up and go help Neo-Lisper, he wants to troll a Java newsgroup
> next.
While you're trolling a Java IRC channel? Nice team effort. ;)
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> I suggest you try a Java forum next. This time begin with a lot of
> claims that really will not hold up, as well as a few solid winners such
> as macros and multiple-inheritance and dynamic typing (but watch out for
> the Groovy comeback).
How about we all just get along. This reminds me of the Paul Graham
articles. He has done worse things for Lisp then anyone here knows by
insulting all kinds of other languages and the programmers that use
them.
He makes Lisp look like an elitest club of academics that have no idea
about real programming beyond a conceptual level. I am not saying
this is true, but that is what many peoples perception is becuase of
him. His tactic of trying to fear people into thinking they are
stupid if they are not using Lisp won't fly for programmers.
It's rebel mentality. Sheep follow, "someone sounds smart, I want to
be smart, I will do what they say because if I don't I'm an idiot"
(Any Bush voters here?). Programmers in general are smart rebels.
They will react exactly the opposite way. They will shun Lisp rather
then embrace it. Lisp will never catch on with someone like Paul
Graham being the poster boy becuase he comes off as an arrogant
language bigot. Even worse in PG's case he doesn't even know Java but
bashes the hell out of it. Most smart people consider predjudice of
something, without knowledge of it, to be the result of mental
deficiency or brainwashing. This tactic will not attract smart
prgrammers, only sheep.
If someone came here and bashed Lisp and/or Lisp programmers, would
you write them off as an idiot? Would you want to use the language
they use? I don't think there are to many sheepish Lisp programmers,
so my guess would be no.
Darren wrote:
>
> It's rebel mentality. Sheep follow, "someone sounds smart, I want to
> be smart, I will do what they say because if I don't I'm an idiot"
> (Any Bush voters here?). Programmers in general are smart rebels.
> They will react exactly the opposite way. They will shun Lisp rather
> then embrace it.
In your estimation it appears that 'smart' and 'rebel' are mutually
exclusive qualities. In fact, the type of person you seem to be
describing is more aptly termed an 'adolescent': I'm not going to
investigate Lisp because Paul Graham said I should. I'll show him!
I would expect genuinely smart people to honestly think about what
Graham is advocating--taken within the context of his demonstrated
competence (It may not be relevant that he's apparently pretty
rich--nonetheless he has succeeded).
> Lisp will never catch on with someone like Paul
> Graham being the poster boy becuase he comes off as an arrogant
> language bigot. Even worse in PG's case he doesn't even know Java but
> bashes the hell out of it. Most smart people consider predjudice of
> something, without knowledge of it, to be the result of mental
> deficiency or brainwashing. This tactic will not attract smart
> prgrammers, only sheep.
>
Yes, prejudice is not an admirable trait. Yet I'm willing to grant that
an expert in a given field can make a value judgement about a new
technology without becoming intimately familiar with it. On the other
hand, many of the same 'smart' people you're talking about have already
made prejudiced decisions against Lisp.
> If someone came here and bashed Lisp and/or Lisp programmers, would
> you write them off as an idiot? Would you want to use the language
> they use? I don't think there are to many sheepish Lisp programmers,
> so my guess would be no.
I am inclined to believe that you are right--most Lisp programmers are
not sheep. Why would they be interested in a non-mainstream language if
they were? However, if an outsider raises legitimate points (rather than
just trolling), then the 'smart' thing to do is to evaluate their
argument honestly.
David Sletten
| He makes Lisp look like an elitest club of academics that have no
idea
| about real programming beyond a conceptual level.
This is the best .sig material I've seen all week
-dan
"Darren" <·········@hotmail.com> wrote in message
································@posting.google.com...
> How about we all just get along. This reminds me of the Paul Graham
> articles. He has done worse things for Lisp then anyone here knows by
> insulting all kinds of other languages and the programmers that use
> them.
Actually, Graham's writings seem to be a major reason for many people
coming to Lisp recently:
http://alu.cliki.net/The%20RtLS%20by%20Road
> Even worse in PG's case he doesn't even know Java but
> bashes the hell out of it. Most smart people consider predjudice of
> something, without knowledge of it, to be the result of mental
> deficiency or brainwashing. This tactic will not attract smart
> prgrammers, only sheep.
Well, I started programming using a kind of Basic that didn't have
functions. Then I switched to Pascal, and within a few days I could
tell "(That kind of) Basic is crap, it doesn't have functions nor
anything making up for that deficiency". And I could have felt
secure about judging that language even if I didn't know it much,
just because it lacked something I realized to be fundamental in
making "good" programs. Bashing Java when you know Lisp is equally
acceptable to me.
> If someone came here and bashed Lisp and/or Lisp programmers, would
> you write them off as an idiot?
That only depends on their arguments and the way they present them...
> Would you want to use the language they use?
I would probably give it a try, provided it doesn't lack important
things such as dynamic typing, macros and such, or offers
equivalent mechanisms.
--
Matthieu Villeneuve
On 2004-10-27 15:22:46, Darren wrote:
> How about we all just get along.
Right. And I add one reason: This form of "promoting" Lisp attracts
trolls and language fanatics into comp.lang.lisp
Stefan Scholl wrote:
> On 2004-10-27 15:22:46, Darren wrote:
>
>
>>How about we all just get along.
>
>
> Right. And I add one reason: This form of "promoting" Lisp attracts
> trolls and language fanatics into comp.lang.lisp
I will add another and what I feel is the most important reason reason
for us to go along:
We use languages to write programs which will be useful, and not write
programs to use language.
No matter what PG says or some other Lisp admirers say, most real people
will continue to use multiple languages, every language is designed
keeping in mind certain kind of applications, and they are best suited
for that.
Language diversity is good, because it allows growth. Imagine a boring
world where LISP is the only language used.
To support my point about diversity, I will give few arguments about how
Lisp has borrowed from other languages (I am not an expert programming
language historian, but I am sure there are plenty around who can
clarify on it)
LISP Byte code - doesn't that sounds like Java Thing
Common LISP Object System - Don't you smell some SmallTalk and C++
Surendra Singhi
From: Matthew Danish
Subject: Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games
Date:
Message-ID: <87u0servzs.fsf@mapcar.org>
surendra <·········@netscape.net> writes:
> To support my point about diversity, I will give few arguments about
> how Lisp has borrowed from other languages (I am not an expert
> programming language historian, but I am sure there are plenty around
> who can clarify on it)
>
> LISP Byte code - doesn't that sounds like Java Thing
You may not be a historian, but at least you could do a little bit of
background checking before puking out nonsense. If you recall, Java
is a very young language, so Java "byte code" is hardly anything new.
