Hi,
I don't care if I get flamed... I've just passed any spare hour I've
had over the past week learning the key basics of CLisp... woooo hoooo!
Immature, I know..
& it feels grrrrreat!
K
KevinZzz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't care if I get flamed... I've just passed any spare hour I've
> had over the past week learning the key basics of CLisp... woooo hoooo!
>
> Immature, I know..
>
> & it feels grrrrreat!
>
> K
Congratulations. You have now learnt a language that 100% of jobs don't
require.
Go have a Guiness or two. Then sober up and learn something useful,
like C.
sticky_keys wrote:
> KevinZzz wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't care if I get flamed... I've just passed any spare hour I've
> > had over the past week learning the key basics of CLisp... woooo hoooo!
> >
> > Immature, I know..
> >
> > & it feels grrrrreat!
> >
> > K
>
> Congratulations. You have now learnt a language that 100% of jobs don't
> require.
> Go have a Guiness or two. Then sober up and learn something useful,
> like C.
I don't like Guinness (or 'Guiness', as you seem to think it's spelt) &
I know an adequate amount of C (& Java & blah blah blah...), thank
you..
K
"sticky_keys" <···········@hotmail.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
····························@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> ...
> Congratulations. You have now learnt a language that 100% of jobs don't
> require.
> ...
I am sure others have mentioned before: Even if you can't apply CL to your everyday problems
(because you are forced to use other languages) you will be thinking different. This is a big
difference. I just had a look into a piece of c++ code I ordered (I expected it to be somehow
dynamic). Everthing was hard wired within the code! These guys although hard-working have no idea
what _dynamic_ means (btw this module will not be re-usable).
Andreas
"Andreas Thiele" <······@nospam.com> writes:
>
> I am sure others have mentioned before: Even if you can't apply CL to your everyday problems
> (because you are forced to use other languages) you will be thinking different. This is a big
> difference.
Certainly someone is thinking differently when it comes to line widths...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
You know there's going to be trouble when a laser capable of turning all
intervening matter between source and target to vacuum is merely the
warning shot. --SteveD
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
> "Andreas Thiele" <······@nospam.com> writes:
>>
>> I am sure others have mentioned before: Even if you can't apply CL to your everyday problems
>> (because you are forced to use other languages) you will be thinking different. This is a big
>> difference.
>
> Certainly someone is thinking differently when it comes to line widths...
Hmm. If Andreas's too-llong lines could somehow be merged with John
Thingstad's too-short lines...I think we would have something.
;)
sticky_keys wrote:
> Congratulations. You have now learnt a language that 100% of jobs don't
> require.
This may be hard for you to imagine, but some very bright people who
are already in the midst of long and fruitful careers in computing want
to learn about other things, which are not necessarily required for
their work, and enjoy considerable freedom to do so. Once they
encounter Lisp, they realize that who don't know Lisp have large white
areas in their mental map of computer science, and don't even know it.
Your kind of thinking, though understandable, is pitifully laughable to
people in the industry. It's the thinking of the outsiders who want to
get in. ``If only I learn the right language and tools at the right
time, I will be able to stuff the right acronyms into my resume, pass
the interview process and then I will get my big break''.
> Then sober up and learn something useful, like C.
C it's hardly the thing to learn these days if what you are after is
simply getting a job, rather than a career in embedded software---and
that requires a lot more than just learning C. The era when knowing C
was ``the thing'' for trying to land a job was perhaps some fifteen to
twenty years ago. Was that when you started looking?
Sounds like you are bitter about something.
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> sticky_keys wrote:
> > Congratulations. You have now learnt a language that 100% of jobs don't
> > require.
>
> This may be hard for you to imagine, but some very bright people who
> are already in the midst of long and fruitful careers in computing want
> to learn about other things, which are not necessarily required for
> their work, and enjoy considerable freedom to do so. Once they
> encounter Lisp, they realize that who don't know Lisp have large white
> areas in their mental map of computer science, and don't even know it.
Ah - 'the few'.
Yes I'm aware of that. But how many people who go through comp sci just
want a well paid job as a code monkey? The majority I'd say.
> Your kind of thinking, though understandable, is pitifully laughable to
> people in the industry. It's the thinking of the outsiders who want to
> get in. ``If only I learn the right language and tools at the right
> time, I will be able to stuff the right acronyms into my resume, pass
> the interview process and then I will get my big break''.
