"Another Glitch In The Call" Lisp Song Text

From: Frank Goenninger DG1SBG
Subject: "Another Glitch In The Call" Lisp Song Text
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 03:43:56 +0000
Message-ID: <lz3b44bklf.fsf@pcsde001.de.goenninger.net>

Anyone seen this before? I got that one forwarded today by a colleague:

Another Glitch in the Call
(Sung to the tune of a similar Pink Floyd song.)
(Contributed By Knappy 8350428 @ UWAVM)

We don't need no indirection
We don't need no flow control
No data typing or declarations
Hey! You! Leave those lists alone!

Chorus:
All in all, it's just a pure-LISP function call.

We don't need no side effect-ing
We don't need no scope control
No global variables for execution
Hey! You! Leave those args alone!

(Chorus)

We don't need no allocation
We don't need no special nodes
No dark bit-flipping in the functions
Hey! You! Leave those bits alone!

(Chorus)

We don't need no compilation
We don't need no load control
No link edit for external bindings
Hey! You! Leave that source alone!

(Chorus, and repeat)


... Frank

Re: "Another Glitch In The Call" Lisp Song Text John Thingstad
- Re: "Another Glitch In The Call" Lisp Song Text jim burton
Re: "Another Glitch In The Call" Lisp Song Text Ken

From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: "Another Glitch In The Call" Lisp Song Text
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:35:38 +0000
Message-ID: <op.tpbw1oprpqzri1@pandora.upc.no>

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 04:43:56 +0100, Frank Goenninger DG1SBG  
<·············@nomail.org> wrote:

lol, funny though the ryming is a bit bad.

>
> Chorus:
> All in all, it's just a pure-LISP function call.
>

How about:

For the call, we feel that lambda rules all.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

From: jim burton
Subject: Re: "Another Glitch In The Call" Lisp Song Text
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:45:21 +0000
Message-ID: <1174153521.628898.106790@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>

On Mar 17, 10:35 am, "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no>
wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 04:43:56 +0100, Frank Goenninger DG1SBG
>
> <·············@nomail.org> wrote:
>
> lol, funny though the ryming is a bit bad.
>

funny ha-ha or funny-pecu?

>
>
> > Chorus:
> > All in all, it's just a pure-LISP function call.
>
> How about:
>
> For the call, we feel that lambda rules all.

The 1980s rang, they want their music *and* their programming language
back. <duck/>

>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:http://www.opera.com/mail/

From: Ken
Subject: Re: "Another Glitch In The Call" Lisp Song Text
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 09:29:47 +0000
Message-ID: <0irNh.73$Ll1.51@newsfe12.lga>

Frank Goenninger DG1SBG wrote:
> Anyone seen this before? I got that one forwarded today by a colleague:
> 
> Another Glitch in the Call
> (Sung to the tune of a similar Pink Floyd song.)
> (Contributed By Knappy 8350428 @ UWAVM)
> 
> We don't need no indirection
> We don't need no flow control
> No data typing or declarations
> Hey! You! Leave those lists alone!
> 
> Chorus:
> All in all, it's just a pure-LISP function call.
> 
> We don't need no side effect-ing
> We don't need no scope control
> No global variables for execution
> Hey! You! Leave those args alone!
> 
> (Chorus)
> 
> We don't need no allocation
> We don't need no special nodes
> No dark bit-flipping in the functions
> Hey! You! Leave those bits alone!
> 
> (Chorus)
> 
> We don't need no compilation

<sigh>

:)

kt

> We don't need no load control
> No link edit for external bindings
> Hey! You! Leave that source alone!
> 
> (Chorus, and repeat)
> 
> 
> ... Frank