There are plenty of examples of similar things, such as "p-code" for
some Pascal compilers. CMUCL (~1985) and CLISP (late 80's) both
predate Java (1995), and both of these have had byte-code compilers.
So, unless there is time-travel involved here, it is Java which has
borrowed from them. Not too surprising, since the creator of Java
(Gosling) knew plenty about Lisp, even if he was too bull-headed to
learn from it.
http://www.cons.org/cmucl/doc/cmucl-history.html
http://clisp.cons.org/faq.html
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?JavaHistory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-Code_machine
> Common LISP Object System - Don't you smell some SmallTalk and C++
Sure, CLOS shares many of its dynamic aspects, and of course the idea
of a class system, with Smalltalk. It also goes far beyond that. You
probably aren't aware of the differences yet, but you will learn soon,
I presume. As for C++, that is static rubbish pretending to be OO for
the sake of buzzword compatibility (in fact, I think it made OO a
buzzword in the first place), it does not even compare. C++ is
pain-oriented programming.
If you want to pick some examples of languages which have influenced
Common Lisp, why not check the standard?
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/01_ab.htm
--
;; Matthew Danish -- user: mrd domain: cmu.edu
;; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
Matthew Danish wrote:
> You may not be a historian, but at least you could do a little bit of
> background checking before puking out nonsense.
I admit I was wrong, but such strong words were unwarranted.
Matthew Danish <··········@cmu.edu> writes:
> surendra <·········@netscape.net> writes:
>> To support my point about diversity, I will give few arguments about
>> how Lisp has borrowed from other languages (I am not an expert
>> programming language historian, but I am sure there are plenty around
>> who can clarify on it)
>>
>> LISP Byte code - doesn't that sounds like Java Thing
>
> You may not be a historian, but at least you could do a little bit
> of background checking before puking out nonsense. If you recall,
> Java is a very young language, so Java "byte code" is hardly
> anything new. There are plenty of examples of similar things, such
> as "p-code" for some Pascal compilers. CMUCL (~1985) and CLISP (late
> 80's) both predate Java (1995), and both of these have had byte-code
> compilers. So, unless there is time-travel involved here, it is Java
> which has borrowed from them. Not too surprising, since the creator
> of Java (Gosling) knew plenty about Lisp, even if he was too
> bull-headed to learn from it.
>
> http://www.cons.org/cmucl/doc/cmucl-history.html
> http://clisp.cons.org/faq.html
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?JavaHistory
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-Code_machine
>
>> Common LISP Object System - Don't you smell some SmallTalk and C++
>
> Sure, CLOS shares many of its dynamic aspects, and of course the
> idea of a class system, with Smalltalk. It also goes far beyond
> that. You probably aren't aware of the differences yet, but you will
> learn soon, I presume. As for C++, that is static rubbish pretending
> to be OO for the sake of buzzword compatibility (in fact, I think it
> made OO a buzzword in the first place), it does not even compare.
> C++ is pain-oriented programming.
I spent some time looking at the lineages of various "OO" languages
while working on my book. Most of what I figured out didn't find a
place in the book so here's the extremely compressed version of my
interpretation of how several OO languages got to be the way they are.
C++ = Simula + C
Smalltalk = Simula + LISP
Common Lisp = LISP + Smalltalk
Objective C = Smalltalk + C
Java = Objective C + C++
Eiffel = Simula + Bertrand Meyer's fevered imagination
Since Simula and C were both fairly static languages, so is C++.
Smalltalk got the good dynamic mojo from LISP and thus got a nice
dynamic reinterpretation of the ideas from Simuala. Common Lisp then
folded back in the good ideas from Smalltalk, mixing liberally with
The Lisp Way (including, of course the pre-Common Lisp object systems
such as Flavors and LOOPS), to give us GFs and multimethods.
Recognizing these relationships was a bit of an epiphany for me
because I realized that my prior personal ordering of language by some
idiosyncratic sense of "goodness":
Common Lisp is better than ...
Smalltalk is better than ...
Objective C is better than ...
Java is better than ...
Eiffel is better than ...
C++
is essentially the list sorted by the amount of Lisp influence.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel ·····@javamonkey.com
Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
Peter Seibel <·····@javamonkey.com> wrote:
> I spent some time looking at the lineages of various "OO" languages
> while working on my book. Most of what I figured out didn't find a
> place in the book so here's the extremely compressed version of my
> interpretation of how several OO languages got to be the way they are.
>
> C++ = Simula + C
> Smalltalk = Simula + LISP
> Common Lisp = LISP + Smalltalk
> Objective C = Smalltalk + C
> Java = Objective C + C++
> Eiffel = Simula + Bertrand Meyer's fevered imagination
A nice picture of the inheritance lines of some languages:
http://www.levenez.com/lang/history.html
--
Frank Bu�, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Peter Seibel <·····@javamonkey.com> writes:
> I spent some time looking at the lineages of various "OO" languages
> while working on my book.
Page 11 of
http://www.dreamsongs.com/NewFiles/Hopl2Slides.pdf
may be useful.
--
Lars Brinkhoff, Services for Unix, Linux, GCC, HTTP
Brinkhoff Consulting http://www.brinkhoff.se/
Lars Brinkhoff <·········@nocrew.org> writes:
> Peter Seibel <·····@javamonkey.com> writes:
>> I spent some time looking at the lineages of various "OO" languages
>> while working on my book.
>
> Page 11 of
> http://www.dreamsongs.com/NewFiles/Hopl2Slides.pdf
> may be useful.
Yeah. I'd seen that. In fact if you take out all the languages I
didn't mention that graph agrees with my highly compressed version
Common Lisp = LISP + Smalltalk where LISP stands for all the ideas
from pre-Common Lisp lisps. Though I missed the influence of CLU. Or
rather, I haven't a CLU.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel ·····@javamonkey.com
Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
surendra wrote:
> To support my point about diversity, I will give few arguments about how
> Lisp has borrowed from other languages (I am not an expert programming
> language historian, but I am sure there are plenty around who can
> clarify on it)
>
> LISP Byte code - doesn't that sounds like Java Thing
>
> Common LISP Object System - Don't you smell some SmallTalk and C++
>
Unfortunately you don't support your point by writing nonsense. The
history of Lisp goes back nearly 50 years. Java has about 10...The
Common Lisp ANSI standard was basically done before the world ever heard
of Java. The designers of Java certainly did not invent the idea of byte
code or virtual machines.