It depends how you define 'the industry'.
Sure Microsoft spend plenty of time/money inventing new languages, but
most of them are a niche market.
Most suits just want someone who can churn out database apps in
C++/Java or whatever the suits think is 'in' this year.
> > Then sober up and learn something useful, like C.
>
> C it's hardly the thing to learn these days if what you are after is
> simply getting a job, rather than a career in embedded software---and
> that requires a lot more than just learning C. The era when knowing C
> was ``the thing'' for trying to land a job was perhaps some fifteen to
> twenty years ago. Was that when you started looking?
OK, I'll give you that one. There are other languages that look better
on a CV.
I guess I was making the (perhaps totally incorrect) point that Lisp is
not really a 'career language'.
I'll withold the 'When I was a lad' speech.
> Sounds like you are bitter about something.
That would be going off-topic, but yes, I get cranky.
KevinZzz wrote:
> I don't care if I get flamed... I've just passed any spare hour I've
> had over the past week learning the key basics of CLisp... woooo hoooo!
Do you mean http://clisp.cons.org/ ? That's fine that you know how to use
CLISP, now it is time to learn Common Lisp :-)
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Frank Buss wrote:
> KevinZzz wrote:
>
> > I don't care if I get flamed... I've just passed any spare hour I've
> > had over the past week learning the key basics of CLisp... woooo hoooo!
>
> Do you mean http://clisp.cons.org/ ? That's fine that you know how to use
> CLISP, now it is time to learn Common Lisp :-)
>
> --
> Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
> http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Frank,
difficulty processing this, isn't CLisp an ANSI Common Lisp
implementation? Doesn't one grammar cover all?
K
KevinZzz wrote:
> difficulty processing this, isn't CLisp an ANSI Common Lisp
> implementation? Doesn't one grammar cover all?
You wrote that you've learned the key basics of CLisp. CLISP is a program,
with which you can write and test Common Lisp programs. But this sounds to
me like that you've learned how to use a graphics drawing program: You can
start the program, you can draw lines, you can load and save pictures, but
you can't produce Picasso paintings. Same with CLISP: using the program
doesn't mean that you have learned something of Common Lisp, but maybe you
meant this in your first post and I'm cutting hairs.
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Frank Buss wrote:
> KevinZzz wrote:
>
> > difficulty processing this, isn't CLisp an ANSI Common Lisp
> > implementation? Doesn't one grammar cover all?
>
> You wrote that you've learned the key basics of CLisp. CLISP is a program,
> with which you can write and test Common Lisp programs. But this sounds to
> me like that you've learned how to use a graphics drawing program: You can
> start the program, you can draw lines, you can load and save pictures, but
> you can't produce Picasso paintings. Same with CLISP: using the program
> doesn't mean that you have learned something of Common Lisp, but maybe you
> meant this in your first post and I'm cutting hairs.
>
> --
> Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
> http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Frank,
I meant that I've been learning the key basics of Common Lisp (I was
using CLisp as an abbreviation or contraction) & yes, I know that by
covering basic syntax through Hashes, Arrays, CLOS basics & so on, I
haven't mastered anything other than the basic grammar..
But I have master'd the basic grammar, can read many pieces of code
that were alien a week ago & am pleased that I've done so...
I've used Java/C/Perl & other languages previously.. but I got a thrill
off CL..
Hence the 'immature' whoops!
K
Frank Buss wrote:
> KevinZzz wrote:
>
> > I don't care if I get flamed... I've just passed any spare hour I've
> > had over the past week learning the key basics of CLisp... woooo hoooo!
>
> Do you mean http://clisp.cons.org/ ? That's fine that you know how to use
> CLISP, now it is time to learn Common Lisp :-)
>
> --
> Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
> http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Frank,
difficulty processing this, isn't CLisp an ANSI Common Lisp
implementation? Doesn't one grammar cover all?
K
KevinZzz wrote, On 19/11/06 9:26 AM:
> difficulty processing this, isn't CLisp an ANSI Common Lisp
> implementation? Doesn't one grammar cover all?