Sonya Keene suggests that experiments with object-oriented programming
in Lisp go back to the early 70's--before C had even made much of a
dent, to say nothing of C++. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, Common
Lisp was the first ANSI standard OO language. It's true that Lisp was
influenced by SmallTalk, but in general, the vast majority of language
influence has been _from_ Lisp _to_ other languages. This trend appears
to be becoming even more pronounced in recent years.
David Sletten
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games
Date:
Message-ID: <uekjijl5l.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
surendra <·········@netscape.net> writes:
> Imagine a boring world where LISP is the only language used.
Been there, done that; it was great!
surendra <·········@netscape.net> writes:
> No matter what PG says or some other Lisp admirers say, most real
> people will continue to use multiple languages, every language is
> designed keeping in mind certain kind of applications, and they are
> best suited for that.
I expect people use the most convenient language. That may or may not
be the best for the problem space. And if it works, that is just
fine.
> Language diversity is good, because it allows growth. Imagine a
> boring world where LISP is the only language used.
Common Lisp was created because there were so many different "LISP"
languages. I guess the world got too unboring. Scheme is also
considered a "LISP" and it is quite different from Common Lisp.
> To support my point about diversity, I will give few arguments about
> how Lisp has borrowed from other languages (I am not an expert
> programming language historian, but I am sure there are plenty around
> who can clarify on it)
>
> LISP Byte code - doesn't that sounds like Java Thing
Java invented that? But didn't other languages have byte code
compilers earlier? What about Pascal's p-code? What about all those
other examples that I probably am not even aware of?
The Lisp implementations I use most often (OpenMCL & SBCL) don't even
do byte code. They compile into native machine code. Heck, they
don't even have an interpreter.
> Common LISP Object System - Don't you smell some SmallTalk and C++
CLOS came before C++. Unlike SmallTalk, CLOS supports MI. CLOS is
also not the first OO system in a "LISP".
C++ doesn't even do MI quite right. You have standard inheritance and
virtual inheritance. This gives the C++ programmer fun things to
think about. CLOS has a much simpler set of rules for inheritance.
If I understand correctly, CLOS uses what is roughly equivalent to C++
virtual inheritance. Java programmers should like CLOS as it makes
mixins convinient and Java's whole interface mechanism strikes me as
an attempt to get the benefits of MI without duplicating slot names
(member variables).
I may have some details in the last paragraph wrong, but CLOS overall
seems to be king of the hill even without the MOP.
--
An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader.
--- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games
Date:
Message-ID: <87d5yzap7z.fsf@nyct.net>
surendra <·········@netscape.net> writes:
> No matter what PG says or some other Lisp admirers say, most real people
> will continue to use multiple languages,
Except that Lisp _is_ multiple languages. In fact, it's all possible
languages if you're going to define it as any specific language(s). If
you define Lisp as not being logic-oriented, then Xanalys's
KnowledgeWorks library isn't Lisp. But it is. The same can be said for
any "language".
> every language is designed
> keeping in mind certain kind of applications, and they are best suited
> for that.
And Lisp is designed keeping in mind language design, so it's best
suited for designing a language keeping in mind your kind of
application.
> Language diversity is good, because it allows growth. Imagine a boring
> world where LISP is the only language used.
It would hardly be boring. You'd be able to switch programming styles
for parts of your program that fit that style well. If a programming
style doesn't exist yet but make sense for some part of your program,
you can go ahead and add it.
> To support my point about diversity, I will give few arguments about how
> Lisp has borrowed from other languages
Lisp is all about taking features and combining them into a single,
coherent system.
> (I am not an expert programming
> language historian, but I am sure there are plenty around who can
> clarify on it)
>
> LISP Byte code - doesn't that sounds like Java Thing
What is that? So-called "Byte code" is just machine code and has nothing
to do with Lisp. Java is hardly the first system to have a machine
emulator.
> Common LISP Object System - Don't you smell some SmallTalk and C++
No, but in them I smell some rotten Lisp. :)
Smalltalk isn't too bad, but it's a divergent path from the one CLOS
took. Note that I don't say Lisp, because some Lisp object systems took
a similar path as Smalltalk's, just CLOS is standardized and required in
CL implementations.
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
Rahul Jain wrote:
>
>>Language diversity is good, because it allows growth. Imagine a boring
>>world where LISP is the only language used.
>
>
> It would hardly be boring. You'd be able to switch programming styles
> for parts of your program that fit that style well. If a programming
> style doesn't exist yet but make sense for some part of your program,
> you can go ahead and add it.
>
What do you by mean switching programming styles? Can you enlighten me
on that?
Surendra Singhi
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games
Date:
Message-ID: <87r7ne6bg1.fsf@nyct.net>
surendra <·········@netscape.net> writes:
> Rahul Jain wrote:
>
>>
>>>Language diversity is good, because it allows growth. Imagine a boring
>>>world where LISP is the only language used.
>> It would hardly be boring. You'd be able to switch programming styles
>> for parts of your program that fit that style well. If a programming
>> style doesn't exist yet but make sense for some part of your program,
>> you can go ahead and add it.
>>
> What do you by mean switching programming styles? Can you enlighten me
> on that?
Write one function imperatively. Write another applicatively. Another
functionally. Another part of the system using an inference engine
similar to prolog. Another part of the system using constraint
propagation similar to Excel. All normal Lisp programming. Use the right
style for the problem at hand.
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
Rahul Jain wrote:
> surendra <·········@netscape.net> writes:
>>Rahul Jain wrote:
>>
>>What do you by mean switching programming styles? Can you enlighten me
>>on that?
>
> Write one function imperatively. Write another applicatively. Another
> functionally. Another part of the system using an inference engine
> similar to prolog. Another part of the system using constraint
> propagation similar to Excel. All normal Lisp programming. Use the right
> style for the problem at hand.
C++ is similarly good at using multiple programming styles in one
language. Similar to how in Lisp everything is s-expressions, in C++
everything will have this pseudo-infix mathematical style. For example,
I wrote a simple constraint propagation system in C++ to facilitate
writing a UI layer.
The real difference seems to be when doing more advanced language
embedding. Lisp's raw features, s-expressions and closures is much more
understandable to me than C++'s raw features, template and partial
specialization. The people writing libraries like Boost.Spirit seem to
agree, as the first thing implemented is closures and s-expressions.
-- MJF
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games
Date:
Message-ID: <87y8hm68ay.fsf@nyct.net>
M Jared Finder <·····@hpalace.com> writes:
> C++ is similarly good at using multiple programming styles in one
> language. Similar to how in Lisp everything is s-expressions, in C++
> everything will have this pseudo-infix mathematical style. For example,
> I wrote a simple constraint propagation system in C++ to facilitate
> writing a UI layer.
But you're limited to the operators that are predefined and the way that
they are defined in the language spec. If you want to deviate from that
or need more operators than are available, you are screwed. Also, your
application is likely to look rather retarded if you, for example, are
defining a logical inference rule and you'd like to add a cut.
Unfortunately, ! is a prefix operator, and there won't necessarily be
anything after the cut in the current rule. For example, the usage in
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolog#Execution>.
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games
Date:
Message-ID: <873bzu7nib.fsf@nyct.net>
···@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> Rahul Jain <·····@nyct.net> writes:
>>Write one function imperatively. Write another applicatively.
>>Another functionally.
>
> To me, "imperatively" means effect[1]-based and "functionally"
> valued-based, while an "application" "f(x)" or "(f x)" is a
> form of notation suited for both, as the evaluation of it
> might have an effect and/or yield a value.
>
> What is the meaning of "applicatively" to you, when used
> as something else than "imperatively" and "functionally"?
What I meant by "functionally" was purely-functionally as opposed to
imperatively. Applicative programming is sort of in between, bridging
the gap: imperative operations that are parametrizable in their behavior
by purely-functional operators. (IME, most applicative operators don't
make any significant guarantees about the calling sequence and/or
calling frequency of the operators passed in, so imperative operators
passed into applicative operators often end up with unpredictable
results.)
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
From: surendra singhi
Subject: Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games
Date:
Message-ID: <cm700u$83b$1@news.asu.edu>
>> Rahul Jain wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>> What do you by mean switching programming styles? Can you enlighten me
>> on that?
>
> Another part of the system using constraint
> propagation similar to Excel. All normal Lisp programming. Use the right
> style for the problem at hand.
>
Excel!!! What is meant by constraint programming?
And I hope the Excel here doesn't means Microsoft Excel, or does it?
Thanks,
Surendra Singhi
In article <············@news.asu.edu>,
surendra singhi <················@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Excel!!! What is meant by constraint programming?
> And I hope the Excel here doesn't means Microsoft Excel, or does it?
Yes, Microsoft Excel. Spreadsheets, more generally.
Constraint programming means that you can set, say, a slot in an object
("member variable" in C++) to the result of a function based on other
data. This keeps track of the dependencies, so when any of the other
data changes, the resultant slot will change as well.
I'm sure Mr. Tilton can tell you all about the advantages. (Kenny, GO! :)
-bcd
--
*** Brian Downing <bdowning at lavos dot net>
Brian Downing <·············@lavos.net> writes:
[...]
> Constraint programming means that you can set, say, a slot in an object
> ("member variable" in C++) to the result of a function based on other
> data. This keeps track of the dependencies, so when any of the other
> data changes, the resultant slot will change as well.
Isn't that data-flow programming? Isn't constraint programming more
specifically where you set constraints on variables, and the system
tries to satisfy them? (Obviously there's an overlap, but I tend to
think of constraint programming as outlined
<http://kti.ms.mff.cuni.cz/~bartak/constraints/intro.html>, for
example. I don't think spreadsheets typically do that kind of thing.)
[...]
In article <··············@cenderis.demon.co.uk>,
Bruce Stephens <············@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Isn't that data-flow programming? Isn't constraint programming more
> specifically where you set constraints on variables, and the system
> tries to satisfy them? (Obviously there's an overlap, but I tend to
> think of constraint programming as outlined
> <http://kti.ms.mff.cuni.cz/~bartak/constraints/intro.html>, for
> example. I don't think spreadsheets typically do that kind of thing.)
Could be - I just saw the reference to spreadsheets and tied it to
things like Kenny's Cells package.
Sorry about the confusion then.
-bcd
--
*** Brian Downing <bdowning at lavos dot net>
In article <·······················@attbi_s03>,
Brian Downing <·············@lavos.net> wrote:
> In article <··············@cenderis.demon.co.uk>,
> Bruce Stephens <············@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Isn't that data-flow programming? Isn't constraint programming more
> > specifically where you set constraints on variables, and the system
> > tries to satisfy them? (Obviously there's an overlap, but I tend to
> > think of constraint programming as outlined
> > <http://kti.ms.mff.cuni.cz/~bartak/constraints/intro.html>, for
> > example. I don't think spreadsheets typically do that kind of thing.)
>
> Could be - I just saw the reference to spreadsheets and tied it to
> things like Kenny's Cells package.
>
> Sorry about the confusion then.
Well, you are both right. Simple spreadsheet dataflow is considered to
fall under the constraints umbrella (by the literature I have seen), but
as a trivial case. Consider:
(make-instance 'shape :area (c? (* (^length)(^width))))
...to be a constraint with extreme prejudice. :)
I actually hate the word "constraint" for such a thing, precisely
because of the semantic mismatch, but words mean what people use them to
mean, and googling "dataflow constraints" will lead to a lot of reading.
kenny
Darren wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>
>>I suggest you try a Java forum next. This time begin with a lot of
>>claims that really will not hold up, as well as a few solid winners such
>>as macros and multiple-inheritance and dynamic typing (but watch out for
>>the Groovy comeback).
>
> How about we all just get along. This reminds me of the Paul Graham
> articles. He has done worse things for Lisp then anyone here knows by
> insulting all kinds of other languages and the programmers that use
> them.
Nonetheless, he is the first entry at
http://alu.cliki.net/The%20RtLS%20by%20Road
Pascal
--
Tyler: "How's that working out for you?"
Jack: "Great."
Tyler: "Keep it up, then."
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in message news:<············@newsreader2.netcologne.de>...
> Darren wrote:
> > Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> >
> >>I suggest you try a Java forum next. This time begin with a lot of
> >>claims that really will not hold up, as well as a few solid winners such
> >>as macros and multiple-inheritance and dynamic typing (but watch out for
> >>the Groovy comeback).
> >
> > How about we all just get along. This reminds me of the Paul Graham
> > articles. He has done worse things for Lisp then anyone here knows by
> > insulting all kinds of other languages and the programmers that use
> > them.
>
> Nonetheless, he is the first entry at
> http://alu.cliki.net/The%20RtLS%20by%20Road
>
> Pascal
Maybe, but there are hundreds of others responses on the net that
don't sound like they were to impressed by his form of "persuasion".