For some reason, people in this newsgroup are really quick to flame
people who say "CLisp" when they refer to Common Lisp, and really really
slow to explain why they are flaming about it.
CLISP is the name used for one implementation of ANSI Common Lisp, the
full name being GNU CLISP, from the Free Software Foundation, to be
found at http://clisp.sourceforge.net/
To avoid confusion, people here usually abbreviate Common Lisp as "CL"
and never as "CLisp".
To create confusion, some of the same people flame newbies (and the
occasional troll who refuses to stop saying "CLisp") for saying "CLisp"
but never explain why in simple English.
--
Sidney Markowitz
http://www.sidney.com
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> To avoid confusion, people here usually abbreviate Common Lisp as "CL"
> and never as "CLisp".
>
Sidney,
CL it is then..
& Andreas, I wanted to see this whole 'CL changes the way you see
things' for myself...
You guys weren't joking...
K
p.s: I think I know why sticky_keys keys are sticky...
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> KevinZzz wrote, On 19/11/06 9:26 AM:
>
>>difficulty processing this, isn't CLisp an ANSI Common Lisp
>>implementation? Doesn't one grammar cover all?
>
>
> For some reason, people in this newsgroup are really quick to flame
> people who say "CLisp" when they refer to Common Lisp, and really really
> slow to explain why they are flaming about it.
>
> CLISP is...
I may be wrong on this, but this was indeed explained in plain English,
unfortunately Zzz's intoxication with CL made him a little slow on the
uptake. The bouncers have now had a word with him and things seem to be
in order.
Meanwhile, I was going to make fun of you for using all caps in CLISP
since we do not do that with Lisp any more, but I see that is how they
capitalize it. Interesting.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> > KevinZzz wrote, On 19/11/06 9:26 AM:
> >
> >>difficulty processing this, isn't CLisp an ANSI Common Lisp
> >>implementation? Doesn't one grammar cover all?
> >
> >
> > For some reason, people in this newsgroup are really quick to flame
> > people who say "CLisp" when they refer to Common Lisp, and really really
> > slow to explain why they are flaming about it.
> >
> > CLISP is...
>
> I may be wrong on this, but this was indeed explained in plain English,
> unfortunately Zzz's intoxication with CL made him a little slow on the
> uptake. The bouncers have now had a word with him and things seem to be
> in order.
Ken,
No one explained it 'in plain English' until after I asked the question
& no 'bouncers' made any approach..
K
KevinZzz wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>> Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>>> KevinZzz wrote, On 19/11/06 9:26 AM:
>>>
>>>> difficulty processing this, isn't CLisp an ANSI Common Lisp
>>>> implementation? Doesn't one grammar cover all?
>>>
>>> For some reason, people in this newsgroup are really quick to flame
>>> people who say "CLisp" when they refer to Common Lisp, and really really
>>> slow to explain why they are flaming about it.
>>>
>>> CLISP is...
>> I may be wrong on this, but this was indeed explained in plain English,
>> unfortunately Zzz's intoxication with CL made him a little slow on the
>> uptake. The bouncers have now had a word with him and things seem to be
>> in order.
>
> Ken,
>
> No one explained it 'in plain English' until after I asked the question
> & no 'bouncers' made any approach..
Usenet is not a real-time communication medium.
And yes, asking helps. ;)
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> KevinZzz wrote:
> > Ken Tilton wrote:
> >> Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> >>> KevinZzz wrote, On 19/11/06 9:26 AM:
> >>>
> >>>> difficulty processing this, isn't CLisp an ANSI Common Lisp
> >>>> implementation? Doesn't one grammar cover all?
> >>>
> >>> For some reason, people in this newsgroup are really quick to flame
> >>> people who say "CLisp" when they refer to Common Lisp, and really really
> >>> slow to explain why they are flaming about it.
> >>>
> >>> CLISP is...
> >> I may be wrong on this, but this was indeed explained in plain English,
> >> unfortunately Zzz's intoxication with CL made him a little slow on the
> >> uptake. The bouncers have now had a word with him and things seem to be
> >> in order.
> >
> > Ken,
> >
> > No one explained it 'in plain English' until after I asked the question
> > & no 'bouncers' made any approach..
>
> Usenet is not a real-time communication medium.