PG could do much more for Lisp by building a great application then
open sourcing it. Something that has broad appeal and/or usefulness
(Arc won't qulify, good, bad or otherwise). Lisp needs more examples
like Naughty Dog.
IMHO, showing something is great is much better then saying it is.
Ramming it down people throats, just a bad idea.
Darren wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in message
news:<············@newsreader2.netcologne.de>...
> > Nonetheless, he is the first entry at
> > http://alu.cliki.net/The%20RtLS%20by%20Road
>
> Maybe, but there are hundreds of others responses on the net that
> don't sound like they were to impressed by his form of "persuasion".
>
> PG could do much more for Lisp by building a great application then
> open sourcing it. Something that has broad appeal and/or usefulness
> (Arc won't qulify, good, bad or otherwise). Lisp needs more examples
> like Naughty Dog.
>
> IMHO, showing something is great is much better then saying it is.
> Ramming it down people throats, just a bad idea.
If you'd like to talk about how PR functions in the computing world,
that would probably be interesting. Then we could have thoughtful
discussions which include the role of bias in communications of Lisp.
If people want to overstate the blowback of any particular piece of PR,
then there's just nothing to say.
When you say "Lisp needs more examples like Naughty Dog," you should
see that having to trot out a "success" like some gaming company's use
of computing is just a sad state of affairs. It is quite clearly a herd
mentality argument, used to smack down flamers. I mean, who cares about
someone else's success?
If you wish to learn about the computing industry, here it is:
http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/jonstewartcrossfire.html
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Darren wrote:
> > Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in message
> news:<············@newsreader2.netcologne.de>...
> > > Nonetheless, he is the first entry at
> > > http://alu.cliki.net/The%20RtLS%20by%20Road
> >
> > Maybe, but there are hundreds of others responses on the net that
> > don't sound like they were to impressed by his form of
"persuasion".
> >
> > PG could do much more for Lisp by building a great application then
> > open sourcing it. Something that has broad appeal and/or
usefulness
> > (Arc won't qulify, good, bad or otherwise). Lisp needs more
examples
> > like Naughty Dog.
> >
> > IMHO, showing something is great is much better then saying it is.
> > Ramming it down people throats, just a bad idea.
>
> If you'd like to talk about how PR functions in the computing world,
> that would probably be interesting. Then we could have thoughtful
> discussions which include the role of bias in communications of Lisp.
>
> If people want to overstate the blowback of any particular piece of
PR,
> then there's just nothing to say.
Hmm, that came out sounding like what a prick would say. Sorry, bad
mood.
In article <···························@posting.google.com>,
·········@hotmail.com (Darren) wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in message
> news:<············@newsreader2.netcologne.de>...
> > Darren wrote:
> > > Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > >>I suggest you try a Java forum next. This time begin with a lot of
> > >>claims that really will not hold up, as well as a few solid winners such
> > >>as macros and multiple-inheritance and dynamic typing (but watch out for
> > >>the Groovy comeback).
> > >
> > > How about we all just get along.
OK, i was joking. And you may have missed the implicit connection to a
Richard Gabriel line about "pick a fight".
> > > This reminds me of the Paul Graham
> > > articles. He has done worse things for Lisp then anyone here knows by
> > > insulting all kinds of other languages and the programmers that use
> > > them.
You mean the "languages for smart people" stuff? Yeah, that is really
asking for it. But I think this was in contrast to something about Java
having been designed for, well, average programmers.
> >
> > Nonetheless, he is the first entry at
> > http://alu.cliki.net/The%20RtLS%20by%20Road
> >
> > Pascal
>
> Maybe, but there are hundreds of others responses on the net that
> don't sound like they were to impressed by his form of "persuasion".
Many are called, few are chosen. Suffice to say interest in Lisp has
boomed since he wrote what he did, and most newbies cite him as a prime
reason for checking out Lisp.
>
> PG could do much more for Lisp by building a great application then
> open sourcing it. Something that has broad appeal and/or usefulness
Yeah, maybe software to build on-line store.
:)
kenny
Kenneth Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> OK, i was joking. And you may have missed the implicit connection to a
> Richard Gabriel line about "pick a fight".
Glad to hear it.
>
> > > > This reminds me of the Paul Graham
> > > > articles. He has done worse things for Lisp then anyone here knows by
> > > > insulting all kinds of other languages and the programmers that use
> > > > them.
>
> You mean the "languages for smart people" stuff? Yeah, that is really
> asking for it. But I think this was in contrast to something about Java
> having been designed for, well, average programmers.
That was a myth mostly propigated by PG himself. In reality is Java
was designed to be easy for C/C++ programmers to learn. Notice how
Javas syntax is about the same? Notice how it is considered a "C"
family language? Was C and C++ built to be easy to learn?
Does Graham ever explain what was done to make Java easier and safer?
Gosling evaluated many languages when designing Java to analyse their
strengths and weaknesses. In terms of making life easier for
programmers, memory managment and run-time dynamic saftey were among
the biggest issues.
Guess what the solution was? Add garbage collection and run-time
dynamic saftey (casting to the wrong thing won't crash the app because
internally it is dynamically checked at run-time). Guess what
language he took from for the solution? *********** Lisp
***************. By insulting Java's "easy and safe" nature, PG is
indirectly insulting Lisp. Because the things that make Java
safer/easier come from Lisp and exist in Lisp.
> Many are called, few are chosen. Suffice to say interest in Lisp has
> boomed since he wrote what he did, and most newbies cite him as a prime
> reason for checking out Lisp.
I believe that. Any publicity is better then none, even negative.
Though smear, slander and mistruths divide and alienate people as
well. Hey, it works for George Bush, so I guess it's not so bad a
tactic. ;)
> >
> > PG could do much more for Lisp by building a great application then
> > open sourcing it. Something that has broad appeal and/or usefulness
>
> Yeah, maybe software to build on-line store.
There are thousands of online applications with much better
visibility. The fact that Yahoo rewrote the app in C++ (no matter
their reasons) means it isn't actually an example anymore.
How about a high profile game, or a kick ass office product, a
rock-solid high performance database, or a Firefox level web browser.
That is what I meant.
The more success stories, the easier it is to justify the use of
something.
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:19:39 -0700, Darren wrote:
>
> Guess what the solution was? Add garbage collection and run-time
> dynamic saftey (casting to the wrong thing won't crash the app because
> internally it is dynamically checked at run-time). Guess what
> language he took from for the solution? *********** Lisp
> ***************. By insulting Java's "easy and safe" nature, PG is
> indirectly insulting Lisp. Because the things that make Java
> safer/easier come from Lisp and exist in Lisp.
As far as I can see PG is mostly bemoaning the fact that Gosling started
with C/C++ syntax and similar semantics and added a few features from
Lisp, and then Sun claimed it was the ultimate language and everyone
bought into it without noticing that at the *end* of that trajectory lies
Common Lisp, and there was no real need for yet another stepping stone on
the way to it.
Cheers,
Bill.
--
"If you give someone Fortran, he has Fortran. If you give someone Lisp,
he has any language he pleases." -- Guy Steele
Darren wrote:
> The more success stories, the easier it is to justify the use of
> something.
Ah, you mean something like this:
http://home.comcast.net/~bc19191/blog/041027.html
Pascal
--
Tyler: "How's that working out for you?"
Jack: "Great."
Tyler: "Keep it up, then."
Darren wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in message news:<············@newsreader2.netcologne.de>...
>
>>Darren wrote:
>>
>>>Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>I suggest you try a Java forum next. This time begin with a lot of
>>>>claims that really will not hold up, as well as a few solid winners such
>>>>as macros and multiple-inheritance and dynamic typing (but watch out for
>>>>the Groovy comeback).
>>>
>>>How about we all just get along. This reminds me of the Paul Graham
>>>articles. He has done worse things for Lisp then anyone here knows by
>>>insulting all kinds of other languages and the programmers that use
>>>them.
>>
>>Nonetheless, he is the first entry at
>>http://alu.cliki.net/The%20RtLS%20by%20Road
>>
>>Pascal
>
> Maybe, but there are hundreds of others responses on the net that
> don't sound like they were to impressed by his form of "persuasion".
>
> PG could do much more for Lisp by building a great application then
> open sourcing it. Something that has broad appeal and/or usefulness
> (Arc won't qulify, good, bad or otherwise). Lisp needs more examples
> like Naughty Dog.
I didn't know that Naughty Dog is in the open source software business.
> IMHO, showing something is great is much better then saying it is.
> Ramming it down people throats, just a bad idea.
I think Paul Graham is doing quite well. He has become famous and
extremely rich by using Lisp. What else do you want? You're probably
just pissed by some of the things he says. His essays are excellent most
of the time (that are all "open source" at his website), and everyone
should do what they are best at. There a number of other people who are
working on the great open source applications.
It's not our primary goal to take over the world. We're doing quite well
over here. You're the ones who are missing something important. ;)
Pascal
--
Tyler: "How's that working out for you?"
Jack: "Great."
Tyler: "Keep it up, then."
> His essays are excellent most
> of the time (that are all "open source" at his website),
I'm still waiting for him to re-enable the index and navigation. Is he
hoping to sell a million copies of Hackers and Painters first, I wonder?
Chris Capel
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in message
>
> I didn't know that Naughty Dog is in the open source software business.
I didn't say it was. I meant it has visibility. Something with that
kind of visibility, as an open source project, would do great things
for Lisp.
>
> > IMHO, showing something is great is much better then saying it is.
> > Ramming it down people throats, just a bad idea.
>
> I think Paul Graham is doing quite well. He has become famous and
> extremely rich by using Lisp. What else do you want? You're probably
Bill Gates is rich, that doesn't make me listen to him. PG got rich
because of the .com bubble. I personally know at least 5 people with
more money then him who got rich at the same time using other
technologies for things they did. I know dozens of people that became
millionares during .com insanity. Hell I was worth over 4 million US
on paper during the bubble daze. So what?
> just pissed by some of the things he says. His essays are excellent most
> of the time (that are all "open source" at his website), and everyone
> should do what they are best at.
He is a good writer. He shouldn't need to stoop to Jerry Springer
levels to promote Lisp, he *should* be better then that.
> There a number of other people who are working on the great open source
> applications.
Glad to hear it.
>
> It's not our primary goal to take over the world. We're doing quite well
> over here. You're the ones who are missing something important. ;)
>
> Pascal
Your right, I am missing out and so are many others. My point was:
Why build walls when we can build understanding?
I really don't understand why anyone here is defending him.
I am very interested in Lisp, despite Grahams rantings. I was
interested in it before Graham's crap but I was doing a huge project
so my interest was put on hold.
PS: I know Python and C, so I didn't fit his Java monkey mold. But
you are right, he pissed me off. His arrogance, predjudice and
mistruths were hard to swallow.
> He is a good writer. He shouldn't need to stoop to Jerry Springer
> levels to promote Lisp, he *should* be better then that.
He stoops to Jerry Springer levels? Example?
> Your right, I am missing out and so are many others. My point was:
> Why build walls when we can build understanding?
>
> I really don't understand why anyone here is defending him.
Well, umm, because he has had an enormous and apparently very positive
effect on the lisp community, and because I like his essays.
> PS: I know Python and C, so I didn't fit his Java monkey mold. But
> you are right, he pissed me off. His arrogance, predjudice and
> mistruths were hard to swallow.
Examples?
matt knox <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> He is a good writer. He shouldn't need to stoop to Jerry Springer
>> levels to promote Lisp, he *should* be better then that.
>
> He stoops to Jerry Springer levels? Example?
Sure, just the other day I was watching the Paul Graham show where he
had this bunch of transvestite BASIC programmers who'd convinced their
Lisp-using spouses they were really Schemers. When the real story came
out ... well ... a lambda thrown in anger can do a remarkable bit of
damage to a television studio.
--
Karl A. Krueger <········@example.edu> { s/example/whoi/ }
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one line.
By induction, every program can be reduced to one line which does not work.
···········@gmail.com (matt knox) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
> > He is a good writer. He shouldn't need to stoop to Jerry Springer
> > levels to promote Lisp, he *should* be better then that.
> He stoops to Jerry Springer levels? Example?
"The programmers you'll be able to hire to work on a Java project
won't be as smart as the ones you could get to work on a project
written in Python." - Paul Graham
Sounds like trash talk to me
> > PS: I know Python and C, so I didn't fit his Java monkey mold. But
> > you are right, he pissed me off. His arrogance, predjudice and
> > mistruths were hard to swallow.
>
> Examples?
"Though, frankly, the fact that good hackers prefer Python to Java
should tell you something about the relative merits of those
languages" - Paul Graham
*the fact*..hmm.. don't facts usually require proof or at least
reference it?
" When I say Java won't turn out to be a successful language, I mean
something more specific: that Java will turn out to be an evolutionary
dead-end, like Cobol." - Paul Graham (April 2003)
Even the slightest research would have lead him to C#. C# is based on
the ideas of Java. Groovy, was also under way at that time.
"So far, Java seems like a stinker to me. I've never written a Java
program, never more than glanced over reference books about it, but I
have a hunch that it won't be a very successful language." - Paul
Graham (April 2001)
Java already was sucessfuly by then with thousands of users. For a
guy who has so many opinions about Java, you would think he would at
least know the language.
"[wrt. Java] It's designed for large organizations."
Umm...says who? I guess he made this one up.
"One, the CTO couldn't be a first rate hacker, because to become an
eminent NT developer he would have had to use NT voluntarily, multiple
times, and I couldn't imagine a great hacker doing that; and two, even
if he was good, he'd have a hard time hiring anyone good to work for
him if the project had to be built on NT." - Paul Graham
Much as I despise M$, this one makes me wonder planet he lives on.
"In the original Java white paper, Gosling explicitly says Java was
designed not to be too difficult for programmers used to C."
... loosley paraphrased, but sorta correct. From there, Graham
continues into a vivid fantasy...
" It was designed to be another C++: C plus a few ideas taken from
more advanced languages. Like the creators of sitcoms or junk food or
package tours, Java's designers were consciously designing a product
for people not as smart as them." - Paul Graham
This he extrapolated from Gosling basing it off of C and want it easy
for C programmers to learn? Gosling was trying to make life easier by
adding garbage collection and dynamic run-time checking for stability.
If those things are put in for mediocre programmers then consider
where Gosling got his inspiration; one of his favorite programming
languages - Lisp.
> "The programmers you'll be able to hire to work on a Java project
> won't be as smart as the ones you could get to work on a project
> written in Python." - Paul Graham
>
> Sounds like trash talk to me
Well, no, this is a testable statement. You can, for most definitions
of 'smart', make up some test or other that measures it, and then
apply that test. specifically, I think he is talking about
super-coders like Trevor Blackwell as being smart. His contention is
that java tends not to attract as many people of that caliber. I
can't think of any java luminaries outside of the dev team-do you know
of any?
> > > PS: I know Python and C, so I didn't fit his Java monkey mold. But
> > > you are right, he pissed me off. His arrogance, predjudice and
> > > mistruths were hard to swallow.
> >
> > Examples?
> "Though, frankly, the fact that good hackers prefer Python to Java
> should tell you something about the relative merits of those
> languages" - Paul Graham
>
> *the fact*..hmm.. don't facts usually require proof or at least
> reference it?
about ten lines above that, he notes that he knows a bunch of hackers,
all of whom program voluntarily in many languages, none (other than
the guy who works at Sun, on Java) of whom will willingly program in
java. Small sample, but not the same thing as no evidence.
> " When I say Java won't turn out to be a successful language, I mean
> something more specific: that Java will turn out to be an evolutionary
> dead-end, like Cobol." - Paul Graham (April 2003)
Here he is defining his terms, and making a (possibly incorrect)
prediction.
> Java already was sucessfuly by then with thousands of users. For a
> guy who has so many opinions about Java, you would think he would at
> least know the language.
This is actually amusing. The essay was explicitly about how to avoid
dumb technologies by the warning smell that it emanates. It's also
important to note that he is explicitly not talking about marketshare,
but about how productive the language allows very good coders to be,
and how easy it makes thinking about very hard problems. Did you read
the whole thing, or just browse through for stuff to vex yourself
with?
> "[wrt. Java] It's designed for large organizations."
>
> Umm...says who? I guess he made this one up.
Says Gosling, in the early java white papers.
> "One, the CTO couldn't be a first rate hacker, because to become an
> eminent NT developer he would have had to use NT voluntarily, multiple
> times, and I couldn't imagine a great hacker doing that; and two, even
> if he was good, he'd have a hard time hiring anyone good to work for
> him if the project had to be built on NT." - Paul Graham
>
> Much as I despise M$, this one makes me wonder planet he lives on.
The same one where I live, apparently, as all the best
systems/server-side guys I know are Linux/BSD/MacOS types. I know
some awfully good client-side windows dudes (heck-I arguably am one,
as most of my paid programming has been in C on Windows clients), but
they are all there by economic necessity, not choice.
> "In the original Java white paper, Gosling explicitly says Java was
> designed not to be too difficult for programmers used to C."
> ... loosley paraphrased, but sorta correct. From there, Graham
> continues into a vivid fantasy...
> " It was designed to be another C++: C plus a few ideas taken from
> more advanced languages. Like the creators of sitcoms or junk food or
> package tours, Java's designers were consciously designing a product
> for people not as smart as them." - Paul Graham
>
> This he extrapolated from Gosling basing it off of C and want it easy
> for C programmers to learn? Gosling was trying to make life easier by
> adding garbage collection and dynamic run-time checking for stability.
> If those things are put in for mediocre programmers then consider
> where Gosling got his inspiration; one of his favorite programming
> languages - Lisp.
Actually, it is from Gosling saying that he wanted it to be easy to
learn for average programmers. Gosling is much smarter than average,
so java is for someone less smart thas the designer. That is not
necessarily bad, any more than sitcoms, junk food, or package tours
are bad-they're just tacky. Java is a much better language to have a
bunch of average coders use to bang out something. Lisp would be a
disaster in that situation (I think). PG is not interested in that
market. he is interested in the goslings of the world.
You know, if it is true that Gosling's favorite language is lisp, then
you can consider my mind blown. (I'd love a reference, if you have it)
THAT is a powerful statement.
···········@gmail.com (matt knox) wrote in message news:<···························@posting.google.com>...
> > "The programmers you'll be able to hire to work on a Java project
> > won't be as smart as the ones you could get to work on a project
> > written in Python." - Paul Graham
> >
> > Sounds like trash talk to me
> Well, no, this is a testable statement. You can, for most definitions
> of 'smart', make up some test or other that measures it, and then
> apply that test. specifically, I think he is talking about
> super-coders like Trevor Blackwell as being smart. His contention is
> that java tends not to attract as many people of that caliber. I
> can't think of any java luminaries outside of the dev team-do you know
> of any?
Trevor Blackwell may be smart, but I wouldn't call him a super-coder.
He may be, but he hasn't really shown it to the world.
John Carmack on the other hand, is the type of guy I would classify as
a super-coder. He has changed his own industry (video games) no less
then 4 times. (Doom, Quake 2, Quake 3, Doom 4). When Carmack speaks
the computer manufacturers, video card manufactures, video game
industry and the stock markets analysts for those industries all
listen.
He likes Java and wanted to use it as the scripting language for Quake
3 but felt the tools were not mature enough at the time. The
scripting language he used in Doom 4 is a pseudo combination of C++
and Java.
> > *the fact*..hmm.. don't facts usually require proof or at least
> > reference it?
> about ten lines above that, he notes that he knows a bunch of hackers,
> all of whom program voluntarily in many languages, none (other than
> the guy who works at Sun, on Java) of whom will willingly program in
> java. Small sample, but not the same thing as no evidence.
>
"Consensus gentium fallacy" - If people you respect are jumping off a
bridge, does that mean you should? You may choose to, but there is no
*proof* you should.
I know plenty of hackers as well. Many of them voluntarily use Java
and like it. This proves nothing though. It is not proof that good
hackers use Java. At best it only means *I* know ones that do. So
why is it *fact* when Graham says it? (Think about it, no need to
answer. I am tired of talking about thim)
>
> > " When I say Java won't turn out to be a successful language, I mean
> > something more specific: that Java will turn out to be an evolutionary
> > dead-end, like Cobol." - Paul Graham (April 2003)
> Here he is defining his terms, and making a (possibly incorrect)
> prediction.
You can't predict the past, it's already happened. He was already
wrong when he made this statement. End of story.
>
> > Java already was sucessfuly by then with thousands of users. For a
> > guy who has so many opinions about Java, you would think he would at
> > least know the language.
> This is actually amusing. The essay was explicitly about how to avoid
> dumb technologies by the warning smell that it emanates. It's also
> important to note that he is explicitly not talking about marketshare,
> but about how productive the language allows very good coders to be,
> and how easy it makes thinking about very hard problems. Did you read
> the whole thing, or just browse through for stuff to vex yourself
> with?
If he wasn't talking about marketshare, what was he talking about?
Productivity? I can't speak for others, but I am very productive in
Java, but this is not a mesurement of sucessfulness of Java, thus
irrelevant. Goals can be a measurement of success. Goals of Java:
Crossplatform, Easy to learn for programmers, Secure, stable. Java is
those things, therefore it is sucessful in it's goals.
Measurement of success against anything other then its purpose
(successful in market, a presumed goal, and its stated design goals)
is called: "Irrelevant purpose fallacy". So what was he measuring it
against? (Think about it, no need to answer. I am tired of talking
about thim)
>
> > "[wrt. Java] It's designed for large organizations."
> >
> > Umm...says who? I guess he made this one up.
> Says Gosling, in the early java white papers.
Got a link? (Nevermind. Post if you like, but I am tired of talkinga
about him)
> > Much as I despise M$, this one makes me wonder planet he lives on.
> The same one where I live, apparently, as all the best
> systems/server-side guys I know are Linux/BSD/MacOS types. I know
> some awfully good client-side windows dudes (heck-I arguably am one,
> as most of my paid programming has been in C on Windows clients), but
> they are all there by economic necessity, not choice.
You present a reasonable argument. Unfortunetly Graham didn't. By
his explanation, you would be an undesirable coder for simply having
done windows lots of windows programming.
> Actually, it is from Gosling saying that he wanted it to be easy to
> learn for average programmers. Gosling is much smarter than average,
> so java is for someone less smart thas the designer.
That is called: "Alternative syllogism fallacy"
Gosling is much smarter than the most programmers
Gosling made Java easy to use for programmers
Therefore Java is intended for someone less smart then Gosling (*Not
proven*)
Just becauase Gosling made Java easy to use for programmers does not
mean he didn't intend for smart programmers, like himself to use it.
Infact, Gosling himself does use it.
>
> You know, if it is true that Gosling's favorite language is lisp, then
> you can consider my mind blown. (I'd love a reference, if you have it)
> THAT is a powerful statement.
I said "one of is favorite", not favorite.
Anyways...Lets agree to disagree. I am tired of talking about him.
Darren wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in message
>
>>I think Paul Graham is doing quite well. He has become famous and
>>extremely rich by using Lisp. What else do you want? You're probably
[...]
>
> I really don't understand why anyone here is defending him.
>
> I am very interested in Lisp, despite Grahams rantings. I was
> interested in it before Graham's crap but I was doing a huge project
> so my interest was put on hold.
>
> PS: I know Python and C, so I didn't fit his Java monkey mold. But
> you are right, he pissed me off. His arrogance, predjudice and
> mistruths were hard to swallow.
Well, then just ignore him and live with the fact that other people
appreciate what he does. We're all different. There is lots of other
material around that you can focus on instead. There's no single path to
enlightenment. ;)
Pascal
--
Tyler: "How's that working out for you?"
Jack: "Great."
Tyler: "Keep it up, then."
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in message
> Well, then just ignore him and live with the fact that other people
> appreciate what he does. We're all different. There is lots of other
> material around that you can focus on instead. There's no single path to
> enlightenment. ;)
>
>
> Pascal
Agreed and done. :)
·········@hotmail.com (Darren) writes:
> PG could do much more for Lisp by building a great application then
> open sourcing it. Something that has broad appeal and/or usefulness
> (Arc won't qulify, good, bad or otherwise). Lisp needs more examples
> like Naughty Dog.
I mostly agree with you here. If more people start making money using
the free Lisp tools, that would go a long way towards improving Lisp's
popularity.
Paul Graham's Lisp evangelism is really not too different from ESR's
Linux evangelism. And Graham did make money off of Lisp with viaweb.
He also has some pretty good books out. So while he may not appeal to
everyone, he is doing a fair job and has reasonable credentials.
For my part, I don't care if Lisp never becomes a mainstream
language. It is enough for me if the Lisp community remains large
enough that the free Lisp tools keep improving and that I can find my
own way to use them to some competitive advantage.
--
An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader.
--- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1
Neo-LISPer <··········@yahoo.com> writes:
> and I did not fake the moon landing photos.
It's my understanding that George Lucas will be working with NASA to
produce a Special Edition set of the moon landing videos including
replacing Walter Cronkite with Tom Brokaw.
--
An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader.
--- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> It's my understanding that George Lucas will be working with NASA to
> produce a Special Edition set of the moon landing videos including
> replacing Walter Cronkite with Tom Brokaw.
Well, it won't beat the Wallace and Gromit version!
--
(espen)