>
> And yes, asking helps. ;)
>
>
> Pascal
>
> --
> My website: http://p-cos.net
> Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
> Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Pascal,
Ken's mail gave the impression that the answer was present before I
posed the question..
Usenet is certainly not a 'faster-than-real-time' communication
medium..
K
KevinZzz wrote:
> > > Ken,
> > >
> > > No one explained it 'in plain English' until after I asked the question
> > > & no 'bouncers' made any approach..
> >
> > Usenet is not a real-time communication medium.
> >
> > And yes, asking helps. ;)
> >
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> > --
> > My website: http://p-cos.net
> > Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
> > Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
>
> Pascal,
>
> Ken's mail gave the impression that the answer was present before I
> posed the question..
1) The answer *is* present, usually on a wiki somewhere.
2) Does his response surprise you? How long have you been reading this
group?
> Usenet is certainly not a 'faster-than-real-time' communication
> medium..
And that's a good thing.
KevinZzz wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>>
>>>KevinZzz wrote, On 19/11/06 9:26 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>>difficulty processing this, isn't CLisp an ANSI Common Lisp
>>>>implementation? Doesn't one grammar cover all?
>>>
>>>
>>>For some reason, people in this newsgroup are really quick to flame
>>>people who say "CLisp" when they refer to Common Lisp, and really really
>>> slow to explain why they are flaming about it.
>>>
>>>CLISP is...
>>
>>I may be wrong on this, but this was indeed explained in plain English,
>>unfortunately Zzz's intoxication with CL made him a little slow on the
>>uptake. The bouncers have now had a word with him and things seem to be
>>in order.
>
>
> Ken,
>
> No one explained it 'in plain English' until after I asked the question
I know, Kevin. You are new here, you will learn, I am never wrong. After
Frank expanded on his perhaps too terse witty revelation:
frank wrote:
> KevinZzz wrote:
>
>
>>> difficulty processing this, isn't CLisp an ANSI Common Lisp
>>> implementation? Doesn't one grammar cover all?
>
>
> You wrote that you've learned the key basics of CLisp. CLISP is a program,
> with which you can write and test Common Lisp programs. But this sounds to
> me like that you've learned how to use a graphics drawing program: You can
> start the program, you can draw lines, you can load and save pictures, but
> you can't produce Picasso paintings. Same with CLISP: using the program
> doesn't mean that you have learned something of Common Lisp, but maybe you
> meant this in your first post and I'm cutting hairs.
...I was impressed by the density of your response:
> I meant that I've been learning the key basics of Common Lisp (I was
> using CLisp as an abbreviation or contraction)
That helpful "I was using CLisp as an abbreviation or contraction"
without acknowledging in any way "whoa, it is the name of one particular
product?" signified to me that you had missed his drift, perhaps because
you were concentrating on getting the bartender's attention as Frank
penned his clarification. The best part was that you had requested
clarification, gotten it, read it, and then helpfully explained to us
what mistake we all knew you were making without yet acknowledging the
mistake.
"Feeling no pain, Kevin?"
"Sorry?"
"You just came out of the women's rest room."
"Look, I had to take a leak. Odd, no urinals, just sit-downs."
> & no 'bouncers' made any approach..
It's crowded, they are still working their way through the crowd. Don't
worry, we'll explain about the Lisp "high".
:)
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> The best part was that you had requested
> clarification, gotten it, read it, and then helpfully explained to us
> what mistake we all knew you were making without yet acknowledging the
> mistake.
Implicit acknowledgement.
>
> "Feeling no pain, Kevin?"
> "Sorry?"
> "You just came out of the women's rest room."
> "Look, I had to take a leak. Odd, no urinals, just sit-downs."
>
I saw some graffiti about you when I was in there.. it made me laugh...
> > & no 'bouncers' made any approach..
>
> It's crowded, they are still working their way through the crowd. Don't
> worry, we'll explain about the Lisp "high".
>
Ya, that's cool.. no 'bouncers' yet... just 'one' idiot who thinks he
owns the place, but...
K
KevinZzz wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
> > The best part was that you had requested
> > clarification, gotten it, read it, and then helpfully explained to us
> > what mistake we all knew you were making without yet acknowledging the
> > mistake.
>
> Implicit acknowledgement.
>
> >
> > "Feeling no pain, Kevin?"
> > "Sorry?"
> > "You just came out of the women's rest room."
> > "Look, I had to take a leak. Odd, no urinals, just sit-downs."
> >
>
> I saw some graffiti about you when I was in there.. it made me laugh...
MEEEOOOWWWW!
> > > & no 'bouncers' made any approach..
> >
> > It's crowded, they are still working their way through the crowd. Don't
> > worry, we'll explain about the Lisp "high".
> >
>
> Ya, that's cool.. no 'bouncers' yet... just 'one' idiot who thinks he
> owns the place, but...
Whaddya know? The kids tough!
sticky_keys wrote:
> KevinZzz wrote:
>
>>Ken Tilton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The best part was that you had requested
>>>clarification, gotten it, read it, and then helpfully explained to us
>>>what mistake we all knew you were making without yet acknowledging the
>>>mistake.
>>
>>Implicit acknowledgement.
>>
>>
>>>"Feeling no pain, Kevin?"
>>>"Sorry?"
>>>"You just came out of the women's rest room."
>>>"Look, I had to take a leak. Odd, no urinals, just sit-downs."
>>>
>>
>>I saw some graffiti about you when I was in there.. it made me laugh...
>
>
> MEEEOOOWWWW!
>
>
>>>>& no 'bouncers' made any approach..
>>>
>>>It's crowded, they are still working their way through the crowd. Don't
>>>worry, we'll explain about the Lisp "high".
>>>
>>
>>Ya, that's cool.. no 'bouncers' yet... just 'one' idiot who thinks he
>>owns the place, but...
>
>
> Whaddya know? The kids tough!
>
Yeah, he should do OK here. I knew he was trouble when he said he did
not care if he got flamed just before saying something insanely great
about the language this group uses.
:)
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Jeff, if you type in a new page name (oh, let's say "Jeff Shrager") and
hit the go button (er, I am talking about the little search/go/random
box apparently at the top right of every page) it will ley you create a
new page called "Jeff Shrager". That is how I... well, you'll see below....
KevinZzz wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>The best part was that you had requested
>>clarification, gotten it, read it, and then helpfully explained to us
>>what mistake we all knew you were making without yet acknowledging the
>>mistake.
>
>
> Implicit acknowledgement.
>
>
>>"Feeling no pain, Kevin?"
>>"Sorry?"
>>"You just came out of the women's rest room."
>>"Look, I had to take a leak. Odd, no urinals, just sit-downs."
>>
>
>
> I saw some graffiti about you when I was in there.. it made me laugh...
Good one. :)
>
>
>>>& no 'bouncers' made any approach..
>>
>>It's crowded, they are still working their way through the crowd. Don't
>>worry, we'll explain about the Lisp "high".
>>
>
>
> Ya, that's cool.. no 'bouncers' yet... just 'one' idiot who thinks he
> owns the place, but...
Oh STFU and go finish your RtL: http://wiki.alu.org/KevinZzz
:)
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Jeff, if you type in a new page name (oh, let's say "Jeff Shrager") and
> hit the go button (er, I am talking about the little search/go/random
> box apparently at the top right of every page) it will ley you create a
> new page called "Jeff Shrager". That is how I... well, you'll see below....
>
> KevinZzz wrote:
> > Ken Tilton wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The best part was that you had requested
> >>clarification, gotten it, read it, and then helpfully explained to us
> >>what mistake we all knew you were making without yet acknowledging the
> >>mistake.
> >
> >
> > Implicit acknowledgement.
> >
> >
> >>"Feeling no pain, Kevin?"
> >>"Sorry?"
> >>"You just came out of the women's rest room."
> >>"Look, I had to take a leak. Odd, no urinals, just sit-downs."
> >>
> >
> >
> > I saw some graffiti about you when I was in there.. it made me laugh...
>
> Good one. :)
"World in shock as Ken Titlon pays complement.
> >
> >
> >>>& no 'bouncers' made any approach..
> >>
> >>It's crowded, they are still working their way through the crowd. Don't
> >>worry, we'll explain about the Lisp "high".
> >>
> >
> >
> > Ya, that's cool.. no 'bouncers' yet... just 'one' idiot who thinks he
> > owns the place, but...
>
> Oh STFU and go finish your RtL: http://wiki.alu.org/KevinZzz
He's shaken.
> :)
But not stirred.
> kenny
"People...People who need people..."
sticky_keys wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>Jeff, if you type in a new page name (oh, let's say "Jeff Shrager") and
>>hit the go button (er, I am talking about the little search/go/random
>>box apparently at the top right of every page) it will ley you create a
>>new page called "Jeff Shrager". That is how I... well, you'll see below....
>>
>>KevinZzz wrote:
>>>I saw some graffiti about you when I was in there.. it made me laugh...
>>
>>Good one. :)
>
>
> "World in shock as Ken Titlon pays complement.
So either I am uncomplimentary or youse guys are not funny. I have bad
news for you...
:)
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Jeff, if you type in a new page name (oh, let's say "Jeff Shrager") and
> hit the go button (er, I am talking about the little search/go/random
> box apparently at the top right of every page) it will ley you create a
> new page called "Jeff Shrager". That is how I... well, you'll see below....
Whoa!!! Non-Sequitur whiplash!!! (THAT took some serious
pointer-chasing to interpret!)
KevinZzz <···············@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
[...]
> >
> > "Feeling no pain, Kevin?"
> > "Sorry?"
> > "You just came out of the women's rest room."
> > "Look, I had to take a leak. Odd, no urinals, just sit-downs."
> >
>
> I saw some graffiti about you when I was in there.. it made me laugh...
>
KevinZzz FTW!
Ken Tilton wrote, On 20/11/06 1:50 AM:
> I may be wrong on this, but this was indeed explained in plain English,
The only such explanation I see (not counting archives) was posted by
Pascal Costanza in the CLisp and Common Lisp thread dated two hours
before my post. I had not read it yet when I posted, and that's close
enough that you can't guess which one KevinZzz saw first.
> Meanwhile, I was going to make fun of you for using all caps in CLISP
> since we do not do that with Lisp any more, but I see that is how they
> capitalize it
I was making fun of them by using all caps as they do :-)
--
Sidney Markowitz
http://www.sidney.com
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote, On 20/11/06 1:50 AM:
>
>>I may be wrong on this, but this was indeed explained in plain English,
>
>
> The only such explanation I see (not counting archives) was posted by
> Pascal Costanza in the CLisp and Common Lisp thread dated two hours
> before my post. I had not read it yet when I posted, and that's close
> enough that you can't guess which one KevinZzz saw first.
I have since posted the exchange that had me rolling my eyes even before
this became an issue: Kzz responded to Frank's clarification that he
should not use CLisp as an abbreviation for Common Lisp by explaining to
us that he was using CLisp as an abbreviation for Common Lisp.
My sig is becoming more and more relevant.
:)
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>
>> Ken Tilton wrote, On 20/11/06 1:50 AM:
>>
>>> I may be wrong on this, but this was indeed explained in plain English,
>>
>>
>>
>> The only such explanation I see (not counting archives) was posted by
>> Pascal Costanza in the CLisp and Common Lisp thread dated two hours
>> before my post. I had not read it yet when I posted, and that's close
>> enough that you can't guess which one KevinZzz saw first.
>
>
> I have since posted the exchange that had me rolling my eyes even before
> this became an issue: Kzz responded to Frank's clarification
Actually, I am not sure what was obscure about:
> KevinZzz wrote:
>
>
>>> I don't care if I get flamed... I've just passed any spare hour I've
>>> had over the past week learning the key basics of CLisp... woooo hoooo!
>
>
> Do you mean http://clisp.cons.org/ ? That's fine that you know how to use
> CLISP, now it is time to learn Common Lisp :-)
...given the URL. And let it be noted that Kzzz participated in the
thread "CLISP and Common Lisp", those his contribution (puzzling at the
time) foreshadowed the gathering of this storm in a teapot:
> I can only cite wikipedia & say 'potato' while others say 'potato'...
That thread eventually led to Andre's:
> What Borland C++, Watcom C++ or MS Visual C++ are for the language C++
> are CLisp and GCL for Common Lisp.
...but that may have come after the rest of the fun, and Kzzz may have
stopped reading the thread (even tho he posted twice to it).
Hey, it's all good, and once a misapprehension gets its foot in the
cortical door it can take repeated stompings to get out.
:)
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon