Actually it was a serious question. I don't know why all 4 responses
were flippant.
Subject matter expertise obviously matters as much as choice of
programming language. And if you're creating , say , your own web
server , then you get to choose the language. But in most jobs, the
choice is already made for you.
I can see certain areas where Lisp is likely the best choice, with
Python close behind ( both are much better at tree manipulation than C/
C++ ). Haskell is newer and more restrictive.
But my question is about todays job market in large American cities.
Also, many programming jobs are flooded with immigrants, so the effect
of globalisation on salaries is a relevant question, since American
society is much more open than Europe to asian immigrants.
On Aug 15, 11:00 am, Robert <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually it was a serious question. I don't know why all 4 responses
> were flippant.
>
> Subject matter expertise obviously matters as much as choice of
> programming language. And if you're creating , say , your own web
> server , then you get to choose the language. But in most jobs, the
> choice is already made for you.
Serious, eh?
What is it, specifically, you want to know or discuss??
> I can see certain areas where Lisp is likely the best choice, with
> Python close behind ( both are much better at tree manipulation than C/
> C++ ). Haskell is newer and more restrictive.
you wanted to know the job market of lisp in game programing? in web
programing? in sys admin? They are practically nil.
If you have fairly above average IQ like me, then, my general advice
for long-term career choices is that pursue what you like and the
bosses will compete their heads off to employ you. While you are still
in a shoehorning stage, you can meanwhile mop McDonald's toilets.
If you are average IQ and need bread and butter soon, just learn Java,
HTML and Javascript and sql and PHP, VisualBasic, perl.
> But my question is about todays job market in large American cities.
To get a general sense of job market for lisp or haskell in a
geographic area, you can just do a search in job sites. Dice.com and
monster.com are classics.
> Also, many programming jobs are flooded with immigrants, so the effect
> of globalisation on salaries is a relevant question, since American
> society is much more open than Europe to asian immigrants.
Hum? what is the question you have in mind exactly?
You want to know what's lisper's average of salary in comparison to,
say, the average of java programer's salary, in say, Kenny's town? You
want the arithemetic mean or medium?
I'm interested to know too. I don't mean to be off putting, but you'll
have more chances of knowing these answers by asking a librarian in a
library, or join a moderated forum on social science related studies.
For general resources, you can start with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_outsourcing
and follow its articles and references.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <873al56dgg.fsf@geddis.org>
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
> If you have fairly above average IQ like me
Really? What's your IQ, then? I'm curious what number corresponds to
"fairly above average".
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
On Aug 15, 4:55 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
>
> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> Really? What's your IQ, then? I'm curious what number corresponds to
> "fairly above average".
So, if i disclose my IQ, you disclose yours?
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <87r68p6k7d.fsf@geddis.org>
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
> On Aug 15, 4:55 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
>> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
>> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>>
>> Really? What's your IQ, then? I'm curious what number corresponds to
>> "fairly above average".
>
> So, if i disclose my IQ, you disclose yours?
I've been making no claims about my IQ.
You're the one who seemed to have no problem discussing your own IQ.
So I was curious what the number was. After all, you brought it up.
As for me: I will admit this: my IQ, as measured by clinical professionals,
is within a few standard deviations of normal. At most 4-5 deviations from
average, surely not more than that.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
If you want to sue somebody, just get a little plastic skeleton and lay it in
their yard. Then tell them their ants ate your baby.
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
On Aug 16, 8:41 am, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
>
> As for me: I will admit this: my IQ, as measured by clinical professionals,
> is within a few standard deviations of normal. At most 4-5 deviations from
> average, surely not more than that.
Boy, that's humble! :)
Even 4 standard deviations out makes you about 1 in 30,000; for 5,
it's about 1 in 3 million. So yes, "surely not more than that" :)
-- Scott
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <87zlnc62nf.fsf@geddis.org>
Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
> On Aug 16, 8:41 am, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
>> As for me: I will admit this: my IQ, as measured by clinical professionals,
>> is within a few standard deviations of normal. At most 4-5 deviations from
>> average, surely not more than that.
>
> Boy, that's humble! :)
> Even 4 standard deviations out makes you about 1 in 30,000; for 5,
> it's about 1 in 3 million. So yes, "surely not more than that" :)
Oh, but I was just putting bounds. Note my wording: I'm "within" those
bounds, "at most", "surely not more", etc. Merely somewhere (anywhere!)
inside that range.
Also, I note that you automatically assumed I was bragging. I was also
careful not to state that my IQ was even above average. The bounds are
symmetric on either side of the peak. Perhaps you should have pity for me!
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
When you want to accomplish something, there are different stages that you go
through. The first is to imagine yourself doing whatever it is. The second is
to light up a big cigar, because mister, she's as good as done.
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]
On Aug 16, 8:41 am, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>
> > On Aug 15, 4:55 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
> >> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
> >> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> >> Really? What's your IQ, then? I'm curious what number corresponds to
> >> "fairly above average".
>
> > So, if i disclose my IQ, you disclose yours?
>
> I've been making no claims about my IQ.
>
> You're the one who seemed to have no problem discussing your own IQ.
> So I was curious what the number was. After all, you brought it up.
LOL, Don, how ugly a exit strategy. May i suggest not be
confrontational on stage then?
> As for me: I will admit this: my IQ, as measured by clinical professionals,
> is within a few standard deviations of normal. At most 4-5 deviations from
> average, surely not more than that.
Publish it. Post it here. Post whatever certificates or test you have,
with a scan of the cert or test, date etc. When i see that you
published yours and mean it, i'll post mine.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <87vdy062iw.fsf@geddis.org>
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>> >> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
>> >> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> Publish it. Post it here. Post whatever certificates or test you have, with
> a scan of the cert or test, date etc. When i see that you published yours
> and mean it, i'll post mine.
Again, I'm not the one making any claims.
I just note that, as usual, you make strong assertions in your posts, but
when challenged to back up your statements with actual evidence, you
completely crumble.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Scott: You know, if you don't yell you're more likely to get what you want.
Boss: I want to yell.
Scott: I see. That is a flaw in the plan.
-- Basic Instructions, "How to Be Diplomatic", 5/4/2008
From: Frank GOENNINGER
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <lzbpzq7aoc.fsf@goenninger.net>
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> On Aug 16, 8:41 am, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
>> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>>
>> > On Aug 15, 4:55 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
>> >> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
>> >> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>>
>> >> Really? What's your IQ, then? I'm curious what number corresponds to
>> >> "fairly above average".
>>
>> > So, if i disclose my IQ, you disclose yours?
>>
>> I've been making no claims about my IQ.
>>
>> You're the one who seemed to have no problem discussing your own IQ.
>> So I was curious what the number was. After all, you brought it up.
>
> LOL, Don, how ugly a exit strategy. May i suggest not be
> confrontational on stage then?
he-he. Reminds me of that one short conversation I once had with a
possible employer:
Him: "So, what's your IQ then ?"
Me: "Oh, what a question. I don't know really, but high enough as it
seems."
Him: "Aha. What makes you think this?"
Me: "Well, me, if I were you, I hadn't asked a question like this but
did a meaningful test with the candidate."
I never got that position, btw. But the other person was crossed of
the list of valuable discussion partners as soon as the question for
IQ was put.
Hope that helps!
Frank
--
Frank Goenninger
frgo(at)mac(dot)com
"Don't ask me! I haven't been reading comp.lang.lisp long enough to
really know ..."
On Aug 16, 3:03 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>
> >> >> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
> >> >> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> > Publish it. Post it here. Post whatever certificates or test you have, with
> > a scan of the cert or test, date etc. When i see that you published yours
> > and mean it, i'll post mine.
>
> Again, I'm not the one making any claims.
>
> I just note that, as usual, you make strong assertions in your posts, but
> when challenged to back up your statements with actual evidence, you
> completely crumble.
LOL.
Crumble my ass. It appears you, who completely crumbled.
My statement that IQ that lead to your challenge was:
«If you have fairly above average IQ like me, then, my general advice
for long-term career choices is that pursue what you like and the
bosses will compete their heads off to employ you. While you are still
in a shoehorning stage, you can meanwhile mop McDonald's toilets.»
The remark was made in the context of making fun about lisp jobs
status inquiry. You want to dig the Xah's IQ part.
LOL. Don, I LOL.
It appears to me, anytime some Lisper want to challenge me head to
head, then i follow up with explict terms, they put their tail between
their ass and run off all politely. This happened to Rainer, Geuner,
Tim, others, and now you.
I LOLz. Comp.lang.lisp makes me happy. As Roger Rabbit said in Who
Framed Roger Rabbit as he makes a silhouette of a window:
H A P P Y
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
On Aug 17, 1:20 am, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 3:03 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
>
> > ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>
> > >> >> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
> > >> >> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> > > Publish it. Post it here. Post whatever certificates or test you have, with
> > > a scan of the cert or test, date etc. When i see that you published yours
> > > and mean it, i'll post mine.
>
> > Again, I'm not the one making any claims.
>
> > I just note that, as usual, you make strong assertions in your posts, but
> > when challenged to back up your statements with actual evidence, you
> > completely crumble.
>
> LOL.
>
> Crumble my ass. It appears you, who completely crumbled.
>
> My statement that IQ that lead to your challenge was:
> «If you have fairly above average IQ like me, then, my general advice
> for long-term career choices is that pursue what you like and the
> bosses will compete their heads off to employ you. While you are still
> in a shoehorning stage, you can meanwhile mop McDonald's toilets.»
>
> The remark was made in the context of making fun about lisp jobs
> status inquiry. You want to dig the Xah's IQ part.
>
> LOL. Don, I LOL.
>
> It appears to me, anytime some Lisper want to challenge me head to
> head, then i follow up with explict terms, they put their tail between
> their ass and run off all politely. This happened to Rainer, Geuner,
> Tim, others, and now you.
>
> I LOLz. Comp.lang.lisp makes me happy. As Roger Rabbit said in Who
> Framed Roger Rabbit as he makes a silhouette of a window:
>
> H A P P Y
>
> Xah
> ∑http://xahlee.org/
>
> ☄
Well, given that you seem to be unable to learn much Lisp beyond basic
Emacs scripting,
nobody here is impressed yet. Most of your posts show that you have a
confused understanding of Lisp. comp.lang.lisp seems to be your
favorite
newsgroup now, but you are on a beginner level. If somebody
shows you some basic Lisp code (like I showed you how to easily
implement your Mathematica function with a better interface) you
run away and can't find the post.
I haven't seen any significant amount of Lisp code (remember, this
is comp.lang.lisp) in all the years from you. All I saw is
some basic code how to script Emacs. All I see is long
text with often little information for this newsgroup. It's
not that everybody needs to be a good programmer, but from
you we have seen mostly zero.
Maybe it is about time to actually learn the programming language you
are
writing so much about?
On Aug 16, 4:40 pm, ·······@corporate-world.lisp.de" <······@corporate-
world.lisp.de> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 1:20 am, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 3:03 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
>
> > > ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>
> > > >> >> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
> > > >> >> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> > > > Publish it. Post it here. Post whatever certificates or test you have, with
> > > > a scan of the cert or test, date etc. When i see that you published yours
> > > > and mean it, i'll post mine.
>
> > > Again, I'm not the one making any claims.
>
> > > I just note that, as usual, you make strong assertions in your posts, but
> > > when challenged to back up your statements with actual evidence, you
> > > completely crumble.
>
> > LOL.
>
> > Crumble my ass. It appears you, who completely crumbled.
>
> > My statement that IQ that lead to your challenge was:
> > «If you have fairly above average IQ like me, then, my general advice
> > for long-term career choices is that pursue what you like and the
> > bosses will compete their heads off to employ you. While you are still
> > in a shoehorning stage, you can meanwhile mop McDonald's toilets.»
>
> > The remark was made in the context of making fun about lisp jobs
> > status inquiry. You want to dig theXah'sIQ part.
>
> > LOL. Don, I LOL.
>
> > It appears to me, anytime some Lisper want to challenge me head to
> > head, then i follow up with explict terms, they put their tail between
> > their ass and run off all politely. This happened to Rainer, Geuner,
> > Tim, others, and now you.
>
> > I LOLz. Comp.lang.lisp makes me happy. As Roger Rabbit said in Who
> > Framed Roger Rabbit as he makes a silhouette of a window:
>
> > H A P P Y
>
> > Xah
> > ∑http://xahlee.org/
>
> > ☄
>
> Well, given that you seem to be unable to learn much Lisp beyond basic
> Emacs scripting,
Huh? Rainer, suppose you have a argument in a bar, then you reasonably
proved that you are right. But the monkeys simply kept on about how
you are stupid and wrong? What can you do?
That seems to be my situation here in comp.lang.lisp, repeatedly. I
can again, start to write elaborately, cite url to past threads,
describe the situation, etc. But it's no use.
> nobody here is impressed yet.
You think?
> Most of your posts show that you have a
> confused understanding of Lisp.
Yeah, keep saying that doesn't make you right. You know at least that
right?
> comp.lang.lisp seems to be your
> favorite
> newsgroup now, but you are on a beginner level.
Yeah, keep saying that doesn't make you right. You know at least that
right?
> If somebody
> shows you some basic Lisp code (like I showed you how to easily
> implement your Mathematica function with a better interface) you
> run away and can't find the post.
Huh? And i gave you explanation on how you are just incorrect and just
very silly.
The thread is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_frm/thread/ee9519b32b4ef5d5/
You know, in science there's a priciple of falsifiable. That is, if a
claim is made, one important aspect of science with regards to claims
is whether it is falsifiable.
So, in our debates or argument, whatever the topic, it is often
possible, to make the claim, argument, or subject, in such as way,
that can clearly show which party is wrong. I have tried to suggest
this here and there. But you morons, simply ignores it. Then, just
kept claiming that how i was wrong.
I don't think i need to tress or repeat again, that i think you guys,
although knows lisp technical details, but as far as the general
argument here, especial on any argument against me, are completely
idiotic.
And again, this can be phrased into into a reasonable way so we can
all see who's all just hot air. Again, i tried to do this many times,
with end result that you morons simply become quite, or start to went
off completely off topic drivel, or whatnot.
As far as newsgroup goes, perhaps it is doomed to be stupid drivels
when it comes to issues or argument that has some element of opinion.
What can i do?
> I haven't seen any significant amount of Lisp code (remember, this
> is comp.lang.lisp) in all the years from you.
LOL. I didn't claim to have write many lisp code. What's your problem?
I have claimed, for example, that i know functional programing more
than you morons, and i have claimed and claim now, the fundamental
problems lisp as shown in my essay here:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
We can, itemize the essay, make it into precise statements, and we can
argue in detail. The statements can be made so that each is verifiable
and falsifiable, and most of us would agree that it is a reasonable
rephrasing from my essay. Then, we can argue in detail about which. Do
you want to do that??
And also, perhaps you might consider the whole essay is rather ill
conceived by some wrong perspective, or perhaps there are more
important or practical perpective, etc. But you have to give detail
ok? You can't just say your opponent is wrong and think that you won a
argument, ok?
I mean, before i thought most morons in newsgroup just tried to fuck
around. I made this suggestion particular about you in some thread
maybe 6 months back. I made it explicit, a suggestion that we can each
put money in paypal, as some way to make sure at least we are sincere.
But if i recall, you more or less chicken out with some friendly
words.
Let me be more positive on this... since we don't have nothing to do.
Let me suggest, you pick some particular claim i made that you think
i'm stupid or wrong. Then, we can go on, with above guidelines perhaps
about precision of statement, verifiability, fasifiability, and any
other things about argument that make it a better one. Then, we can
argue in detail. So, in the end, we can see who's more right.
I'm not actually sure i want to do this since i'm quite tired and my
REPEATED tries to be reasonable are often met with fucking morons or
no response, here in this year, as well as the large, hundred+ threads
in gnu.emacs.help this month. (go ahead, you can read it in
group.google.com or nicely summarized and linked here bottom:
http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/chat_style_posts.html
)
> All I saw is
> some basic code how to script Emacs.
Don't be a moron. What's scripting emacs has to do with what??
Well, i haven't see you post a single line of Mathematica. LOL.
All i see you do is posting Common Lisp scripts.
Is creditial you are after now?? hum?
I mean, i wrote some 500 or 1000 words on this to you in some thread
about maybe 6 months ago. You forgot it all? huuh?
What is your exact argument? What you trying to say??
Let me help you... are you trying to say, that because since i don't
have Common Lisp experience, and haven't written a lot emacs lisp,
therefore my lisp language criticism is wrong or incorrect?
Is that what you are trying to say? C'mon, no problem. If it is, it's
a valid statement. We can start to argue about that.
> All I see is long
> text with often little information for this newsgroup. It's
> not that everybody needs to be a good programmer, but from
> you we have seen mostly zero.
See above.
> Maybe it is about time to actually learn the programming language you are writing so much about?
I think, perhaps it is time, for you to open your eyes, and see that
the world doesn't revolve around Common Lisp.
I don't think this will ever happen. As i have explicitly said in one
of the criticisms on your posts, that whever other lang is mentioned
in a argument in a relevant way, you always as far as i've seen,
completely ignore it, then bury your head into Common Lisp.
I tried to not waste my time and type as fast as i can in this reply
because from my past experiences repsonding you to in any argument
that is negative on CL is fruitless.
Rainer, suppose you have a argument in a bar, then you reasonably
proved that you are right. But the monkeys simply kept on about how
you are stupid and wrong? What can i do?
What to do with the monkeys, seriously? I say 1+1 is 2, they say no.
Then i show them logic, then say logic is not all. Then i show
history, social context, but then they say it's all made up. I mention
science, they say science can be wrong. I mention philosophy about
epismitology, they say argument is not philosophy. I mention about 2
stones placed together makes it 2. They say that's obvious but 1+1 is
still not 2. I mention how abstraction is used, but they say stones
are not abstraction. Rainer, what to do with the monkeys? This happens
repeatedly here. Should i now take 10 min to find the exact url in
groups.google.com about these threads? hum? should i should i should
i? Is it worth that effort? worth it worth it worth it?
I mentioned, explicitly, in one of my post to you, that we could hire
arbitors for our argument. For example, we can hire renowned computer
scientists to judge their valuation of my criticism of lisp. The
hiring we can share, or prhaps someone knows someone can we can get
him in here. We can make sure, that the arbitor is fair, and his
result will be published say in some reputable publication. The
arbitor will be ones we both agree as qualified. Right? I suggested
this line of thought in the past, remember? But Rainer, what to do
with the monkeys?
Monkeys! Really fucking stupid monkeys. Stupid, fucking stupid,
moronic, sloppy, idiotic, dumb, lackluster, brainless. Very ignorant
about almost all subject except some technical details of CL.
Extremely stupid....
ok, this is what you get for fast typing. Try to respond, and i'll
respond appropriately. I don't fear of typing fast now. For the moment
i take a break of elaborate construction and composition. Folks,
respond! show me the degree of your moronicity, and i'll show you in
detail how it is so. (gratis!)
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
On Aug 16, 9:58 pm, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 4:40 pm, ·······@corporate-world.lisp.de" <······@corporate-
> world.lisp.de> wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 1:20 am, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 16, 3:03 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
>
> > > > ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>
> > > > >> >> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
> > > > >> >> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> > > > > Publish it. Post it here. Post whatever certificates or test you have, with
> > > > > a scan of the cert or test, date etc. When i see that you published yours
> > > > > and mean it, i'll post mine.
>
> > > > Again, I'm not the one making any claims.
>
> > > > I just note that, as usual, you make strong assertions in your posts, but
> > > > when challenged to back up your statements with actual evidence, you
> > > > completely crumble.
>
> > > LOL.
>
> > > Crumble my ass. It appears you, who completely crumbled.
Why do Lispers feed this troll so much? Arrogant, senseless,
downright ass sometimes. I like to LOL at some of his inconsequential
fun posts, but not when he acts like a nuisance.
> > > It appears to me, anytime some Lisper want to challenge me head to
> > > head, then i follow up with explict terms, they put their tail between
> > > their ass and run off all politely. This happened to Rainer, Geuner,
> > > Tim, others, and now you.
Well, it seems to me you're doing exactly what you claim they did.
I'd guess they preferred to just ignore a crazy man.
> That seems to be my situation here in comp.lang.lisp, repeatedly. I
> can again, start to write elaborately, cite url to past threads,
> describe the situation, etc. But it's no use.
Poor Xah. I'd recommend less drugs and hookers. They are driving you
insane, I tell you.
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
> [...] stupid and wrong? [...]
> But you morons [...]
> you guys [...] are completely idiotic.
> [...] just hot air. [...] off topic drivel [...]
> [...] newsgroup [...] doomed to be stupid drivels [...]
> [...] you morons [...]
> [...] morons in newsgroup just tried to fuck around. [...]
> my REPEATED tries to be reasonable are often met with fucking morons [...]
> Don't be a moron. [...]
> [...] show me the degree of your moronicity [...]
Hey, quick suggestion for you Xah: if you're actually trying to convince
your audience of your point of view, you might have more success if you
aren't so rude to them at the same time.
Perhaps -- just perhaps -- you're generally ignored ... because you deserve
to be.
> the fundamental problems lisp as shown in my essay here:
> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
> We can, itemize the essay, make it into precise statements, and we can
> argue in detail. The statements can be made so that each is verifiable
> and falsifiable, and most of us would agree that it is a reasonable
> rephrasing from my essay. Then, we can argue in detail about which. Do
> you want to do that??
Ok. At least it will get the thread finally on-topic again.
> Let me be more positive on this... since we don't have nothing to do.
> Let me suggest, you pick some particular claim i made that you think
> i'm stupid or wrong. Then, we can go on, with above guidelines perhaps
> about precision of statement, verifiability, fasifiability, and any
> other things about argument that make it a better one. Then, we can
> argue in detail. So, in the end, we can see who's more right.
Sure. Let's do it.
Your first claimed "fundamental problem" of Lisp is:
Lisp relies on a regular nested syntax. However, the lisp syntax has
several irregularities, that reduces such syntax's power and confuses
the language semantics. (i.e. those �' # ; ` ,� chars.)
I'm aware that Lisp's reader, with the standard readtable, offers a
syntax that includes the characters your mentioned. I happen to think
they're convenient to the programmer, offer additional benefit, and cause
no problems.
Let me grant that the majority of Lisp has a "regular nested syntax".
Let me grant that there are a few (deliberate!) "irregularities".
The topics in dispute are:
1. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
"reduce the syntax's power".
2. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
"confuses the language semantics".
3. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters,
even if (hypothetically) agreed to be non-optimal, are they a "fundamental
problem of Lisp"?
You make all three claims. I disagree (strongly!) with all three.
How can we resolve this? What process do you recommend, for eventually
discovering whether you or I are in fact correct about this topic?
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Boss: Hey, I liked how you got me the RJ-17 form.
Scott: You mean, "slowly, and with a bad attitude"?
Boss: No, I mean "without making me threaten to fire you."
Scott: Well, I aim to please, to a very small extent.
-- "Basic Instructions", Scott Meyer, 7/9/2008
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:18:34 -0700, Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> wrote:
>·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>> [...] stupid and wrong? [...]
>> But you morons [...]
>> you guys [...] are completely idiotic.
>> [...] just hot air. [...] off topic drivel [...]
>> [...] newsgroup [...] doomed to be stupid drivels [...]
>> [...] you morons [...]
>> [...] morons in newsgroup just tried to fuck around. [...]
>> my REPEATED tries to be reasonable are often met with fucking morons [...]
>> Don't be a moron. [...]
>> [...] show me the degree of your moronicity [...]
>
>Hey, quick suggestion for you Xah: if you're actually trying to convince
>your audience of your point of view, you might have more success if you
>aren't so rude to them at the same time.
>
>Perhaps -- just perhaps -- you're generally ignored ... because you deserve
>to be.
>
>> the fundamental problems lisp as shown in my essay here:
>> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
>> We can, itemize the essay, make it into precise statements, and we can
>> argue in detail. The statements can be made so that each is verifiable
>> and falsifiable, and most of us would agree that it is a reasonable
>> rephrasing from my essay. Then, we can argue in detail about which. Do
>> you want to do that??
>
>Ok. At least it will get the thread finally on-topic again.
>
>> Let me be more positive on this... since we don't have nothing to do.
>> Let me suggest, you pick some particular claim i made that you think
>> i'm stupid or wrong. Then, we can go on, with above guidelines perhaps
>> about precision of statement, verifiability, fasifiability, and any
>> other things about argument that make it a better one. Then, we can
>> argue in detail. So, in the end, we can see who's more right.
>
>Sure. Let's do it.
>
>Your first claimed "fundamental problem" of Lisp is:
>
> Lisp relies on a regular nested syntax. However, the lisp syntax has
> several irregularities, that reduces such syntax's power and confuses
> the language semantics. (i.e. those �' # ; ` ,� chars.)
>
>I'm aware that Lisp's reader, with the standard readtable, offers a
>syntax that includes the characters your mentioned. I happen to think
>they're convenient to the programmer, offer additional benefit, and cause
>no problems.
>
>Let me grant that the majority of Lisp has a "regular nested syntax".
>Let me grant that there are a few (deliberate!) "irregularities".
>
>The topics in dispute are:
>
>1. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
> "reduce the syntax's power".
>
>2. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
> "confuses the language semantics".
>
>3. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters,
> even if (hypothetically) agreed to be non-optimal, are they a "fundamental
> problem of Lisp"?
>
>You make all three claims. I disagree (strongly!) with all three.
>
>How can we resolve this? What process do you recommend, for eventually
>discovering whether you or I are in fact correct about this topic?
>
> -- Don
I recommend we follow established scientific protocol - the guy who
makes the claim has to prove it.
George
Xah wrote:
«
the fundamental problems lisp as shown in my essay here:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
»
George Neuner wrote:
«I recommend we follow established scientific protocol - the guy who
makes the claim has to prove it.»
What exactly are you suggesting? For example, are you claiming i'm
making a scientific discovery? r u claiming that my criticism can be
scientifically proven and should? r u claiming that i made a claim,
and didn't give reasons?
i don't mean to nick pick as most tech geekers like to do, but your
quib, as most tech geekers quibs, does not seems to be sensible. I
don't see the point of you quib. What's your point?
Try to think George.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
Xah: first thing i'll do once i sell a screenplay is foreclose on
your
home. not out of spite.. i plan on puttin you up somewhere nice..
somewhere with a pool and spa.. maybe we can get that blood pressure
under control..
hey so how bout them XO laptops... anyone able to read the emacs
fonts
yet?
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:48:28 -0700 (PDT), ·······@gmail.com"
<······@gmail.com> wrote:
>Xah wrote:
>�
>the fundamental problems lisp as shown in my essay here:
>http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
>�
>
>George Neuner wrote:
>�I recommend we follow established scientific protocol - the guy who
>makes the claim has to prove it.�
>
>What exactly are you suggesting? For example, are you claiming i'm
>making a scientific discovery? r u claiming that my criticism can be
>scientifically proven and should? r u claiming that i made a claim,
>and didn't give reasons?
You are the one making claims therefore you are the one that must
offer proof.
>i don't mean to nick pick as most tech geekers like to do, but your
>quib, as most tech geekers quibs, does not seems to be sensible. I
>don't see the point of you quib. What's your point?
>
>Try to think George.
It would help your case if you stopped insulting people. Perhaps YOU
should think hard about why no one takes you seriously.
George
Xah Lee wrote:
«the fundamental problems lisp as shown in my essay here:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html »
George Neuner wrote:
«I recommend we follow established scientific protocol - the guy who
makes the claim has to prove it.»
Xah wrote:
«What exactly are you suggesting? For example, are you claiming i'm
making a scientific discovery? r u claiming that my criticism can be
scientifically proven and should? r u claiming that i made a claim,
and didn't give reasons?»
George wrote:
«You are the one making claims therefore you are the one that must
offer proof.»
Yes you said that before. But i'm thinking, perhaps your use of
phrasing is not apt?
For example, the claims in my lisp criticising essay, isn't like a
scientific discovery. A good, or valid criticism isn't said to be
“proved”, “proven”, or “prove it”. Your suggestion using the tem
“scientific protocol” and “prove it” appears to the untrained eye
asking for me to do the impossible.
Also, the way you wrote it seems to suggest that i made claims and
didn't give any reasons to backup my claims at all. As you know, my
“fundamental problems of lisp” essay is over 2000 words with many
arguments to supply my claims in it.
So, in the end, i don't really know what is your exact meaning or
purpose, to say that «I recommend we follow established scientific
protocol - the guy who makes the claim has to prove it.».
> >i don't mean to nick pick as most tech geekers like to do, but your
> >quib, as most tech geekers quibs, does not seems to be sensible. I
> >don't see the point of you quib. What's your point?
>
> >Try to think George.
>
> It would help your case if you stopped insulting people. Perhaps YOU
> should think hard about why no one takes you seriously.
O George. The Joker once said, why so serious?
As to your suggestion of not “insulting people”, O George! You missed
my recent Opus on the formula i use regarding the issue.
Please see here: “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness”
http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
O, let me add, that in this thread and ohters i've openly opined that
some of the lisp regulars here are idiotic. That's not to say they are
not appreciated in some areas. For example, in the past 12 months here
or so, i've asked technical questions or lisp history questions, for
example lisp machine's keyboard, lisp's sort's destructive behavior,
the “:weakness” keyword of lisp's hash table feature, and Kent Pitman,
Rainer Joswig, to mention just 2, have helped me to great satisfaction
with my expression of thanks. It is more in subjects that involve
opinion, such as language criticism, netiquette, popularity of
language, what needs to be improved etc discussions, i think many lisp
regulars are idiotic.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
George Neuner wrote:
> I recommend we follow established scientific protocol - the guy who
> makes the claim has to prove it.
That has not been "established scientific protocol" for hundreds of years
and was last widely practised by the ancient Greeks.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?u
On Aug 16, 8:18 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>
> > [...] stupid and wrong? [...]
> > But you morons [...]
> > you guys [...] are completely idiotic.
> > [...] just hot air. [...] off topic drivel [...]
> > [...] newsgroup [...] doomed to be stupid drivels [...]
> > [...] you morons [...]
> > [...] morons in newsgroup just tried to fuck around. [...]
> > my REPEATED tries to be reasonable are often met with fucking morons [...]
> > Don't be a moron. [...]
> > [...] show me the degree of your moronicity [...]
>
> Hey, quick suggestion for you Xah: if you're actually trying to convince
> your audience of your point of view, you might have more success if you
> aren't so rude to them at the same time.
You see, perhaps you don't know, but several have suggested this to me
in the past 10+ years.
of course, if my pure goal is education, then first of all, newsgroup
is the wrong medium. I LOL to think anyone should think i tried to be
a educator thru newsgroups.
as you know, newsgroup, judging from the posts on it, is rather a
playground.
you see, so for me, not only i want to teach, and have tech geeking
morons thank me, but, you know, i'm ambitious, so meanwhile i also
want to call morons morons, and fuckfaces fuckfaces, as truth and or
when they deserve it (n as u know, they deserve it). And, my writing
is to serve multi-purposes as a writting etude, relaxation, and thesis
drafting. Can you see, all the pieces fit together?
actually, surveying the results of my past decade of online writing, i
think i rather succeeded in my goals above.
> Perhaps -- just perhaps -- you're generally ignored ... because you deserve
> to be.
LOL. If you look at the number who responds to my posts or mentions me
out of the blue, i don't think i'm ignored at all. Many tech geekers,
in newsgroups and as well as in blogs, have explicitly claimed to love
reading my posts for one reason or another. There's delicious.com
website bookmark you can search my name “xah” to see.
hold your breath, let me run to take a piss then answer your lisp
question.
> > the fundamental problems lisp as shown in my essay here:
> >http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
> > We can, itemize the essay, make it into precise statements, and we can
> > argue in detail. The statements can be made so that each is verifiable
> > and falsifiable, and most of us would agree that it is a reasonable
> > rephrasing from my essay. Then, we can argue in detail about which. Do
> > you want to do that??
>
> Ok. At least it will get the thread finally on-topic again.
>
> > Let me be more positive on this... since we don't have nothing to do.
> > Let me suggest, you pick some particular claim i made that you think
> > i'm stupid or wrong. Then, we can go on, with above guidelines perhaps
> > about precision of statement, verifiability, fasifiability, and any
> > other things about argument that make it a better one. Then, we can
> > argue in detail. So, in the end, we can see who's more right.
>
> Sure. Let's do it.
>
> Your first claimed "fundamental problem" of Lisp is:
>
> Lisp relies on a regular nested syntax. However, the lisp syntax has
> several irregularities, that reduces such syntax's power and confuses
> the language semantics. (i.e. those «' # ; ` ,» chars.)
>
> I'm aware that Lisp's reader, with the standard readtable, offers a
> syntax that includes the characters your mentioned. I happen to think
> they're convenient to the programmer, offer additional benefit, and cause
> no problems.
>
> Let me grant that the majority of Lisp has a "regular nested syntax".
> Let me grant that there are a few (deliberate!) "irregularities".
>
> The topics in dispute are:
>
> 1. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
> "reduce the syntax's power".
i have given many examples in my essay.
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
In summary:
• it makes parsing the source code more difficult than if the lang
doesn't have such irregular syntax. Note that a outstanding point
about lisp is that it features a regular syntax, and this is a major
point that lispers think lisp is great, as you can see in just about
every publication and advocacy of lisp. In these mostly fanatical
advocacy, you almost never see a mention, that lisp's regular syntax
actually contain quite a few irregularities.
• as i have given detail in my essay, that a pure nested syntax has
several advantegous consequences. Macros, pattern structure matching,
automated code formatting, etc. And as i have detailed, some of these
advantages are not realized or not realized fully. Part of the reason,
or perhaps the major reason, can be attributed to lisp's
irregularities in syntax.
In the article, the above are expounded in few thousand words. Which
part you do not agree?
Let me note here, questions like “why didn't xyz happen in history or
what's its cause” is in general cannot have exact, absolute, indelible
answers. However, reasonable research and progress can be made. In
fact, all important discussions in human subjects, almost none are
actually of the mathematical logic type, fact-checking type, or
verifiable by experiment type, where absolute answer can be given,
however, most subjects can have reasonable conclusions.
It is then my claim, that my criticism is very reasonable, that any
computer scientists who have studied various computer languages, and
with a exertise in lisp, should agree that my criticism is a very
valid one.
> 2. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
> "confuses the language semantics".
One easy way to see that it in fact confuses people is by checking the
frequency of such questions arise in lisp forums.
For example, one of the frequent question is what's the diff between:
(list a b c)
'(a b c)
(quote a b c)
you can see it asked in a recent post in comp.emacs or gun.help.emacs,
where you see experts give various probing type of answers. This is
just one example, and it i think a frequent question.
There are other more esoteric examples involving other such chars,
some used in macro etc.
As a example, let me ask this: among lispers who has at least 2 years
of coding lisp, how many can actually list all the lisp's syntax
irregularities? How many can actually say, that which is syntax sugar,
which is not? How many can entail each's meanings exactly? How many
can say, which is in Common Lisp only, or Scheme lisp, or emacs lisp?
And which's behavior are implementation dependent and what it is? Also
note, Scheme 6 in r6rs introduced few more of these, that
controversial among large number long time scheme experts and
implementators.
So, it is my claim, that these lisp irregular syntax, is a major cause
of confusion with respect to lisp's syntax. Also, in my article i used
5 of them «' # ; ` ,» as a example of lisp's irregular syntax. There
might be more.
> 3. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters,
> even if (hypothetically) agreed to be non-optimal, are they a "fundamental
> problem of Lisp"?
Yes. Fundamental can have 2 senses here: (1) deep seated; rooted. (2)
critical; important.
It is not deniable that the irregular syntax such as «' # ; ` ,» are
deeply rooted in lisp. It has been with lisp since few decades if not
at the very beginning. As to whether it is a critical issue, i think
it is.
Note that whether this is “critical” depends on what one considers
critical... since what's consider critical is dependent on point of
view or there is a degree of it. I consider it is critical in the
context of lisp's often tauted regular syntax advantage. However,
this issue in contrast to the other issue in my essay about lisp's
cons business, i consider that the cons is more critical, or
absolutely critical. The issue of criticality or what's considered
fundamental, we can further refine, so as not to use these words. For
example, instead of saying the convenient phrase of “fundamental
problem” or “critical problem”, i can rephrase them into something
like “is problem such that certain percentage of lispers ask these
questions or get confused by these” or other similar quantifiable
ways.
> You make all three claims. I disagree (strongly!) with all three.
>
> How can we resolve this? What process do you recommend, for eventually
> discovering whether you or I are in fact correct about this topic?
In the above, i give reasonable arguments. We can just argue about it
the usual online forum way by exchange writings. But if you do have
better suggestions, for example such as brining in arbitors, monetary
vouch for sincerity, bet, affidavit, credential, etc, as i have
suggested before, we can further discuss.
this post is posted to comp.lang.lisp and comp.lang.scheme .
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sun, 17 Aug 2008:
> On Aug 16, 8:18 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
>> Your first claimed "fundamental problem" of Lisp is:
>> Lisp relies on a regular nested syntax. However, the lisp syntax
>> has several irregularities, that reduces such syntax's power and
>> confuses the language semantics. (i.e. those «' # ; ` ,» chars.)
>> The topics in dispute are:
>> 1. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
>> "reduce the syntax's power".
>
> i have given many examples in my essay.
> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
You have not defined what it means for a syntax to have "power", nor have
you given any specific examples of how the five characters "reduce" that
so-called power.
Start there. What is the "power" of a syntax? If I had two different
proposed syntaxes, how would I determine which one had more "power"?
Why is "syntax power" even a good thing in a programming language?
> In summary:
> it makes parsing the source code more difficult than if the lang
> doesn't have such irregular syntax.
Well, sure. But, in exchange for that (minor!) cost, you get the benefit
of ease of use by humans.
Besides which, every Lisp implementation has already conveniently implemented
the Lisp parser for you. So you don't have to write it yourself! Just call
the built-in parser.
Certainly, it makes _writing_ a Lisp implementation (esp. the parser)
somewhat more difficult than it otherwise would have been. But why in
world do you think that writing an implementation is the goal to optimize
when designing a programming language? Surely the Common Lisp choice,
to optimize _using_ the language to write _other_ programs, rather than
optimizing the ease of implementation of the language, is a far better
choice than the one you are suggesting.
> Note that a outstanding point about lisp is that it features a regular
> syntax, and this is a major point that lispers think lisp is great, as you
> can see in just about every publication and advocacy of lisp. In these
> mostly fanatical advocacy, you almost never see a mention, that lisp's
> regular syntax actually contain quite a few irregularities.
But how -- _exactly_ -- do those few irregulatrities actually cause a
problem, in practice, for real programmers?
And keep in mind that these "irregularities" that you mention definitely
do provide known benefits to programmers. (E.g. "#" is useful for commenting
your code inline, etc.)
> as i have given detail in my essay, that a pure nested syntax has several
> advantegous consequences. Macros
You have stated this, but you are simply wrong.
Perhaps you don't understand how Lisp works. I'm not trying to be insulting
here. But your claim that "irregular" textual syntax makes writing macros
hard betrays a critical error in thinking about what Lisp is doing.
Here's what you've missed: Source code is written as sequences of characters
in a text file (or typed into the interpreter). But then -- BEFORE macros
ever get to do any work -- the text characters are processed by the Lisp
reader, resulting in internal data structures in a kind of Abstract Syntax
Tree.
Lisp macros operate on the AST, _not_ on the text strings.
So, you are trying to claim, for example, that the "#" "non-regular" comment
character makes writing Lisp macros "harder". And you are simply wrong.
By the time a macro starts work, all the comments have already be stripped.
In fact, you will be unable to write a macro that can even tell the difference
between whether there was a comment character in the code or not.
So. We come to the first chance for Xah to rise above his apparent
troll-ness. In every post I've read from you, Xah, you treat yourself as
all-knowing and all-intelligent, and any disagreement with anyone else
results in you calling the others "morons", "idiots", etc.
Can you be honest, in this one case? Can you admit that you have claimed
that Lisp's "irregular syntax" makes writing macros "harder", and you were
simply mistaken on that point? It is not true, and you admit your mistake?
This, I think, is the test case for actual productive discussion with you,
Xah. My prediction is that your ego is too inflated to ever admit error.
You are more interested in "winning" and annoying people, then you are in
actually discovering truth or learning anything.
But perhaps I'm wrong. So let's see how you respond to having made a
mistake. Are you man enough to admit it?
> It is then my claim, that my criticism is very reasonable, that any
> computer scientists who have studied various computer languages, and with a
> exertise in lisp, should agree that my criticism is a very valid one.
I'm not a CS professor, but I've programmed in a dozen languages over time,
and in Common Lisp for ~20 years. I don't agree that your criticism is valid.
>> 2. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
>> "confuses the language semantics".
>
> One easy way to see that it in fact confuses people is by checking the
> frequency of such questions arise in lisp forums.
Ah, but that's a different claim. Let's leave aside for the moment whether
Lisp's language semantics confused "people". (I happen to disagree with that
too, but that isn't the topic we're discussing.)
What you wrote is that the syntax "irregularities" confuse the language
_semantics_. Not that they confuse people.
Please justify your claim that Lisp's semantics are confused because of
the syntax.
Or, admit your error and withdraw the claim.
> For example, one of the frequent question is what's the diff between:
> (list a b c)
> '(a b c)
> (quote a b c)
> you can see it asked in a recent post in comp.emacs or gun.help.emacs,
> where you see experts give various probing type of answers. This is just
> one example, and it i think a frequent question.
People (especially those new to Lisp) can be confused by this, yes.
The language itself (i.e. the Lisp semantics) are in no way confused.
I also note in passing that your first and third example:
(list a b c)
(quote a b c)
have exactly the same, completely REGULAR syntax. So whatever confusion
there might be here (to new programmers), has nothing to do with the
irregular syntax of Lisp.
Another chance for you to admit that you made a mistake in blaming this
confusion on the five "irregular" Lisp syntax characters that you mentioned.
> As a example, let me ask this: among lispers who has at least 2 years of
> coding lisp, how many can actually list all the lisp's syntax
> irregularities?
Why is that an important test? If I answer "10%", how does that matter?
> How many can say, which is in Common Lisp only, or Scheme lisp, or emacs
> lisp?
We're generally discussing Common Lisp only on this newsgroup. The others
are different languages. It doesn't even make sense to talk about how
differences between DIFFERENT languages confuse people.
Do you think it's a legitimate complaint against Python, that it confused
Perl programmers because some aspects of the language are different? It's
a different language!
You can be an expert Common Lisp programmer, while knowing nothing at all
about Emacs Lisp. So what?
>> 3. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters,
>> even if (hypothetically) agreed to be non-optimal, are they a
>> "fundamental problem of Lisp"?
>
> Yes. Fundamental can have 2 senses here: (1) deep seated; rooted. (2)
> critical; important.
Agreed.
> It is not deniable that the irregular syntax such as «' # ; ` ,» are
> deeply rooted in lisp. It has been with lisp since few decades if not
> at the very beginning.
I agree again.
> As to whether it is a critical issue, i think it is.
Still disagree on this one...
> I consider it is critical in the context of lisp's often tauted regular
> syntax advantage. However, this issue in contrast to the other issue in my
> essay about lisp's cons business, i consider that the cons is more
> critical, or absolutely critical.
OK, understood. And, if we make productive progress on the syntax issue,
perhaps we can begin to explore the cons issue later.
But I suspect you aren't actually interested in learning anything.
I suspect you just like to lecture (regardless of your state of knowledge)
and rile people up.
If I'm wrong, I apologize. If you do manage to keep your response on a
technical level, then I'll do the same. And if we get past the syntax
topic, then I'll be happy to continue on to explain the cons issue to you.
But I strongly suspect you are not capable of admitting that you made a
mistake on when describing the "problems" of Lisp's syntax.
> For example, instead of saying the convenient phrase of "fundamental
> problem" or "critical problem", i can rephrase them into something like "is
> problem such that certain percentage of lispers ask these questions or get
> confused by these" or other similar quantifiable ways.
I think if you had used this more tactful language originally, you would
have seen far less objection from the Lisp folks. And the discussion would
have proceeded in a very different direction.
(For example, confusion can often be addressed by education or good
tutorials. But "fundamental problem" can only be addressed by changing
the core language.)
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Christian: One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book
admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the
teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sun, 17 Aug 2008:
>> For example, one of the frequent question is what's the diff between:
>> (list a b c)
>> '(a b c)
>> (quote a b c)
>> you can see it asked in a recent post in comp.emacs or gun.help.emacs,
>> where you see experts give various probing type of answers. This is just
>> one example, and it i think a frequent question.
>
> People (especially those new to Lisp) can be confused by this, yes.
>
> The language itself (i.e. the Lisp semantics) are in no way confused.
>
> I also note in passing that your first and third example:
> (list a b c)
> (quote a b c)
> have exactly the same, completely REGULAR syntax. So whatever confusion
> there might be here (to new programmers), has nothing to do with the
> irregular syntax of Lisp.
Don, be careful! Xah, despite having bothered use for years, don't
know anything about lisp. It is:
(list a b c)
'(a b c)
(quote (a b c))
and not (quote a b c) which is meaningless in Lisp.
And for the other innocent bystanders, nothing prevents you to always
use (quote (a b c)) or (quote x) instead of '(a b c) or 'x, if you
like better the regularity of quote. For example, I'm known to use
almost always (function f) instead of #'f.
>> It is not deniable that the irregular syntax such as «' # ; ` ,» are
>> deeply rooted in lisp. It has been with lisp since few decades if not
>> at the very beginning.
Nothing can be more wrong.
The character set of the 704/7090 used by LISP 1.5:
\lo 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
hi +----------------------------------------------------------
0 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 | 8 9 $EOF$ = 8-4MIN $IL15$ $IL16$ $IL17$
2 | + A B C D E F G
3 | H I $IL32$ . ) $IL35$ $IL36$ $IL37$
4 | - J K L M N O P
5 | Q R $IL52$ $ * $IL55$ $IL56$ $IL57$
6 | BLANK / S T U V W X
7 | Y Z $EOR$ , ( $IL75$ $IL76$ $IL77$
The digits are considered as their DIGIT-CHAR.
$IL77$ was used to pad packed strings (six 6-bit chars per words).
There was simply no quote or double-quote character, and neither
semicolon, much less any sharp character in this character set.
So the irregular syntax just cannot be deeply rooted in lisp, in any
historical sense.
And technically, as soon as they are read, these reader macro
characters disappear from what lisp is. They are only used in the
external representation or decora of the text files we use, but just
don't exist inside lisp. That's even why it's a little more difficult
to write a program that processes comments or the textual source form
of literal objects than the rest of lisp. But this textual source
form IS NOT the lisp source. Remember, the lisp source is the
syntactic tree made of lists and atoms, the s-expressions.
' might have been the first reader macro character, to be expanded by QUOTE.
Then probably " and possibly ; were introduced, but for that you have
to wait for at least the first lisp with a string data type.
Of course, backquote and comma wouldn't be needed before macros were
invented, which was quite later. While the _notion_ of quasiquotation
was older, as http://www.cs.unm.edu/~williams/cs491/quasiquote.ps
section 4 reports, it was introduced in Lisp much more recently, in
the 1970's (about halfway in current lisp life, hardly a deep root).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"Specifications are for the weak and timid!"
On Aug 18, 3:25 pm, ····@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
> Then probably " and possibly ; were introduced, but for that you have
> to wait for at least the first lisp with a string data type.
Maybe ", but ; had to be largely a MacLisp, etc. reader macro before
Common Lisp because the Interlisp crowd used structure editors which
make reader macro comments pretty useless.
On Aug 18, 9:39 am, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sun, 17 Aug 2008:
>
> > On Aug 16, 8:18 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
> >> Your first claimed "fundamental problem" of Lisp is:
> >> Lisp relies on a regular nested syntax. However, the lisp syntax
> >> has several irregularities, that reduces such syntax's power and
> >> confuses the language semantics. (i.e. those «' # ; ` ,» chars.)
> >> The topics in dispute are:
> >> 1. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
> >> "reduce the syntax's power".
>
> > i have given many examples in my essay.
> > http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
>
> You have not defined what it means for a syntax to have "power", nor have
> you given any specific examples of how the five characters "reduce" that
> so-called power.
You want me to define the power of a computer language?
You think i don't give sufficient explanation and needs to define the
term?
are you aware that defining such a thing is nearly impossible? For
example, let me cite 2 well known examples. In math, there's the
problem of definition of “random”. In science, or computer science,
there's the problem of defining “intelligence”. In biology, there's
the problem of defining “life”. You dont mean that any publication
involving these concepts must define them?
You are not, i hope, throwing out random retort to disrupt the
argument, right? Or, perharps you are not well aquainted of the role
of “definition” in philosophy and criticial thinking? I tend to think
it's the latter, to be bluntly honest.
let me give more specific example... the notion of the “power” of a
computer language, or “expressiveness” of a computer language. You
know, that these are widely used terms and abused. However, there is
really no good general definition. Some computer scientist, tried to
formalize it in some mathematical way, but basically went no where
(such's failure, for example, can be attributed or judged by lack of
effectiveness, practicality, utility).
Do you need me to cite papers, books, on these definition issues i
discussed above?
Ok, i don't mean to derail what might be your honest attemp to argue.
Let me say then, that the “reduced such syntax's power” notion in my
essay, i think is amply examplified in my essay. For example, i gave
examples in comparison to XML, Mathematica, automatic code
formating... (the essay is here:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
possibly you might reread it carefully now since you might just have
scanned and dismissed it before. Note that the essay, links some 8 or
so more essays providing support on each part.
)
Let me give it another try. In general, the power of computing
language, is roughly the ratio of ease/possibility. The “ease” there
is ease of use, ease of learning, succinctness of source code, size of
existing functions or libraries, accessibility, etc. The “possibility”
in the denominator is roughly what it does, what it can do. For
example, it can be cover perspectives from areas of fitness, e.g.
mathematical computation, visualization system, web application,
networking, sys admin, “glue lang”, embeded scripting lang, low level
systems lang, proof systems ... etc. and ... and ... and ... but i'm
carried away into generalities. In short, my criticism on lisp in that
essay provide reasonable definition of power in its contex. Please
double check to see if you agree.
> Start there. What is the "power" of a syntax? If I had two different
> proposed syntaxes, how would I determine which one had more "power"?
> Why is "syntax power" even a good thing in a programming language?
Ok. See above.
Note, you used the “Start there” phrase. Is that jab? I believe you
are trying to have a good argument with me, not exchange of hotair,
right? I mean, at least, i believe, that you, thinks you are trying to
have a reasonable argument on my criticism of lisp, and not trying to
be a hotair balloon. I, myself, have not yet fully decided to commit a
full honest discourse with you. (for reasons, see:
http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
) But, if you, decides that at least you, want to be fully polite and
earnist in this discussion, i would suggest, that you exercise care in
your intonation in your argument with me. Because, otherwise, you
might just be another target that i use for mainly ridicule purposes.
You still have a chance to redeem yourself.
> If I had two different
> proposed syntaxes, how would I determine which one had more "power"?
lisp uses nested syntax. As you know, many lisp publications and
advocacy say that is one of the source of lisp's power. For example,
lisp's macro relies heavily on lisp's nest syntax. Isn't this obvious
to you??
> > In summary:
> > it makes parsing the source code more difficult than if the lang
> > doesn't have such irregular syntax.
>
> Well, sure. But, in exchange for that (minor!) cost, you get the benefit
> of ease of use by humans.
Are those special chars ALL sugar syntaxes?
Could you, or anyone, summarize them all?
> Besides which, every Lisp implementation has already conveniently implemented
> the Lisp parser for you. So you don't have to write it yourself! Just call
> the built-in parser.
The issue is not about parser or compiler. The issue i mentioned about
syntax, has to do with the language's power that came from a nested
syntax.
For example, let's say perl. Perl's syntax is a syntax soup, quite
opposite of lisp. Suppose, if perl switched to lisp's syntax, then
perhaps it would develope lisp macros. Then, from a specific point of
view of lispers, we could say, that perl's syntax is less powerful,
because its syntax's irregularity in some sense prevent it from
developing into the concept of lisp's macro. Perlers might say, well
parsing is already done by perl compilers. But you see now, that is
really a narrow view.
Similarly, when i say that the irregularities in lisp hampered it from
developing many fruitful use of regular syntax (with many examples
given in my essay), you have to consider it from the the context of
computer language's syntaxes, and not construe it as whether lisp's
irregularity is a problem to lispers.
For example, one of the example i gave about how the irregularities in
lisp's syntax is that it hampered the development of a automated code
formatting facilitiest (see the article for detailed examples and
explanations).
> Certainly, it makes _writing_ a Lisp implementation (esp. the parser)
> somewhat more difficult than it otherwise would have been. But why in
> world do you think that writing an implementation is the goal to optimize
> when designing a programming language? Surely the Common Lisp choice,
> to optimize _using_ the language to write _other_ programs, rather than
> optimizing the ease of implementation of the language, is a far better
> choice than the one you are suggesting.
as i explained above, it is not about writing compilers or parsers.
See above.
> > Note that a outstanding point about lisp is that it features a regular
> > syntax, and this is a major point that lispers think lisp is great, as you
> > can see in just about every publication and advocacy of lisp. In these
> > mostly fanatical advocacy, you almost never see a mention, that lisp's
> > regular syntax actually contain quite a few irregularities.
>
> But how -- _exactly_ -- do those few irregulatrities actually cause a
> problem, in practice, for real programmers?
again, the criticism is about some particular aspect of lisp's syntax,
namely, the syntax's irregularity in the context of lisp's philosophy
of regular syntax. The proper vantage point of such criticism is to
look at it in the syntax design of computer languages, and apply it to
lisp's philosophy of syntax. It is not about, for example, whether
lispers would consider lisp's syntax a problem. As a analogy, if you
criticise perl's syntax, the perlpers retort that perl programers
don't have a problem with it.
> And keep in mind that these "irregularities" that you mention definitely
> do provide known benefits to programmers. (E.g. "#" is useful for commenting
> your code inline, etc.)
One of the question i have is, whether all lisp's irregular syntax are
all simply syntax sugars. For one thing, the comment system i.e. “;”
is not. For another, some of these irregularities, for example the
“'”, breaks the structure of nested syntax. i.e. compare “'(a b c) vs
(' a b c)”. I do not know much about the others.
You mentioned that some of the syntaxes provide convenience to
programers. for example, those so-called sugar syntaxes. Note here,
that i'm not against sugar syntaxes. But the criticism is that some or
all of these sugar syntaxes breaks many properties that is the
fundamental advantage of lisp's nested syntax. (again, please read my
detailed essay; don't just pick this paragraph and start argument all
over)
Also keep in mind, as i mentioned numerous times, that not all these
are merely variant syntaxes. For example, there's no parenthized form
for “;”. So, in this particular point, it means there cannot be a
uniform transformation on syntax that gets you the pure nested form.
> > as i have given detail in my essay, that a pure nested syntax has several
> > advantegous consequences. Macros
>
> You have stated this, but you are simply wrong.
>
> Perhaps you don't understand how Lisp works. I'm not trying to be insulting
> here. But your claim that "irregular" textual syntax makes writing macros
> hard betrays a critical error in thinking about what Lisp is doing.
>
> Here's what you've missed: Source code is written as sequences of characters
> in a text file (or typed into the interpreter). But then -- BEFORE macros
> ever get to do any work -- the text characters are processed by the Lisp
> reader, resulting in internal data structures in a kind of Abstract Syntax
> Tree.
>
> Lisp macros operate on the AST, _not_ on the text strings.
This is the part you common lispers, fully becomes stupid. When
discussion on this gets deeper, common lisping fans began to criticize
Scheme, or to the degree of saying that Scheme is not lisp or some
deviantiation. When Common Lispers defend my criticism of lisp syntax
and in their defense starts to attack Scheme Lisp, you can begin to
get the feeling of how Common Lispers failed to see the overall
picture.
You need to, as i said, not bury your head inside common lisp. Let me
say again, my criticism of lisp, part of which is about the
irregularities of its often-believed regular syntax. The proper
vantage point is the theory of computer syntaxes, applied to lisp's
philosophy of one particular way, namely, purely nested form. If you
simply view it from a lisp programing, with retorts such as “lisper
programers never found it a problem”, then you are not understanding
the criticism at all.
Let's discuss the idea that CL acts on its object, and the source code
merely a textual representation. Let me tell you, that most computer
languages, all have a syntax (we are excluding things like
spreadsheets and visual lang etc. (i'm trying to type fast, so morons
pls try not to pick on this and drivel about how spread sheets has
syntax too etc)). Regardless how CL has some the Abstract Syntax Tree
or Object idea, in the contex of computer languages, it still has just
one input form what we'd call the the language's syntax. Now, lisp's
lang's philosophy about syntax, emphasize that it should be fully
nested. This is a elementary feature of the lisp family of langs.
(lisps that breaks away from this nested syntax, are often alienated
by lispers and considered as only lisp derivative, such as logo,
dylan.) It is true that CL macros act on AST as you say, but however,
its nested syntax is a fundamental part of it. Theoretically, you
could have a lang with non-nested syntax (such as perl, C) yet still
have a macro system identical or almost identical to lisp.
> So, you are trying to claim, for example, that the "#" "non-regular" comment
> character makes writing Lisp macros "harder". And you are simply wrong.
> By the time a macro starts work, all the comments have already be stripped.
> In fact, you will be unable to write a macro that can even tell the difference
> between whether there was a comment character in the code or not.
See above.
Let me give another example to tackle criticisms of syntax of
languages.
One way, is to think of a lisp language (say, called regLisp), such
that without any irregularities in syntax as i criticised in my essay.
I mean, seriously, spend 20 mintues, to think of a lisp lang that
doesn't have any syntax irregularies described in my criticism.
Note, this does not mean not having any sugar syntaxes. Sugar syntax
is of course very convenient and practical, often even necessary, but
any sugar syntax are done so that the uniformity in syntax property
remains intact.
Now, if you imagine this language. Now, think about how would this
regLisp compared to CL for example? Would it lose any advantage that
CL have? (think in all aspects) Would it actually have any ADVANTAGES?
By my criticism, the answer is that such regLisp would lose nothing of
CL's advantage, but has far more advantages to gain (as detailed in my
essay; and Mathematica is cited as a living example and XML and its
vast number of derivatives are cited as a example of widely accepted
advantage of syntax regularity).
> So. We come to the first chance for Xah to rise above his apparent
> troll-ness. In every post I've read from you,Xah, you treat yourself as
> all-knowing and all-intelligent, and any disagreement with anyone else
> results in you calling the others "morons", "idiots", etc.
As i said above, if you really want earnest discussion with me sans
attitude, you can start with yourself, and drop paragraphs such as
above. As a guide, prevent you are writing to your family, friends,
who are very dear to you. When i see true sincerity, i will act
accordingly.
> Can you be honest, in this one case? Can you admit that you have claimed
> that Lisp's "irregular syntax" makes writing macros "harder", and you were
> simply mistaken on that point? It is not true, and you admit your mistake?
To be honest, i consider myself 50 years beyond this world.
Not 500, or 100. By “beyond”, it means my views in most things are
more advanced, correct, superior, than most experts in respective
areas where i cared to give forceful opinions.
Discussing with most people in newsgroups, to me, is more liking
playing with stupid highschool bullies.
You can quote me on this. I want you to know, that i earnestly meant
the above. You can forthwith now write me off as a cook, pseudo-
science crackpot, ergomaniac, whatever. But i hope you believe at
least what i really think of myself.
> This, I think, is the test case for actual productive discussion
> with you,Xah. My prediction is that your ego is too inflated to
> ever admit error.
I do admit errors. In fact it have happened publically few times over
the past 10+ years in newsgroup. I'm not going to search the exact
thread and show you the groups.google.com url. I have, admitted
errors, including technical errors, or errors in opinion oriented
argument. I have also, mind you, expressed sincere appreciation and
gratitude when being helped, or given opinion that i think are
worthwhile. This happens much more often than being corrected. The
fact that many, if not most, newsgroup tech geeking morons sees me as
a so-called troll, is partly because negative aspects are much more
visible.
> You are more interested in "winning" and annoying people, then you are in
> actually discovering truth or learning anything.
Shut ya yap.
> But perhaps I'm wrong. So let's see how you respond to having made a
> mistake. Are you man enough to admit it?
Shut ya yap.
If i see more such yap in your reply, then you'll fully become another
of my subject of a playhting, much like cat toys with mouses under her
paw.
How i play with my subjects are exhibited in my few hundreds archived
writings now on my website. I'm sure you don't need me to paste
another url.
> > It is then my claim, that my criticism is very reasonable, that any
> > computer scientists who have studied various computer languages, and with a
> > exertise in lisp, should agree that my criticism is a very valid one.
>
> I'm not a CS professor, but I've programmed in a dozen languages over time,
> and in Common Lisp for ~20 years. I don't agree that your criticism is valid.
Good to know.
> >> 2. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
> >> "confuses the language semantics".
>
> > One easy way to see that it in fact confuses people is by checking the
> > frequency of such questions arise in lisp forums.
>
> Ah, but that's a different claim. Let's leave aside for the moment whether
> Lisp's language semantics confused "people". (I happen to disagree with that
> too, but that isn't the topic we're discussing.)
>
> What you wrote is that the syntax "irregularities" confuse the language
> _semantics_. Not that they confuse people.
i'm not sure what does it mean that a language's syntax could actually
confuse its semantics. I used the phrase to convey the idea that the
correspondence of syntax and semantics becomes inconsistant or complex
due to lisp's irregularities in its syntax. In Von Newmann programing
langs, such as C, C++, Java, Perl etc, their syntax is a ad hoc syntax
soup, so there is little correspondence of their syntactical forms and
each's semantics. In lisp, there is, due to lisp's nested syntax. So,
i'm saying, lisp's irregularities in syntax breaks this syntax-
semantics correspondence.
In my previous post, i mentioned that the frequency of chars like «'
# ; ` ,» in lisp confuse people, as a support that irregularities in
lisp syntax increased its syntax-semantics complexity.
> Please justify your claim that Lisp's semantics are confused because of
> the syntax.
>
> Or, admit your error and withdraw the claim.
See above.
> > For example, one of the frequent question is what's the diff between:
> > (list a b c)
> > '(a b c)
> > (quote a b c)
> > you can see it asked in a recent post in comp.emacs or gun.help.emacs,
> > where you see experts give various probing type of answers. This is just
> > one example, and it i think a frequent question.
>
> People (especially those new to Lisp) can be confused by this, yes.
>
> The language itself (i.e. the Lisp semantics) are in no way confused.
>
> I also note in passing that your first and third example:
> (list a b c)
> (quote a b c)
> have exactly the same, completely REGULAR syntax. So whatever confusion
> there might be here (to new programmers), has nothing to do with the
> irregular syntax of Lisp.
>
> Another chance for you to admit that you made a mistake in blaming this
> confusion on the five "irregular" Lisp syntax characters that you mentioned.
>
> > As a example, let me ask this: among lispers who has at least 2 years of
> > coding lisp, how many can actually list all the lisp's syntax
> > irregularities?
>
> Why is that an important test? If I answer "10%", how does that matter?
>
> > How many can say, which is in Common Lisp only, or Scheme lisp, or emacs
> > lisp?
>
> We're generally discussing Common Lisp only on this newsgroup. The others
> are different languages. It doesn't even make sense to talk about how
> differences between DIFFERENT languages confuse people.
My criticism of lisp is about lisp, not specifically just Common Lisp.
More specifically, it is about Common Lisp, Scheme Lisp, Emacs Lisp.
My criticism, namely the irregularity of syntax and the cons business,
is equally applicable to all these lisp family langs.
> Do you think it's a legitimate complaint against Python, that it confused
> Perl programmers because some aspects of the language are different? It's
> a different language!
If a criticism that does apply equally well to Perl and Python, then
it is still a valid criticism. For example, if i made some criticism
regarding imperative programing, then it applies to perl and python.
In the same way, you can see that my cricisim of lisp, namely, the
irregularity in syntax, and the cons business, are applicable to
Common Lisp, Scheme Lisp, Emacs Lisp.
> You can be an expert Common Lisp programmer, while knowing nothing at all
> about Emacs Lisp. So what?
>
> >> 3. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters,
> >> even if (hypothetically) agreed to be non-optimal, are they a
> >> "fundamental problem of Lisp"?
>
> > Yes. Fundamental can have 2 senses here: (1) deep seated; rooted. (2)
> > critical; important.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > It is not deniable that the irregular syntax such as «' # ; ` ,» are
> > deeply rooted in lisp. It has been with lisp since few decades if not
> > at the very beginning.
>
> I agree again.
>
> > As to whether it is a critical issue, i think it is.
>
> Still disagree on this one...
>
> > I consider it is critical in the context of lisp's often tauted regular
> > syntax advantage. However, this issue in contrast to the other issue in my
> > essay about lisp's cons business, i consider that the cons is more
> > critical, or absolutely critical.
>
> OK, understood. And, if we make productive progress on the syntax issue,
> perhaps we can begin to explore the cons issue later.
>
> But I suspect you aren't actually interested in learning anything.
> I suspect you just like to lecture (regardless of your state of knowledge)
> and rile people up.
Drop it.
> If I'm wrong, I apologize. If you do manage to keep your response on a
> technical level, then I'll do the same. And if we get past the syntax
> topic, then I'll be happy to continue on to explain the cons issue to you.
You don't explain the cons issue to me. Your position presently, if
you are earnest, is challenging my claims or criticise my criticism or
having a sensible debate with me. You are, not here as a teacher to
discipline or rebuke me. So, when writing, get your intonation
correct.
I suppose your intonation is inadvertent. That's fine. If you are
actually intentionally injecting little sneer here and there, let me
just say that my eyes are senstive, and i bite. The question you
should truely ask yourself is: Do i really wish to see Xah's earnest
opinion and reasons in my challenges to his lisp views?
> But I strongly suspect you are not capable of admitting that you made a
> mistake on when describing the "problems" of Lisp's syntax.
You can suppose what you want. You can now decide what you want to do.
> > For example, instead of saying the convenient phrase of "fundamental
> > problem" or "critical problem", i can rephrase them into something like "is
> > problem such that certain percentage of lispers ask these questions or get
> > confused by these" or other similar quantifiable ways.
>
> I think if you had used this more tactful language originally, you would
> have seen far less objection from the Lisp folks. And the discussion would
> have proceeded in a very different direction.
My language, writing style, in part, is to ridicule the tech geeking
morons, may they be perlers or lisper or javaer, who are typically
buried in their small world. As i have expressed here ambly, in
general it is not my intention, to simply participate in honest
discussion or exchange of views. My reasons or justification about
this are are written in many essays. The index page to these essays is
here:
Netiquette Anthropology
http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/troll.html
> (For example, confusion can often be addressed by education or good
> tutorials. But "fundamental problem" can only be addressed by changing
> the core language.)
Although lisp's syntax irregularity and cons business are rooted, and
difficult to change, however, there are many ways to mend them, such
as happens language evolution. Even if we don't consider new langs as
fixes (such as Qi, arc, NewLisp, DyLan), but there are evolutions such
as Pascal to Object Pascal, Fortran to Fortran99, OCaml to F#,
Scheme's r5rs to r6rs, etc. These are all examples of the same
language that goes thru improvement with rather backward incompatible.
Similarly, lisp, has many gradual innovations and fixes. (although i
don't know CL, but for example of CL, there's asdf package system as
heard here, and Qi, which addes pattern matching and other functional
features to CL.)
The point of my criticism, is that i have some hope in raising
awareness. That essay, “fundamental problems of lisp” arose partly due
to many times in the past years i tried to speak my own frustrations
of the cons business, or those confusing irregular syntax chars, or
speak of some ideas from my Mathematica background that relates to
these issues, and i met with absolute denial from the motherfucking
lisp regular morons. (comparable in the same way if lisper were to
give reasonable criticism (as opposed to vicious attack) or bring some
ideas from a lisper's experience to say perl or java groups.)
Ok, am sending out this. Not gonna do any editing work. Took me long
enough to type.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
······@gmail.com <······@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
| > You have not defined what it means for a syntax to have "power", nor have
| > you given any specific examples of how the five characters "reduce" that
| > so-called power.
|
| You want me to define the power of a computer language?
|
| You think i don't give sufficient explanation and needs to define the
| term?
|
| are you aware that defining such a thing is nearly impossible?
+---------------
You, on the other hand, are apparently not aware that this has been
an active area of computer science research for decades!! E.g., see:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.51.4656
"On the expressive power of programming languages"
Matthias Felleisen
[In "Science of Computer Programming", Springer-Verlag (1991).]
Abstract:
The literature on programming languages contains an abundance of
informal claims on the relative expressive power of programming
languages, but there is no framework for formalizing such statements
nor for deriving interesting consequences. As a first step in
this direction, we develop a formal notion of expressiveness and
investigate its properties. To validate the theory, we analyze
some widely held beliefs about the expressive power of several
extensions of functional languages. Based on these results, we
believe that our system correctly captures many of the informal
ideas on expressiveness, and that it constitutes a foundation
for further research in this direction.
...
Full paper available here:
ftp://ftp.cs.indiana.edu/pub/scheme-repository/doc/pubs/express.ps.gz
http://www.cs.rice.edu/CS/PLT/Publications/scp91-felleisen.ps.gz
+---------------
| Some computer scientist, tried to formalize it in some mathematical
| way, but basically went no where (such's failure, for example, can
| be attributed or judged by lack of effectiveness, practicality, utility).
|
| Do you need me to cite papers, books, on these definition issues i
| discussed above?
+---------------
Yes.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Dear Rob Warnock,
> You, on the other hand, are apparently not aware that this has been
> an active area of computer science research for decades!! E.g., see:
>
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.51.4656
See:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.perl.misc/msg/4e10dfd77a7efd70
Btw, i didn't think that was a great paper.
I was temped to call you a moron, but decided against it, because i
think you are still good.
Why would i call you a moron? Because your “(Knowledge + Love) /
Disrespectfulness” ratio in this post is low.
For detail, see: “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” at
http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
If you didnt start the post with this irreverence “You, on the other
hand, are apparently not aware ...”, then you'd be very good. From my
impression of your past posts, you often are not into heated debates,
defensive stupidity, or Lisp dogma pushing. So, i think you are good.
> | Do you need me to cite papers, books, on these definition issues i
> | discussed above?
> +---------------
>
> Yes.
“What is Expressiveness in a Computer Language” (2005-02) by Xah Lee.
http://xahlee.org/perl-python/what_is_expresiveness.html
“A New Kind of Science” (2002) Stephen Wolfram
http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html
“Notes on A New Kind of Science” (2004-2008) by Xah Lee.
http://xahlee.org/cmaci/ca/ca.html
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
(i recommend anyone spend say, 30 min on this encyclopedia everday. As
for Wikipedia, i spend about 4 hours on it per day for maybe 4 years
now. See for example:
Links To Wikipedia from XahLee.org
http://xahlee.org/wikipedia_links.html
Lispers and Wikipedia
http://xahlee.org/emacs/lispers_n_wikipedia.html
)
-----------------------------------------------
Don, i'll respond to your message. Let me take a break.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
On Aug 20, 6:22 pm, ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
> ······@gmail.com <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +---------------
> | Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
> | > You have not defined what it means for a syntax to have "power", nor have
> | > you given any specific examples of how the five characters "reduce" that
> | > so-called power.
> |
> | You want me to define the power of a computer language?
> |
> | You think i don't give sufficient explanation and needs to define the
> | term?
> |
> | are you aware that defining such a thing is nearly impossible?
> +---------------
>
> You, on the other hand, are apparently not aware that this has been
> an active area of computer science research for decades!! E.g., see:
>
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.51.4656
> "On the expressive power of programming languages"
> Matthias Felleisen
> [In "Science of Computer Programming", Springer-Verlag (1991).]
>
> Abstract:
> The literature on programming languages contains an abundance of
> informal claims on the relative expressive power of programming
> languages, but there is no framework for formalizing such statements
> nor for deriving interesting consequences. As a first step in
> this direction, we develop a formal notion of expressiveness and
> investigate its properties. To validate the theory, we analyze
> some widely held beliefs about the expressive power of several
> extensions of functional languages. Based on these results, we
> believe that our system correctly captures many of the informal
> ideas on expressiveness, and that it constitutes a foundation
> for further research in this direction.
> ...
>
> Full paper available here:
>
> ftp://ftp.cs.indiana.edu/pub/scheme-repository/doc/pubs/express.ps.gz
> http://www.cs.rice.edu/CS/PLT/Publications/scp91-felleisen.ps.gz
>
> +---------------
> | Some computer scientist, tried to formalize it in some mathematical
> | way, but basically went no where (such's failure, for example, can
> | be attributed or judged by lack of effectiveness, practicality, utility).
> |
> | Do you need me to cite papers, books, on these definition issues i
> | discussed above?
> +---------------
>
> Yes.
>
> -Rob
>
> -----
> Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
> 627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
> San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Btw Rob, perhaps you are expecting me to cite some esoteric research
papers in computer science journals.
I have actually never read computer science journals. I do read math
journals but basically stopped reading any dedicated journal since
about 1999.
As regards to the value of knowledge sources, i value them roughly
like this:
1. General reference. e.g. encyclopedia, Wikipedia, specialized
encyclopedia such as “Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematica” (aka
EDM).
2. Text books. e.g. SICP, the algorithm book, dragon book, network
book, math etc. In general, given a subject, there are few classic
well known ones.
3. Research papers. e.g. ACM, AMS, MAA publications, phd thesis. And
basically lots of such journals published in particular field, any
academic field, poetry, architecture, philosophy, and so on.
In general, i despise the 3rd class, i.e. those esoteric, very
specialized, papers. Those who are fond of citing such are good
indication that they are first class morons. In fact, i despise those
who write these papers. Typically, these are academician morons who
never amount to any noteworthy results in history. They “publish” to
survive.
Text books are fantastic! They give a focused, summarized, exposition
on a particular subject. Text books are my favorite type of book, in
my 20s and 30s, roughly the 1990s.
Today, my favorite source of knowledge is general reference. i.e.
encyclopedias. Basically, scientific and technological progress is too
fast to keep up. Specialization becomes necessary as a force of the
structure of technological society but specialists are all too often
morons because they have no basic knowledge of the whole. (this can be
likened to perl fanatics, Java fanatics, Common Lisp fanatics. The
fanatism completely control their thought and blind their sight.)
also, btw, my opinion of the paper
“On the expressive power of programming languages” (1991) by Matthias
Felleisen, is that it's one of the moronic paper, to tell you the
truth.
I have spent maybe 10 min scanning it 1 or 2 years ago. It is one of
those papers that are theoretically useless and practically useless.
Academecians doing their routine masterbation. (don't quote me on this
though. It's just a first impression, not a confident evaluation)
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
On Aug 20, 7:33 pm, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Rob Warnock,
>
> > You, on the other hand, are apparently not aware that this has been
> > an active area of computer science research for decades!! E.g., see:
>
> > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.51.4656
>
> See:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.perl.misc/msg/4e10dfd77a7efd70
>
> Btw, i didn't think that was a great paper.
>
> I was temped to call you a moron, but decided against it, because i
> think you are still good.
>
> Why would i call you a moron? Because your “(Knowledge + Love) /
> Disrespectfulness” ratio in this post is low.
> For detail, see: “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” athttp://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
>
> If you didnt start the post with this irreverence “You, on the other
> hand, are apparently not aware ...”, then you'd be very good. From my
> impression of your past posts, you often are not into heated debates,
> defensive stupidity, or Lisp dogma pushing. So, i think you are good.
>
> > | Do you need me to cite papers, books, on these definition issues i
> > | discussed above?
> > +---------------
>
> > Yes.
>
> “What is Expressiveness in a Computer Language” (2005-02) byXahLee.http://xahlee.org/perl-python/what_is_expresiveness.html
>
> “A New Kind of Science” (2002) Stephen Wolframhttp://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html
>
> “Notes on A New Kind of Science” (2004-2008) byXahLee.http://xahlee.org/cmaci/ca/ca.html
>
> Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
>
> (i recommend anyone spend say, 30 min on this encyclopedia everday. As
> for Wikipedia, i spend about 4 hours on it per day for maybe 4 years
> now. See for example:
> Links To Wikipedia from XahLee.orghttp://xahlee.org/wikipedia_links.html
>
> Lispers and Wikipediahttp://xahlee.org/emacs/lispers_n_wikipedia.html
> )
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> Don, i'll respond to your message. Let me take a break.
······@gmail.com wrote:
> Btw Rob, perhaps you are expecting me to cite some esoteric research
> papers in computer science journals.
Xah! We Free Spirits must not allowed ourselves to be dragged from our
Lofty Heights where the air is pure and we achieve our Clarity down into
the befogged befuddled tedium of Citations and Factuality where the
lesser lights dwell!
Don wrote:
"I'm trying to focus down to a specific technical point that we might be
able to resolve."
Savage! Would you harness a wild stallion to a plow?!!
And Rob* cruelly took you up on...
Xah wrote:
| Do you need me to cite papers, books, on these definition issues i
| discussed above?
In sports we call this "playing the other guy's game".
Stick to your flamboyant hyperbole, let the bookkeepers mop up after
you. Stick to bigthink, let others fret over accuracy <spit>. They have
all the facts, we have our instincts, unsupported, undocumented,
unresearched, indefensible, and right:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ace/Literaria/Poem-Graves.html
Rant on, Xah!
kt
* Good call, btw, Rob is way cool, met him once, saw his smile, nuff
said. I bet Don rocks, too.
Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 21 Aug 2008:
> Don wrote:
> "I'm trying to focus down to a specific technical point that we might be able
> to resolve."
>
> Savage! Would you harness a wild stallion to a plow?!!
Kenny, I bow to your superior analogies... You are, indeed, The Kenny.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
If it's not one thing, it's your mother.
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> Dear Rob Warnock,
>
>> You, on the other hand, are apparently not aware that this has been
>> an active area of computer science research for decades!! E.g., see:
He also just discovered the term 'Von Neumann Machine' this week, and
he's been "writing" about computer science for quite a long time. You
shouldn't be surprised.
> Btw, i didn't think that was a great paper.
>
> I was temped to call you a moron, but decided against it, because i
> think you are still good.
>
> Why would i call you a moron? Because your “(Knowledge + Love) /
> Disrespectfulness” ratio in this post is low.
> For detail, see: “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” at
> http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
I can't read your writing. It's not written in a language I
understand. Since you have come up with a mathematical formula to
determine the objective worth of a Usenet post, though, perhaps you
would be so kind as to provide a Lisp function (as you post here so
very often, you should be comfortable with the language) that can
calculate this value from text.
If your formula is objective, then this will be possible. If you have
put any thought into it at all, you will know how to calculate it. If
you have even the slightest skill at the things you write about so
voluminously, you will be able to write this function.
I would suggest you use Emacs Lisp, because then I can add it to my
.emacs and use it to determine the worthiness of my post right from
the editor I wrote it in, before I submit it to my Usenet server.
Thanks for your time.
On Aug 20, 9:41 pm, Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> > Dear Rob Warnock,
>
> >> You, on the other hand, are apparently not aware that this has been
> >> an active area of computer science research for decades!! E.g., see:
>
> He also just discovered the term 'Von Neumann Machine' this week, and
> he's been "writing" about computer science for quite a long time. You
> shouldn't be surprised.
>
> > Btw, i didn't think that was a great paper.
>
> > I was temped to call you a moron, but decided against it, because i
> > think you are still good.
>
> > Why would i call you a moron? Because your “(Knowledge + Love) /
> > Disrespectfulness” ratio in this post is low.
> > For detail, see: “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” at
> > http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
>
> I can't read your writing. It's not written in a language I
> understand. Since you have come up with a mathematical formula to
> determine the objective worth of a Usenet post, though, perhaps you
> would be so kind as to provide a Lisp function (as you post here so
> very often, you should be comfortable with the language) that can
> calculate this value from text.
>
> If your formula is objective, then this will be possible. If you have
> put any thought into it at all, you will know how to calculate it. If
> you have even the slightest skill at the things you write about so
> voluminously, you will be able to write this function.
>
> I would suggest you use Emacs Lisp, because then I can add it to my
> .emacs and use it to determine the worthiness of my post right from
> the editor I wrote it in, before I submit it to my Usenet server.
>
> Thanks for your time.
LOL. That's funny.
> I can't read your writing. ...
you know, often when i got a response in newsgroup, i do a check
whether the guy is a friend or foe. This i do by clicking on the user
profile in google group, so it will show a page of the guy's past
posts. Then, i type Xah in the search box to search thru his posts,
effectively listing exchanges i had with the guy. This is a effective
way to remind myself what this joe is like, and i can evaluate him
right there by judging what he has written in response to my often
controversial posts. I can, for example, get a glimpse of his writing
skill, critical thinking skill, programing skill, online personality,
etc. The above usually takes about 50 seconds.
So, i did that you.
Sorry i'm somewhat a newsgroup celebrity and lots folks compete to
jump onto me. There are too many of them and i can't remember who's
what. (exception being those who attack me frequently and flagrantly
with the most stupid drivels. These class have made indelible
impressions on me (comp.lang.lisp examples that comes to mind
include: Rainer, Tim X, Don, George ... some i came to know better
this year due to more post here and most if not all have at least
changed their initial view of me as some type of idiot ... and i think
they are
nice people after all ... (as opposed to some newsgroup tech geekers,
who are motherfucker hateful, society's scumbag.)) )
So, i was saying, i clicked and looked at the past exchanges between
us, here:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=xah&start=0&scoring=d&enc_author=ibO4wRMAAAD1mReNgC-06V3CI8p23S-1WMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww&
judging from that list, i'd say you are a fan. LOL.
Welcome Aboard.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> writes:
>> If your formula is objective, then this will be possible. If you have
>> put any thought into it at all, you will know how to calculate it. If
>> you have even the slightest skill at the things you write about so
>> voluminously, you will be able to write this function.
>>
>> I would suggest you use Emacs Lisp, because then I can add it to my
>> .emacs and use it to determine the worthiness of my post right from
>> the editor I wrote it in, before I submit it to my Usenet server.
>>
>> Thanks for your time.
>
> LOL. That's funny.
Yes, it is. Because there's no way you are capable of backing
anything you say up. It might not be so bad if you were fluent in
English *or* competent in computer science, but you are neither, and
you make up for it by hurling badly-coined insults at people.
The way I see it, you have three options. Put your money where your
mouth is and provide some code as described above, admit that your
formula is not objective and is rather just a handy "I don't have to
respond to you on an intellectual level because the math doesn't work
out" tool, or prove that you are incapable of reason by doing neither.
> judging from that list, i'd say you are a fan. LOL.
This is just another thing about which you are delusional.
Ari Johnson wrote:
> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Dear Rob Warnock,
>>
>>
>>>You, on the other hand, are apparently not aware that this has been
>>>an active area of computer science research for decades!! E.g., see:
>
>
> He also just discovered the term 'Von Neumann Machine' this week, and
> he's been "writing" about computer science for quite a long time. You
> shouldn't be surprised.
>
>
>>Btw, i didn't think that was a great paper.
>>
>>I was temped to call you a moron, but decided against it, because i
>>think you are still good.
>>
>>Why would i call you a moron? Because your “(Knowledge + Love) /
>>Disrespectfulness” ratio in this post is low.
>>For detail, see: “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” at
>>http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
>
>
> I can't read your writing. It's not written in a language I
> understand. Since you have come up with a mathematical formula to
> determine the objective worth of a Usenet post, though, perhaps you
> would be so kind as to provide a Lisp function (as you post here so
> very often, you should be comfortable with the language) that can
> calculate this value from text.
>
> If your formula is objective, then this will be possible. If you have
> put any thought into it at all, you will know how to calculate it. If
> you have even the slightest skill at the things you write about so
> voluminously, you will be able to write this function.
>
> I would suggest you use Emacs Lisp, because then I can add it to my
> .emacs and use it to determine the worthiness of my post right from
> the editor I wrote it in, before I submit it to my Usenet server.
>
> Thanks for your time.
Dying is easy, comedy is hard.
Meanwhile the jackals circle ever closer to the mighty but hamstrung
antelope, sensing weakness. Xah's reward for taking us clowns seriously?
Death by a thousand cuts of having his own words thrown in his face. I
pity the hyena who first sinks his teeth into Xah, but look forward to
his wake. I hear the food is great at wakes.
:)
kzo
Xah wrote:
> > Why would i call you a moron? Because your “(Knowledge + Love) /
> > Disrespectfulness” ratio in this post is low.
> > For detail, see: “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” at
> > http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
Ari Johnson wrote:
> I can't read your writing. It's not written in a language I
> understand. Since you have come up with a mathematical formula to
> determine the objective worth of a Usenet post, ...
Btw, it's not “ mathematical formula to determine the objective worth
of a Usenet post”. Apparantly you misread my essay.
My essay:
“(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” at
http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
is about explaining why i'm rude to people. In particular, i
explained, that the rudeness in my reply is proportional to the value
of: “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” in their message. In
particular, the value “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” is not
about some “objective worth of Usenet post” as you seems to think.
For my opinion about the value of related to your idea of “objective
worth of Usenet post”, please see:
“Philosophies of Netiquette”, at
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/phil_netiquette.html
Here's a relevant excerpt:
«The Rococo style posters are in general more scholarly and emphasize
on quality and value. The intrinsic quality of a post of the Rococo
stylists can be judged on content and presentation aspects. The
presentation part essentially means the poster's writing skill and
effort she puts into posts. This fact is not highbrowism because
communication using newsgroups are done in written form: wrote and
read; not spoke and heard. The criterions for judging a post's content
are essentially the same as that of a scholar's work in science or
humanitarian diciplines, roughly that of correctness, originality, or
artistry.»
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> Xah wrote:
>> > Why would i call you a moron? Because your “(Knowledge + Love) /
>> > Disrespectfulness” ratio in this post is low.
>> > For detail, see: “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” at
>> > http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
>
> Ari Johnson wrote:
>> I can't read your writing. It's not written in a language I
>> understand. Since you have come up with a mathematical formula to
>> determine the objective worth of a Usenet post, ...
>
> Btw, it's not “ mathematical formula to determine the objective worth
> of a Usenet post”. Apparantly you misread my essay.
You are wrong. I *didn't* read your essay because it's not written in
any human language.
> My essay:
> “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” at
> http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
>
> is about explaining why i'm rude to people. In particular, i
> explained, that the rudeness in my reply is proportional to the value
> of: “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” in their message. In
> particular, the value “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” is not
> about some “objective worth of Usenet post” as you seems to think.
Okay, so it's not about objective worth, but you are still claiming
that it's an objective formula. My point stands.
On Aug 21, 7:13 am, Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> > Xah wrote:
> >> > Why would i call you a moron? Because your “(Knowledge + Love) /
> >> > Disrespectfulness” ratio in this post is low.
> >> > For detail, see: “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” at
> >> >http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
>
> > Ari Johnson wrote:
> >> I can't read your writing. It's not written in a language I
> >> understand. Since you have come up with a mathematical formula to
> >> determine the objective worth of a Usenet post, ...
>
> > Btw, it's not “ mathematical formula to determine the objective worth
> > of a Usenet post”. Apparantly you misread my essay.
>
> You are wrong. I *didn't* read your essay because it's not written in
> any human language.
well, it's in english, n english is a human lang.
also, perhaps you mean it's badly written. Actually, the quality my
writing is better than, say, average english professor or average
professional journalist, in general. Some of my fastly typed out
newsgroups posts are exceptions though.
> > My essay:
> > “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” at
> >http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
>
> > is about explaining why i'm rude to people. In particular, i
> > explained, that the rudeness in my reply is proportional to the value
> > of: “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” in their message. In
> > particular, the value “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” is not
> > about some “objective worth of Usenet post” as you seems to think.
>
> Okay, so it's not about objective worth, but you are still claiming
> that it's an objective formula. My point stands.
Nowhere i claimed or implied that my judgement of “(Knowledge +
Love) / Disrespectfulness” ratio is objective.
bozo, nice try. lol.
(line stolen from Kenny.)
Ari, what kinda name is that? Btw you are sooo stupid. Your respones
to my threads in the past years are stupid (just google group search
“ari johnson” and “xah”). However, your posts in my thread are not
aggressive like some other tech geeking morons, so your name never got
into my mind. You are still good.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> On Aug 21, 7:13 am, Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> > > Xah wrote:
> > >> > Why would i call you a moron? Because your “(Knowledge + Love) /
> > >> > Disrespectfulness” ratio in this post is low.
> > >> > For detail, see: “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” at
> > >> >http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
> >
> > > Ari Johnson wrote:
> > >> I can't read your writing. It's not written in a language I
> > >> understand. Since you have come up with a mathematical formula to
> > >> determine the objective worth of a Usenet post, ...
> >
> > > Btw, it's not “ mathematical formula to determine the objective worth
> > > of a Usenet post”. Apparantly you misread my essay.
> >
> > You are wrong. I *didn't* read your essay because it's not written in
> > any human language.
>
> well, it's in english, n english is a human lang.
No, your writings are not in English. English has rules about grammar
and spelling that you do not adhere to, here or in your "essays."
> also, perhaps you mean it's badly written. Actually, the quality my
> writing is better than, say, average english professor or average
> professional journalist, in general. Some of my fastly typed out
> newsgroups posts are exceptions though.
You're right. Some of your Usenet posts actually do make your essays
look better. To say, though, that your writing is better than an
average English professor or average professional journalist is just
part of your unjustified arrogance.
> > > My essay:
> > > “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” at
> > >http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
> >
> > > is about explaining why i'm rude to people. In particular, i
> > > explained, that the rudeness in my reply is proportional to the value
> > > of: “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” in their message. In
> > > particular, the value “(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness” is not
> > > about some “objective worth of Usenet post” as you seems to think.
> >
> > Okay, so it's not about objective worth, but you are still claiming
> > that it's an objective formula. My point stands.
>
> Nowhere i claimed or implied that my judgement of “(Knowledge +
> Love) / Disrespectfulness” ratio is objective.
The use of mathematical symbols carries with it an implicit assertion
that the formula is objective. If you didn't know that already, now
you do.
> bozo, nice try. lol.
> (line stolen from Kenny.)
You've stolen someone else's words to insult me. How flattering! See
below for the grand sum of the emotional harm I've suffered as a
result.
> Ari, what kinda name is that?
One that you most likely can't pronounce, can't figure out the origins
of, and can't figure out the origins of the name it's short for. Do
you understand what an ad hominem argument is, and how making one
undermines your credibility?
> Btw you are sooo stupid. Your respones
> to my threads in the past years are stupid (just google group search
> “ari johnson” and “xah”).
I knew that the insults were coming at some point, rather than a
response to what I've actually written and asked. Attacking a person
without addressing his position can be useful, if you wish to injure
the person rather than to demonstrate the flaws in his position.
Sometimes, that is the desired effect. In this case, it most likely
is not. Either way, it is not an actual effect.
You are doing one of two things here. If you are doing what you
generally claim to be doing, which is, generally stated, educating the
world about how you are right and the rest of us are all wrong about
any topic you proclaim yourself to be an expert on, then injuring the
person is not the desired effect. If you think that injuring the
person proves your point, then you should read a book on logical
discourse. If you are not attempting to insult people and that is
just how you communicate your point, then you should read both a book
on logical discourse and several on interpersonal communication.
Now, on the other hand, if you are not actually attempting to have a
discussion about the topic but rather just want to insult people, you
are dishonest in claiming otherwise. Furthermore, you are misguided,
as I doubt there is a current comp.lang.lisp reader who does in fact
take any of your ridiculous insults personally. I certainly do not.
What you have accomplished, no matter your intent and no matter
whether you are aware of your methods attempting to execute that
intent, is to become a laughingstock and a running joke. Nearly
everyone who responds to you does so for the purpose of
self-amusement.
> However, your posts in my thread are not
> aggressive like some other tech geeking morons, so your name never got
> into my mind. You are still good.
Your comprehension of the English language leaves a bit to be desired,
if that's what you think. Read some of Laurence Sterne's or
Shakespeare's works if you'd like to learn how to be aggressive
without resorting to cliche insults and foul language.
On Aug 21, 12:09 pm, Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, your writings are not in English. English has rules about grammar
> and spelling that you do not adhere to, here or in your "essays."
it's still english though.
also, note that notable writers don't necessarily adhere to the the
style of the plebeians. shakespear, cumming, emily. I feel cheap to
mention this in a earnest way, but tech geekers don't know nothing
about literature stuffs
i have some collected writing about this. see:
“Language and English”
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/bangu/bangu.html
Excerpt of the intro:
«... my writing is razor blades in hot buns to grammarians, chocking
dagger to mouthing moralists, logic bomb to irreflecting morons, eye
opener to epochal theorists, immaculate calculus to logicians,
euphoric oxygen to English masters, orgasmic honey to poetic chicks.
That is to say, when i wanna be on the right occasion, too.»
«you see, English under me is like a love slave. I say jump and she
jumps, I say kiss and she kisses. And when i need to vent, she bends
double and pleads cum. Of course, it is not to say my theories are
unerring or i'm impeccable or sans foibles and grammatical
trespassings. But all things considered...»
> The use of mathematical symbols carries with it an implicit assertion
> that the formula is objective.
LOL. How stupid can you be?
That's a joke right?
> What you have accomplished, no matter your intent and no matter
> whether you are aware of your methods attempting to execute that
> intent, is to become a laughingstock and a running joke. Nearly
> everyone who responds to you does so for the purpose of
> self-amusement.
Not really. That's the surprising part. Since i started conversational
styled posts in recent months esp in gnu.emacs.help , and responding
to almost all messages addressed to me, i have realized, the degree of
stupidities in tech geekers. Sometimes i think something is obvious
playing dumb or a joke, but it turns out they mean it. For some
detailed account and the exact threads you can see this, see:
What I've Learned By Conversational Styled Posts
http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/chat_style_posts.html
> Read some ... Shakespeare's works
See:
“The Tragedy Of Titus Andronicus” (1594) by William Shakespeare,
annotated by Xah Lee.
http://xahlee.org/p/titus/titus.html
Ari, Thy years wants wit, thy wits wants edge.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> > Nowhere i claimed or implied that my judgement of “(Knowledge +
> > Love) / Disrespectfulness” ratio is objective.
>
> The use of mathematical symbols carries with it an implicit assertion
> that the formula is objective. If you didn't know that already, now
> you do.
I did forget to make one observation on this point. If you are using
a mathematical formula to determine something subjective, then you are
engaging in a corollary of Disraeli's third type of lies.
Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> wrote on 21 Aug 2008 15:0:
> Nearly everyone who responds to you does so for the purpose of
> self-amusement.
Ooooh! Ooooh! Ooooh! (Raises hand.)
It's almost September. School's got to start soon, no? When should we
expect the flood of new freshmen, encountering lisp in college for the
very first time? And posting their homework on c.l.l...
Yes, these really are the dog days of summer. Sitting in my hammock, tossing
a stick for Xah to fetch provides some limited amusement on a lazy
afternoon...
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Broken promises don't upset me. I just think, why did they believe me?
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]
The following is posted to comp.lang.lisp but i intended to post to
comp.lang.scheme too. This is a repost.
On Aug 18, 9:39 am, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sun, 17 Aug 2008:
>
> > On Aug 16, 8:18 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
> >> Your first claimed "fundamental problem" of Lisp is:
> >> Lisp relies on a regular nested syntax. However, the lisp syntax
> >> has several irregularities, that reduces such syntax's power and
> >> confuses the language semantics. (i.e. those «' # ; ` ,» chars.)
> >> The topics in dispute are:
> >> 1. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
> >> "reduce the syntax's power".
>
> > i have given many examples in my essay.
> > http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
>
> You have not defined what it means for a syntax to have "power", nor have
> you given any specific examples of how the five characters "reduce" that
> so-called power.
You want me to define the power of a computer language?
You think i don't give sufficient explanation and needs to define the
term?
are you aware that defining such a thing is nearly impossible? For
example, let me cite 2 well known examples. In math, there's the
problem of definition of “random”. In science, or computer science,
there's the problem of defining “intelligence”. In biology, there's
the problem of defining “life”. You dont mean that any publication
involving these concepts must define them?
You are not, i hope, throwing out random retort to disrupt the
argument, right? Or, perharps you are not well aquainted of the role
of “definition” in philosophy and criticial thinking? I tend to think
it's the latter, to be bluntly honest.
let me give more specific example... the notion of the “power” of a
computer language, or “expressiveness” of a computer language. You
know, that these are widely used terms and abused. However, there is
really no good general definition. Some computer scientist, tried to
formalize it in some mathematical way, but basically went no where
(such's failure, for example, can be attributed or judged by lack of
effectiveness, practicality, utility).
Do you need me to cite papers, books, on these definition issues i
discussed above?
Ok, i don't mean to derail what might be your honest attemp to argue.
Let me say then, that the “reduced such syntax's power” notion in my
essay, i think is amply examplified in my essay. For example, i gave
examples in comparison to XML, Mathematica, automatic code
formating... (the essay is here:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
possibly you might reread it carefully now since you might just have
scanned and dismissed it before. Note that the essay, links some 8 or
so more essays providing support on each part.
)
Let me give it another try. In general, the power of computing
language, is roughly the ratio of ease/possibility. The “ease” there
is ease of use, ease of learning, succinctness of source code, size of
existing functions or libraries, accessibility, etc. The “possibility”
in the denominator is roughly what it does, what it can do. For
example, it can be cover perspectives from areas of fitness, e.g.
mathematical computation, visualization system, web application,
networking, sys admin, “glue lang”, embeded scripting lang, low level
systems lang, proof systems ... etc. and ... and ... and ... but i'm
carried away into generalities. In short, my criticism on lisp in that
essay provide reasonable definition of power in its contex. Please
double check to see if you agree.
> Start there. What is the "power" of a syntax? If I had two different
> proposed syntaxes, how would I determine which one had more "power"?
> Why is "syntax power" even a good thing in a programming language?
Ok. See above.
Note, you used the “Start there” phrase. Is that jab? I believe you
are trying to have a good argument with me, not exchange of hotair,
right? I mean, at least, i believe, that you, thinks you are trying to
have a reasonable argument on my criticism of lisp, and not trying to
be a hotair balloon. I, myself, have not yet fully decided to commit a
full honest discourse with you. (for reasons, see:
http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
) But, if you, decides that at least you, want to be fully polite and
earnist in this discussion, i would suggest, that you exercise care in
your intonation in your argument with me. Because, otherwise, you
might just be another target that i use for mainly ridicule purposes.
You still have a chance to redeem yourself.
> If I had two different
> proposed syntaxes, how would I determine which one had more "power"?
lisp uses nested syntax. As you know, many lisp publications and
advocacy say that is one of the source of lisp's power. For example,
lisp's macro relies heavily on lisp's nest syntax. Isn't this obvious
to you??
> > In summary:
> > it makes parsing the source code more difficult than if the lang
> > doesn't have such irregular syntax.
>
> Well, sure. But, in exchange for that (minor!) cost, you get the benefit
> of ease of use by humans.
Are those special chars ALL sugar syntaxes?
Could you, or anyone, summarize them all?
> Besides which, every Lisp implementation has already conveniently implemented
> the Lisp parser for you. So you don't have to write it yourself! Just call
> the built-in parser.
The issue is not about parser or compiler. The issue i mentioned about
syntax, has to do with the language's power that came from a nested
syntax.
For example, let's say perl. Perl's syntax is a syntax soup, quite
opposite of lisp. Suppose, if perl switched to lisp's syntax, then
perhaps it would develope lisp macros. Then, from a specific point of
view of lispers, we could say, that perl's syntax is less powerful,
because its syntax's irregularity in some sense prevent it from
developing into the concept of lisp's macro. Perlers might say, well
parsing is already done by perl compilers. But you see now, that is
really a narrow view.
Similarly, when i say that the irregularities in lisp hampered it from
developing many fruitful use of regular syntax (with many examples
given in my essay), you have to consider it from the the context of
computer language's syntaxes, and not construe it as whether lisp's
irregularity is a problem to lispers.
For example, one of the example i gave about how the irregularities in
lisp's syntax is that it hampered the development of a automated code
formatting facilitiest (see the article for detailed examples and
explanations).
> Certainly, it makes _writing_ a Lisp implementation (esp. the parser)
> somewhat more difficult than it otherwise would have been. But why in
> world do you think that writing an implementation is the goal to optimize
> when designing a programming language? Surely the Common Lisp choice,
> to optimize _using_ the language to write _other_ programs, rather than
> optimizing the ease of implementation of the language, is a far better
> choice than the one you are suggesting.
as i explained above, it is not about writing compilers or parsers.
See above.
> > Note that a outstanding point about lisp is that it features a regular
> > syntax, and this is a major point that lispers think lisp is great, as you
> > can see in just about every publication and advocacy of lisp. In these
> > mostly fanatical advocacy, you almost never see a mention, that lisp's
> > regular syntax actually contain quite a few irregularities.
>
> But how -- _exactly_ -- do those few irregulatrities actually cause a
> problem, in practice, for real programmers?
again, the criticism is about some particular aspect of lisp's syntax,
namely, the syntax's irregularity in the context of lisp's philosophy
of regular syntax. The proper vantage point of such criticism is to
look at it in the syntax design of computer languages, and apply it to
lisp's philosophy of syntax. It is not about, for example, whether
lispers would consider lisp's syntax a problem. As a analogy, if you
criticise perl's syntax, the perlpers retort that perl programers
don't have a problem with it.
> And keep in mind that these "irregularities" that you mention definitely
> do provide known benefits to programmers. (E.g. "#" is useful for commenting
> your code inline, etc.)
One of the question i have is, whether all lisp's irregular syntax are
all simply syntax sugars. For one thing, the comment system i.e. “;”
is not. For another, some of these irregularities, for example the
“'”, breaks the structure of nested syntax. i.e. compare “'(a b c) vs
(' a b c)”. I do not know much about the others.
You mentioned that some of the syntaxes provide convenience to
programers. for example, those so-called sugar syntaxes. Note here,
that i'm not against sugar syntaxes. But the criticism is that some or
all of these sugar syntaxes breaks many properties that is the
fundamental advantage of lisp's nested syntax. (again, please read my
detailed essay; don't just pick this paragraph and start argument all
over)
Also keep in mind, as i mentioned numerous times, that not all these
are merely variant syntaxes. For example, there's no parenthized form
for “;”. So, in this particular point, it means there cannot be a
uniform transformation on syntax that gets you the pure nested form.
> > as i have given detail in my essay, that a pure nested syntax has several
> > advantegous consequences. Macros
>
> You have stated this, but you are simply wrong.
>
> Perhaps you don't understand how Lisp works. I'm not trying to be insulting
> here. But your claim that "irregular" textual syntax makes writing macros
> hard betrays a critical error in thinking about what Lisp is doing.
>
> Here's what you've missed: Source code is written as sequences of characters
> in a text file (or typed into the interpreter). But then -- BEFORE macros
> ever get to do any work -- the text characters are processed by the Lisp
> reader, resulting in internal data structures in a kind of Abstract Syntax
> Tree.
>
> Lisp macros operate on the AST, _not_ on the text strings.
This is the part you common lispers, fully becomes stupid. When
discussion on this gets deeper, common lisping fans began to criticize
Scheme, or to the degree of saying that Scheme is not lisp or some
deviantiation. When Common Lispers defend my criticism of lisp syntax
and in their defense starts to attack Scheme Lisp, you can begin to
get the feeling of how Common Lispers failed to see the overall
picture.
You need to, as i said, not bury your head inside common lisp. Let me
say again, my criticism of lisp, part of which is about the
irregularities of its often-believed regular syntax. The proper
vantage point is the theory of computer syntaxes, applied to lisp's
philosophy of one particular way, namely, purely nested form. If you
simply view it from a lisp programing, with retorts such as “lisper
programers never found it a problem”, then you are not understanding
the criticism at all.
Let's discuss the idea that CL acts on its object, and the source code
merely a textual representation. Let me tell you, that most computer
languages, all have a syntax (we are excluding things like
spreadsheets and visual lang etc. (i'm trying to type fast, so morons
pls try not to pick on this and drivel about how spread sheets has
syntax too etc)). Regardless how CL has some the Abstract Syntax Tree
or Object idea, in the contex of computer languages, it still has just
one input form what we'd call the the language's syntax. Now, lisp's
lang's philosophy about syntax, emphasize that it should be fully
nested. This is a elementary feature of the lisp family of langs.
(lisps that breaks away from this nested syntax, are often alienated
by lispers and considered as only lisp derivative, such as logo,
dylan.) It is true that CL macros act on AST as you say, but however,
its nested syntax is a fundamental part of it. Theoretically, you
could have a lang with non-nested syntax (such as perl, C) yet still
have a macro system identical or almost identical to lisp.
> So, you are trying to claim, for example, that the "#" "non-regular" comment
> character makes writing Lisp macros "harder". And you are simply wrong.
> By the time a macro starts work, all the comments have already be stripped.
> In fact, you will be unable to write a macro that can even tell the difference
> between whether there was a comment character in the code or not.
See above.
Let me give another example to tackle criticisms of syntax of
languages.
One way, is to think of a lisp language (say, called regLisp), such
that without any irregularities in syntax as i criticised in my essay.
I mean, seriously, spend 20 mintues, to think of a lisp lang that
doesn't have any syntax irregularies described in my criticism.
Note, this does not mean not having any sugar syntaxes. Sugar syntax
is of course very convenient and practical, often even necessary, but
any sugar syntax are done so that the uniformity in syntax property
remains intact.
Now, if you imagine this language. Now, think about how would this
regLisp compared to CL for example? Would it lose any advantage that
CL have? (think in all aspects) Would it actually have any ADVANTAGES?
By my criticism, the answer is that such regLisp would lose nothing of
CL's advantage, but has far more advantages to gain (as detailed in my
essay; and Mathematica is cited as a living example and XML and its
vast number of derivatives are cited as a example of widely accepted
advantage of syntax regularity).
> So. We come to the first chance for Xah to rise above his apparent
> troll-ness. In every post I've read from you,Xah, you treat yourself as
> all-knowing and all-intelligent, and any disagreement with anyone else
> results in you calling the others "morons", "idiots", etc.
As i said above, if you really want earnest discussion with me sans
attitude, you can start with yourself, and drop paragraphs such as
above. As a guide, prevent you are writing to your family, friends,
who are very dear to you. When i see true sincerity, i will act
accordingly.
> Can you be honest, in this one case? Can you admit that you have claimed
> that Lisp's "irregular syntax" makes writing macros "harder", and you were
> simply mistaken on that point? It is not true, and you admit your mistake?
To be honest, i consider myself 50 years beyond this world.
Not 500, or 100. By “beyond”, it means my views in most things are
more advanced, correct, superior, than most experts in respective
areas where i cared to give forceful opinions.
Discussing with most people in newsgroups, to me, is more liking
playing with stupid highschool bullies.
You can quote me on this. I want you to know, that i earnestly meant
the above. You can forthwith now write me off as a cook, pseudo-
science crackpot, ergomaniac, whatever. But i hope you believe at
least what i really think of myself.
> This, I think, is the test case for actual productive discussion
> with you,Xah. My prediction is that your ego is too inflated to
> ever admit error.
I do admit errors. In fact it have happened publically few times over
the past 10+ years in newsgroup. I'm not going to search the exact
thread and show you the groups.google.com url. I have, admitted
errors, including technical errors, or errors in opinion oriented
argument. I have also, mind you, expressed sincere appreciation and
gratitude when being helped, or given opinion that i think are
worthwhile. This happens much more often than being corrected. The
fact that many, if not most, newsgroup tech geeking morons sees me as
a so-called troll, is partly because negative aspects are much more
visible.
> You are more interested in "winning" and annoying people, then you are in
> actually discovering truth or learning anything.
Shut ya yap.
> But perhaps I'm wrong. So let's see how you respond to having made a
> mistake. Are you man enough to admit it?
Shut ya yap.
If i see more such yap in your reply, then you'll fully become another
of my subject of a playhting, much like cat toys with mouses under her
paw.
How i play with my subjects are exhibited in my few hundreds archived
writings now on my website. I'm sure you don't need me to paste
another url.
> > It is then my claim, that my criticism is very reasonable, that any
> > computer scientists who have studied various computer languages, and with a
> > exertise in lisp, should agree that my criticism is a very valid one.
>
> I'm not a CS professor, but I've programmed in a dozen languages over time,
> and in Common Lisp for ~20 years. I don't agree that your criticism is valid.
Good to know.
> >> 2. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
> >> "confuses the language semantics".
>
> > One easy way to see that it in fact confuses people is by checking the
> > frequency of such questions arise in lisp forums.
>
> Ah, but that's a different claim. Let's leave aside for the moment whether
> Lisp's language semantics confused "people". (I happen to disagree with that
> too, but that isn't the topic we're discussing.)
>
> What you wrote is that the syntax "irregularities" confuse the language
> _semantics_. Not that they confuse people.
i'm not sure what does it mean that a language's syntax could actually
confuse its semantics. I used the phrase to convey the idea that the
correspondence of syntax and semantics becomes inconsistant or complex
due to lisp's irregularities in its syntax. In Von Newmann programing
langs, such as C, C++, Java, Perl etc, their syntax is a ad hoc syntax
soup, so there is little correspondence of their syntactical forms and
each's semantics. In lisp, there is, due to lisp's nested syntax. So,
i'm saying, lisp's irregularities in syntax breaks this syntax-
semantics correspondence.
In my previous post, i mentioned that the frequency of chars like «'
# ; ` ,» in lisp confuse people, as a support that irregularities in
lisp syntax increased its syntax-semantics complexity.
> Please justify your claim that Lisp's semantics are confused because of
> the syntax.
>
> Or, admit your error and withdraw the claim.
See above.
> > For example, one of the frequent question is what's the diff between:
> > (list a b c)
> > '(a b c)
> > (quote a b c)
> > you can see it asked in a recent post in comp.emacs or gun.help.emacs,
> > where you see experts give various probing type of answers. This is just
> > one example, and it i think a frequent question.
>
> People (especially those new to Lisp) can be confused by this, yes.
>
> The language itself (i.e. the Lisp semantics) are in no way confused.
>
> I also note in passing that your first and third example:
> (list a b c)
> (quote a b c)
> have exactly the same, completely REGULAR syntax. So whatever confusion
> there might be here (to new programmers), has nothing to do with the
> irregular syntax of Lisp.
>
> Another chance for you to admit that you made a mistake in blaming this
> confusion on the five "irregular" Lisp syntax characters that you mentioned.
>
> > As a example, let me ask this: among lispers who has at least 2 years of
> > coding lisp, how many can actually list all the lisp's syntax
> > irregularities?
>
> Why is that an important test? If I answer "10%", how does that matter?
>
> > How many can say, which is in Common Lisp only, or Scheme lisp, or emacs
> > lisp?
>
> We're generally discussing Common Lisp only on this newsgroup. The others
> are different languages. It doesn't even make sense to talk about how
> differences between DIFFERENT languages confuse people.
My criticism of lisp is about lisp, not specifically just Common Lisp.
More specifically, it is about Common Lisp, Scheme Lisp, Emacs Lisp.
My criticism, namely the irregularity of syntax and the cons business,
is equally applicable to all these lisp family langs.
> Do you think it's a legitimate complaint against Python, that it confused
> Perl programmers because some aspects of the language are different? It's
> a different language!
If a criticism that does apply equally well to Perl and Python, then
it is still a valid criticism. For example, if i made some criticism
regarding imperative programing, then it applies to perl and python.
In the same way, you can see that my cricisim of lisp, namely, the
irregularity in syntax, and the cons business, are applicable to
Common Lisp, Scheme Lisp, Emacs Lisp.
> You can be an expert Common Lisp programmer, while knowing nothing at all
> about Emacs Lisp. So what?
>
> >> 3. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters,
> >> even if (hypothetically) agreed to be non-optimal, are they a
> >> "fundamental problem of Lisp"?
>
> > Yes. Fundamental can have 2 senses here: (1) deep seated; rooted. (2)
> > critical; important.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > It is not deniable that the irregular syntax such as «' # ; ` ,» are
> > deeply rooted in lisp. It has been with lisp since few decades if not
> > at the very beginning.
>
> I agree again.
>
> > As to whether it is a critical issue, i think it is.
>
> Still disagree on this one...
>
> > I consider it is critical in the context of lisp's often tauted regular
> > syntax advantage. However, this issue in contrast to the other issue in my
> > essay about lisp's cons business, i consider that the cons is more
> > critical, or absolutely critical.
>
> OK, understood. And, if we make productive progress on the syntax issue,
> perhaps we can begin to explore the cons issue later.
>
> But I suspect you aren't actually interested in learning anything.
> I suspect you just like to lecture (regardless of your state of knowledge)
> and rile people up.
Drop it.
> If I'm wrong, I apologize. If you do manage to keep your response on a
> technical level, then I'll do the same. And if we get past the syntax
> topic, then I'll be happy to continue on to explain the cons issue to you.
You don't explain the cons issue to me. Your position presently, if
you are earnest, is challenging my claims or criticise my criticism or
having a sensible debate with me. You are, not here as a teacher to
discipline or rebuke me. So, when writing, get your intonation
correct.
I suppose your intonation is inadvertent. That's fine. If you are
actually intentionally injecting little sneer here and there, let me
just say that my eyes are senstive, and i bite. The question you
should truely ask yourself is: Do i really wish to see Xah's earnest
opinion and reasons in my challenges to his lisp views?
> But I strongly suspect you are not capable of admitting that you made a
> mistake on when describing the "problems" of Lisp's syntax.
You can suppose what you want. You can now decide what you want to do.
> > For example, instead of saying the convenient phrase of "fundamental
> > problem" or "critical problem", i can rephrase them into something like "is
> > problem such that certain percentage of lispers ask these questions or get
> > confused by these" or other similar quantifiable ways.
>
> I think if you had used this more tactful language originally, you would
> have seen far less objection from the Lisp folks. And the discussion would
> have proceeded in a very different direction.
My language, writing style, in part, is to ridicule the tech geeking
morons, may they be perlers or lisper or javaer, who are typically
buried in their small world. As i have expressed here ambly, in
general it is not my intention, to simply participate in honest
discussion or exchange of views. My reasons or justification about
this are are written in many essays. The index page to these essays is
here:
Netiquette Anthropology
http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/troll.html
> (For example, confusion can often be addressed by education or good
> tutorials. But "fundamental problem" can only be addressed by changing
> the core language.)
Although lisp's syntax irregularity and cons business are rooted, and
difficult to change, however, there are many ways to mend them, such
as happens language evolution. Even if we don't consider new langs as
fixes (such as Qi, arc, NewLisp, DyLan), but there are evolutions such
as Pascal to Object Pascal, Fortran to Fortran99, OCaml to F#,
Scheme's r5rs to r6rs, etc. These are all examples of the same
language that goes thru improvement with rather backward incompatible.
Similarly, lisp, has many gradual innovations and fixes. (although i
don't know CL, but for example of CL, there's asdf package system as
heard here, and Qi, which addes pattern matching and other functional
features to CL.)
The point of my criticism, is that i have some hope in raising
awareness. That essay, “fundamental problems of lisp” arose partly due
to many times in the past years i tried to speak my own frustrations
of the cons business, or those confusing irregular syntax chars, or
speak of some ideas from my Mathematica background that relates to
these issues, and i met with absolute denial from the motherfucking
lisp regular morons. (comparable in the same way if lisper were to
give reasonable criticism (as opposed to vicious attack) or bring some
ideas from a lisper's experience to say perl or java groups.)
Ok, am sending out this. Not gonna do any editing work. Took me long
enough to type.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Tue, 19 Aug 2008:
> The following is posted to comp.lang.lisp but i intended to post to
> comp.lang.scheme too. This is a repost.
I understand your goal. You think you're talking about "Lisp" in general.
But I'm not responding to, on behalf of, or in any way connected with
Scheme. My conversation with you is not relevant to Scheme folks. Not
to mention that I generally agree with Kent Pitman's points here:
http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PFAQ/cross-posting.html
So, I will choose not to cross-post my replies. I understand that you
may make a different choice.
> On Aug 18, 9:39 am, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
>> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sun, 17 Aug 2008:
>> > On Aug 16, 8:18 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
>> >> Your first claimed "fundamental problem" of Lisp is:
>> >> Lisp relies on a regular nested syntax. However, the lisp syntax
>> >> has several irregularities, that reduces such syntax's power and
>> >> confuses the language semantics. (i.e. those «' # ; ` ,» chars.)
>> >> The topics in dispute are:
>> >> 1. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned
>> >> characters "reduce the syntax's power".
>
> You want me to define the power of a computer language? You think i don't
> give sufficient explanation and needs to define the term?
Not the power of a "language". The power of a language's _syntax_.
Recall, _you_ are the one making the claim, that the irregularities
"reduce [the] syntax's power".
What does your claim even mean? Or were you merely sloppy in your
writings, and you intended to write something different than the words
you actually put down?
> are you aware that defining such a thing is nearly impossible? For
> example, let me cite 2 well known examples. In math, there's the
> problem of definition of “random”. In science, or computer science,
> there's the problem of defining “intelligence”. In biology, there's
> the problem of defining “life”. You dont mean that any publication
> involving these concepts must define them?
If they are making specific claims about them, then yes they ought to
have a clear definition in mind.
As it turns out, I don't have any problem at all with "random",
"intelligence", or "life". Those aren't confusing words to me
(in any particular context).
> let me give more specific example... the notion of the “power” of a
> computer language, or “expressiveness” of a computer language. You
> know, that these are widely used terms and abused. However, there is
> really no good general definition. Some computer scientist, tried to
> formalize it in some mathematical way, but basically went no where
> (such's failure, for example, can be attributed or judged by lack of
> effectiveness, practicality, utility).
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Perhaps something like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy
There certainly is a lot of CS work on the expressiveness of various
syntaxes.
Leaving aside whether this work was productive or "went no where", I
suspect it isn't the kind of thing you had in mind in any case.
> Do you need me to cite papers, books, on these definition issues i
> discussed above?
You're the one who has made a written claim. I'm just asking you to
explain the claim. A claim has to have some meaning first, before it
makes sense to consider whether it might be "true" or "false".
Right now, many of your claims don't even rise to the level of being "wrong",
because they aren't meaningful enough to even be wrong.
> Let me say then, that the “reduced such syntax's power” notion in my
> essay, i think is amply examplified in my essay.
I read your "essay", and got very little content out of it. Certainly no
explanation of what the particular failure is that you have in mind, where
Lisp's "irregular" syntax "reduces" its "power".
> Let me give it another try. In general, the power of computing language, is
> roughly the ratio of ease/possibility. The “ease” there is ease of use,
> ease of learning, succinctness of source code, size of existing functions
> or libraries, accessibility, etc. The “possibility” in the denominator is
> roughly what it does, what it can do.
Super. So I find that adding the comment character ";" to Lisp source
code, _increases_ the "power" of the (syntax) of the language. Because I
can now sprinkle human-readable comments throughout my code, whereas I
couldn't before.
You seem to think that the comment character reduces the "power" of Lisp's
syntax. But that doesn't match at all your definition. So please explain.
(BTW: I suspect your formula doesn't even mean what you intend. "Divide"
by "possibility"? So a change in syntax that enables _more_ possibility,
according to you results in a syntax with _less_ power? But you probably
didn't mean that.)
> For example, let's say perl. Perl's syntax is a syntax soup, quite
> opposite of lisp. Suppose, if perl switched to lisp's syntax, then
> perhaps it would develope lisp macros. Then, from a specific point of
> view of lispers, we could say, that perl's syntax is less powerful,
> because its syntax's irregularity in some sense prevent it from
> developing into the concept of lisp's macro. Perlers might say, well
> parsing is already done by perl compilers. But you see now, that is
> really a narrow view.
There's a huge, huge difference.
Lisp's reader is available to user code at runtime. Perl's syntax parser
is _not_ available to user-level perl programs. Secondly, the result of
a Lisp parse, the abstract syntax tree, has a documented form, and there
are Lisp functions which navigate and process that form. This is the core
of what Lisp's macros do.
If Perl provided its parser to user code, and if the data structures that
resulted from the parse were also available for manipulation by user code
... why, then, I suspect we'd be having different arguments about whether
Perl is "really" a member of the Lisp family! Despite its very irregular
surface syntax.
> Similarly, when i say that the irregularities in lisp hampered it from
> developing many fruitful use of regular syntax (with many examples
> given in my essay)
You say it many times, but you give no concrete examples in your essay.
> For example, one of the example i gave about how the irregularities in
> lisp's syntax is that it hampered the development of a automated code
> formatting facilitiest (see the article for detailed examples and
> explanations).
Again, you claim that, but that doesn't make it true.
In fact, you can (and people have) made structure-editors for Lisp, where
it is not even possible to type an ill-formed expression. I, and many others,
don't think this is a great advance in programming environment. There is
also the Lisp pretty-printer, which does "automated code formatting".
So it appears that your claim, that Lisp's syntax "irregularities" cause
trouble for "automated code formatting", is simply false.
>> But how -- _exactly_ -- do those few irregularities actually cause a
>> problem, in practice, for real programmers?
>
> again, the criticism is about some particular aspect of lisp's syntax,
> namely, the syntax's irregularity in the context of lisp's philosophy
> of regular syntax.
I note that you're the main one promoting the idea that Lisp's primary
philosophy is "regular syntax". There is a kernel of truth in there, but
it isn't the main goal like you seem to think.
> As a analogy, if you criticise perl's syntax, the perlpers retort that perl
> programers don't have a problem with it.
But I don't criticize Perl's syntax, at least not in the way you do. I would
never say that the syntax causes Perl to "lose power" or "confuse semantics".
A _good_ criticism of Perl's syntax might note:
1. There's a lot to remember, and it can be confusing to read other people's
code (or re-read your own, much later);
2. Extremely irregular syntaxes make (Lisp-like) macros hard; and indeed,
Perl doesn't provide them.
So, you could discuss whether Common Lisp code is "confusing" to newbies.
Or to maintaining other people's code. Or whether it prevents some language
feature that would be really useful.
But you haven't made any (valid) criticisms like that.
> One of the question i have is, whether all lisp's irregular syntax are
> all simply syntax sugars. For one thing, the comment system i.e. “;”
> is not. For another, some of these irregularities, for example the
> “'”, breaks the structure of nested syntax. i.e. compare “'(a b c) vs
> (' a b c)”. I do not know much about the others.
> You mentioned that some of the syntaxes provide convenience to
> programers. for example, those so-called sugar syntaxes. Note here,
> that i'm not against sugar syntaxes. But the criticism is that some or
> all of these sugar syntaxes breaks many properties that is the
> fundamental advantage of lisp's nested syntax.
I'm trying to get you to be specific. Let's focus on the comment character,
";". As you say, it doesn't match the "regular" syntax of open-paren/function/
arguments/close-paren. So it _isn't_ merely syntactic sugar.
How EXACTLY does the comment character "break many properties that is the
fundamental advantage of Lisp"? Name a specific property, explain how it
is a fundamental advantage, and show how the comment character breaks that
property and that advantage.
I'm giving you this challenge, because I think you're just wrong about this.
The comment character, DESPITE not being "regular syntax", still doesn't
"break" any fundamental "property".
>> Lisp macros operate on the AST, _not_ on the text strings.
>
> This is the part you common lispers, fully becomes stupid. When discussion
> on this gets deeper, common lisping fans began to criticize Scheme, or to
> the degree of saying that Scheme is not lisp or some deviantiation. When
> Common Lispers defend my criticism of lisp syntax and in their defense
> starts to attack Scheme Lisp, you can begin to get the feeling of how
> Common Lispers failed to see the overall picture.
I'm trying not to bring up Scheme at all. (That's another reason why I'm
not crossposting.) You have made criticisms of "Lisp". I'll let others
defend themselves. My only response is that Common Lisp, in particular,
does not suffer from the criticisms you are suggesting.
> Let's discuss the idea that CL acts on its object, and the source code
> merely a textual representation. Let me tell you, that most computer
> languages, all have a syntax [...] Regardless how CL has some the Abstract
> Syntax Tree or Object idea, in the contex of computer languages, it still
> has just one input form what we'd call the the language's syntax.
That's actually already false. There can be multiple textual representations,
which all result in the _same_ AST. It does not have "just one input form".
For that matter, you can construct code at runtime, which _never_ has an
external, textual representation. (This is, in fact, what macros generally
do.)
> Now, lisp's lang's philosophy about syntax, emphasize that it should be
> fully nested. This is a elementary feature of the lisp family of langs.
Well, you say that. I don't happen to agree.
> (lisps that breaks away from this nested syntax, are often alienated by
> lispers and considered as only lisp derivative, such as logo, dylan.)
Again, that's an opinion you have, which is not shared by many lispers.
> It is true that CL macros act on AST as you say, but however, its nested
> syntax is a fundamental part of it. Theoretically, you could have a lang
> with non-nested syntax (such as perl, C) yet still have a macro system
> identical or almost identical to lisp.
Very, very difficult. But possible, in theory. And then they'd probably be
considered Lisps as well!
> One way, is to think of a lisp language (say, called regLisp), such that
> without any irregularities in syntax as i criticised in my essay. I mean,
> seriously, spend 20 mintues, to think of a lisp lang that doesn't have any
> syntax irregularies described in my criticism. Note, this does not mean
> not having any sugar syntaxes. Sugar syntax is of course very convenient
> and practical, often even necessary, but any sugar syntax are done so that
> the uniformity in syntax property remains intact.
So, get rid of the ";" comment character, for example. OK, I can think of
that.
> Now, if you imagine this language. Now, think about how would this regLisp
> compared to CL for example? Would it lose any advantage that CL have?
> (think in all aspects) Would it actually have any ADVANTAGES?
I can think of no advantages. I can think of a HUGE disadvantage: that I
could no longer sprinkle human-readable comments throughout my code.
So what has this exercise taught us? That your regLisp idea is a bad one?
Again, let's try to be concrete. You often spout large numbers of generic
(negative) opinions, but don't really explore any of them.
You've said that syntactic sugar is ok with you. You're mainly concerned
with Lisp syntax that doesn't map to "regular" syntax, like the semicolon
comment character. You've said that this makes macros more difficult.
I want you to prove that to me. Concretely.
Let me help. Before a macro would have to be more difficult, it would
actually need to notice the difference, would it not? So, let's work on
a code fragment of Common Lisp:
s. Then, from a specific point of
> view of lispers, we could say, that perl's syntax is less powerful,
> because its syntax's irregularity in some sense prevent it from
> developing into the concept of lisp's macro. Perlers might say, well
> parsing is already done by perl compilers. But you see now, that is
> really a narrow view.
There's a huge, huge difference.
Lisp's reader is available to user code at runtime. Perl's syntax parser
is _not_ available to user-level perl programs. Secondly, the result of
a Lisp parse, the abstract syntax tree, has a documented form, and there
are Lisp functions which navigate and process that form. This is the core
of what Lisp's macros do.
If Perl provided its parser to user code, and if the data structures that
resulted from the parse were also available for manipulation by user code
... why, then, I suspect we'd be having different arguments about whether
Perl is "really" a member of the Lisp family! Despite its very irregular
surface syntax.
> Similarly, when i say that the irregularities in lisp hampered it from
> developing many fruitful use of regular syntax (with many examples
> given in my essay)
You say it many times, but you give no concrete examples in your essay.
> For example, one of the example i gave about how the irregularities in
> lisp's syntax is that it hampered the development of a automated code
> formatting facilitiest (see the article for detailed examples and
> explanations).
Again, you claim that, but that doesn't make it true.
In fact, you can (and people have) made structure-editors for Lisp, where
it is not even possible to type an ill-formed expression. I, and many others,
don't think this is a great advance in programming environment. There is
also the Lisp pretty-printer, which does "automated code formatting".
So it appears that your claim, that Lisp's syntax "irregularities" cause
trouble for "automated code formatting", is simply false.
>> But how -- _exactly_ -- do those few irregularities actually cause a
>> problem, in practice, for real programmers?
>
> again, the criticism is about some particular aspect of lisp's syntax,
> namely, the syntax's irregularity in the context of lisp's philosophy
> of regular syntax.
I note that you're the main one promoting the idea that Lisp's primary
philosophy is "regular syntax". There is a kernel of truth in there, but
it isn't the main goal like you seem to think.
> As a analogy, if you criticise perl's syntax, the perlpers retort that perl
> programers don't have a problem with it.
But I don't criticize Perl's syntax, at least not in the way you do. I would
never say that the syntax causes Perl to "lose power" or "confuse semantics".
A _good_ criticism of Perl's syntax might note:
1. There's a lot to remember, and it can be confusing to read other people's
code (or re-read your own, much later);
2. Extremely irregular syntaxes make (Lisp-like) macros hard; and indeed,
Perl doesn't provide them.
So, you could discuss whether Common Lisp code is "confusing" to newbies.
Or to maintaining other people's code. Or whether it prevents some language
feature that would be really useful.
But you haven't made any (valid) criticisms like that.
> One of the question i have is, whether all lisp's irregular syntax are
> all simply syntax sugars. For one thing, the comment system i.e. “;”
> is not. For another, some of these irregularities, for example the
> “'”, breaks the structure of nested syntax. i.e. compare “'(a b c) vs
> (' a b c)”. I do not know much about the others.
> You mentioned that some of the syntaxes provide convenience to
> programers. for example, those so-called sugar syntaxes. Note here,
> that i'm not against sugar syntaxes. But the criticism is that some or
> all of these sugar syntaxes breaks many properties that is the
> fundamental advantage of lisp's nested syntax.
I'm trying to get you to be specific. Let's focus on the comment character,
";". As you say, it doesn't match the "regular" syntax of open-paren/function/
arguments/close-paren. So it _isn't_ merely syntactic sugar.
How EXACTLY does the comment character "break many properties that is the
fundamental advantage of Lisp"? Name a specific property, explain how it
is a fundamental advantage, and show how the comment character breaks that
property and that advantage.
I'm giving you this challenge, because I think you're just wrong about this.
The comment character, DESPITE not being "regular syntax", still doesn't
"break" any fundamental "property".
>> Lisp macros operate on the AST, _not_ on the text strings.
>
> This is the part you common lispers, fully becomes stupid. When discussion
> on this gets deeper, common lisping fans began to criticize Scheme, or to
> the degree of saying that Scheme is not lisp or some deviantiation. When
> Common Lispers defend my criticism of lisp syntax and in their defense
> starts to attack Scheme Lisp, you can begin to get the feeling of how
> Common Lispers failed to see the overall picture.
I'm trying not to bring up Scheme at all. (That's another reason why I'm
not crossposting.) You have made criticisms of "Lisp". I'll let others
defend themselves. My only response is that Common Lisp, in particular,
does not suffer from the criticisms you are suggesting.
> Let's discuss the idea that CL acts on its object, and the source code
> merely a textual representation. Let me tell you, that most computer
> languages, all have a syntax [...] Regardless how CL has some the Abstract
> Syntax Tree or Object idea, in the contex of computer languages, it still
> has just one input form what we'd call the the language's syntax.
That's actually already false. There can be multiple textual representations,
which all result in the _same_ AST. It does not have "just one input form".
For that matter, you can construct code at runtime, which _never_ has an
external, textual representation. (This is, in fact, what macros generally
do.)
> Now, lisp's lang's philosophy about syntax, emphasize that it should be
> fully nested. This is a elementary feature of the lisp family of langs.
Well, you say that. I don't happen to agree.
> (lisps that breaks away from this nested syntax, are often alienated by
> lispers and considered as only lisp derivative, such as logo, dylan.)
Again, that's an opinion you have, which is not shared by many lispers.
> It is true that CL macros act on AST as you say, but however, its nested
> syntax is a fundamental part of it. Theoretically, you could have a lang
> with non-nested syntax (such as perl, C) yet still have a macro system
> identical or almost identical to lisp.
Very, very difficult. But possible, in theory. And then they'd probably be
considered Lisps as well!
> One way, is to think of a lisp language (say, called regLisp), such that
> without any irregularities in syntax as i criticised in my essay. I mean,
> seriously, spend 20 mintues, to think of a lisp lang that doesn't have any
> syntax irregularies described in my criticism. Note, this does not mean
> not having any sugar syntaxes. Sugar syntax is of course very convenient
> and practical, often even necessary, but any sugar syntax are done so that
> the uniformity in syntax property remains intact.
So, get rid of the ";" comment character, for example. OK, I can think of
that.
> Now, if you imagine this language. Now, think about how would this regLisp
> compared to CL for example? Would it lose any advantage that CL have?
> (think in all aspects) Would it actually have any ADVANTAGES?
I can think of no advantages. I can think of a HUGE disadvantage: that I
could no longer sprinkle human-readable comments throughout my code.
So what has this exercise taught us? That your regLisp idea is a bad one?
Again, let's try to be concrete. You often spout large numbers of generic
(negative) opinions, but don't really explore any of them.
You've said that syntactic sugar is ok with you. You're mainly concerned
with Lisp syntax that doesn't map to "regular" syntax, like the semicolon
comment character. You've said that this makes macros more difficult.
I want you to prove that to me. Concretely.
Let me help. Before a macro would have to be more difficult, it would
actually need to notice the difference, would it not? So, let's work on
a code fragment of Common Lisp:
s. Then, from a specific point of
> view of lispers, we could say, that perl's syntax is less powerful,
> because its syntax's irregularity in some sense prevent it from
> developing into the concept of lisp's macro. Perlers might say, well
> parsing is already done by perl compilers. But you see now, that is
> really a narrow view.
There's a huge, huge difference.
Lisp's reader is available to user code at runtime. Perl's syntax parser
is _not_ available to user-level perl programs. Secondly, the result of
a Lisp parse, the abstract syntax tree, has a documented form, and there
are Lisp functions which navigate and process that form. This is the core
of what Lisp's macros do.
If Perl provided its parser to user code, and if the data structures that
resulted from the parse were also available for manipulation by user code
... why, then, I suspect we'd be having different arguments about whether
Perl is "really" a member of the Lisp family! Despite its very irregular
surface syntax.
> Similarly, when i say that the irregularities in lisp hampered it from
> developing many fruitful use of regular syntax (with many examples
> given in my essay)
You say it many times, but you give no concrete examples in your essay.
> For example, one of the example i gave about how the irregularities in
> lisp's syntax is that it hampered the development of a automated code
> formatting facilitiest (see the article for detailed examples and
> explanations).
Again, you claim that, but that doesn't make it true.
In fact, you can (and people have) made structure-editors for Lisp, where
it is not even possible to type an ill-formed expression. I, and many others,
don't think this is a great advance in programming environment. There is
also the Lisp pretty-printer, which does "automated code formatting".
So it appears that your claim, that Lisp's syntax "irregularities" cause
trouble for "automated code formatting", is simply false.
>> But how -- _exactly_ -- do those few irregularities actually cause a
>> problem, in practice, for real programmers?
>
> again, the criticism is about some particular aspect of lisp's syntax,
> namely, the syntax's irregularity in the context of lisp's philosophy
> of regular syntax.
I note that you're the main one promoting the idea that Lisp's primary
philosophy is "regular syntax". There is a kernel of truth in there, but
it isn't the main goal like you seem to think.
> As a analogy, if you criticise perl's syntax, the perlpers retort that perl
> programers don't have a problem with it.
But I don't criticize Perl's syntax, at least not in the way you do. I would
never say that the syntax causes Perl to "lose power" or "confuse semantics".
A _good_ criticism of Perl's syntax might note:
1. There's a lot to remember, and it can be confusing to read other people's
code (or re-read your own, much later);
2. Extremely irregular syntaxes make (Lisp-like) macros hard; and indeed,
Perl doesn't provide them.
So, you could discuss whether Common Lisp code is "confusing" to newbies.
Or to maintaining other people's code. Or whether it prevents some language
feature that would be really useful.
But you haven't made any (valid) criticisms like that.
> One of the question i have is, whether all lisp's irregular syntax are
> all simply syntax sugars. For one thing, the comment system i.e. “;”
> is not. For another, some of these irregularities, for example the
> “'”, breaks the structure of nested syntax. i.e. compare “'(a b c) vs
> (' a b c)”. I do not know much about the others.
> You mentioned that some of the syntaxes provide convenience to
> programers. for example, those so-called sugar syntaxes. Note here,
> that i'm not against sugar syntaxes. But the criticism is that some or
> all of these sugar syntaxes breaks many properties that is the
> fundamental advantage of lisp's nested syntax.
I'm trying to get you to be specific. Let's focus on the comment character,
";". As you say, it doesn't match the "regular" syntax of open-paren/function/
arguments/close-paren. So it _isn't_ merely syntactic sugar.
How EXACTLY does the comment character "break many properties that is the
fundamental advantage of Lisp"? Name a specific property, explain how it
is a fundamental advantage, and show how the comment character breaks that
property and that advantage.
I'm giving you this challenge, because I think you're just wrong about this.
The comment character, DESPITE not being "regular syntax", still doesn't
"break" any fundamental "property".
>> Lisp macros operate on the AST, _not_ on the text strings.
>
> This is the part you common lispers, fully becomes stupid. When discussion
> on this gets deeper, common lisping fans began to criticize Scheme, or to
> the degree of saying that Scheme is not lisp or some deviantiation. When
> Common Lispers defend my criticism of lisp syntax and in their defense
> starts to attack Scheme Lisp, you can begin to get the feeling of how
> Common Lispers failed to see the overall picture.
I'm trying not to bring up Scheme at all. (That's another reason why I'm
not crossposting.) You have made criticisms of "Lisp". I'll let others
defend themselves. My only response is that Common Lisp, in particular,
does not suffer from the criticisms you are suggesting.
> Let's discuss the idea that CL acts on its object, and the source code
> merely a textual representation. Let me tell you, that most computer
> languages, all have a syntax [...] Regardless how CL has some the Abstract
> Syntax Tree or Object idea, in the contex of computer languages, it still
> has just one input form what we'd call the the language's syntax.
That's actually already false. There can be multiple textual representations,
which all result in the _same_ AST. It does not have "just one input form".
For that matter, you can construct code at runtime, which _never_ has an
external, textual representation. (This is, in fact, what macros generally
do.)
> Now, lisp's lang's philosophy about syntax, emphasize that it should be
> fully nested. This is a elementary feature of the lisp family of langs.
Well, you say that. I don't happen to agree.
> (lisps that breaks away from this nested syntax, are often alienated by
> lispers and considered as only lisp derivative, such as logo, dylan.)
Again, that's an opinion you have, which is not shared by many lispers.
> It is true that CL macros act on AST as you say, but however, its nested
> syntax is a fundamental part of it. Theoretically, you could have a lang
> with non-nested syntax (such as perl, C) yet still have a macro system
> identical or almost identical to lisp.
Very, very difficult. But possible, in theory. And then they'd probably be
considered Lisps as well!
> One way, is to think of a lisp language (say, called regLisp), such that
> without any irregularities in syntax as i criticised in my essay. I mean,
> seriously, spend 20 mintues, to think of a lisp lang that doesn't have any
> syntax irregularies described in my criticism. Note, this does not mean
> not having any sugar syntaxes. Sugar syntax is of course very convenient
> and practical, often even necessary, but any sugar syntax are done so that
> the uniformity in syntax property remains intact.
So, get rid of the ";" comment character, for example. OK, I can think of
that.
> Now, if you imagine this language. Now, think about how would this regLisp
> compared to CL for example? Would it lose any advantage that CL have?
> (think in all aspects) Would it actually have any ADVANTAGES?
I can think of no advantages. I can think of a HUGE disadvantage: that I
could no longer sprinkle human-readable comments throughout my code.
So what has this exercise taught us? That your regLisp idea is a bad one?
Again, let's try to be concrete. You often spout large numbers of generic
(negative) opinions, but don't really explore any of them.
You've said that syntactic sugar is ok with you. You're mainly concerned
with Lisp syntax that doesn't map to "regular" syntax, like the semicolon
comment character. You've said that this makes macros more difficult.
I want you to prove that to me. Concretely.
Let me help. Before a macro would have to be more difficult, it would
actually need to notice the difference, would it not? So, let's work on
a code fragment of Common Lisp:
(defmacro xah (f n m) (list 'funcall f n m))
(defun test1 () (xah #'+ 1 #| Hi Xah! |# 2)) ; Hi again, Xah!
(defun test2 () (xah (function +) 1 2))
Now, when I run either (TEST1) or (TEST2), both return the answer 3.
But notice that the line defining TEST1 has lots and lots of those
horrible "irregular" syntax characters that concern you so much.
So here's my challenge to you: rewrite the macro "xah" above, so that the
functions test1 and test2 return _different_ answers. Do anything at all
that you want (in Common Lisp) in the definition of the xah macro. Your
only goal is that, when you are done, calling test1 and test2 don't return
the same thing.
I suspect you can't do it. If you can't even make a macro _notice_ when
source code uses "irregular syntax", then how in the world can you claim
that the syntax is a _problem_ for Common Lisp macros?
Note: this is the most important part of the whole post. If you ignore
everything else, at least address this one. You have made the specific claim
that ("irregular") comment character syntax makes (CL-style) macros harder.
I want you to admit that you made a mistake. (Or else teach me something,
by showing me (Common Lisp) code that solves my puzzle above. And then I'll
admit that I made a mistake.)
>> Can you be honest, in this one case? Can you admit that you have claimed
>> that Lisp's "irregular syntax" makes writing macros "harder", and you were
>> simply mistaken on that point? It is not true, and you admit your mistake?
>
> To be honest, i consider myself 50 years beyond this world. Not 500, or
> 100. By “beyond”, it means my views in most things are more advanced,
> correct, superior, than most experts in respective areas where i cared to
> give forceful opinions. Discussing with most people in newsgroups, to me,
> is more liking playing with stupid highschool bullies. You can quote me on
> this. I want you to know, that i earnestly meant the above. You can
> forthwith now write me off as a cook, pseudo- science crackpot, ergomaniac,
> whatever. But i hope you believe at least what i really think of myself.
I had already figured this out from your earlier postings. Your methodology
is pretty obvious. I'm actually surprised that you have this much
introspection. Because I think pretty much _everybody_ believes this is
what you think of yourself.
But it should now be obvious to you why most other people hate you and think
you are a troll. Because you treat other people like "stupid highschool
bullies", and because you "consider [yourself] 50 years beyond".
It shouldn't be hard for you to realize that, when conversing with someone
else, if that other person believes themselves to be your equal (or even
superior!), that you come across as an ignorant, spoiled, little brat.
But that's ok. I understand what you think of yourself. I'm going to do my
best to show you that you may be mistaken about being "50 years" ahead of
everyone else, and that in fact other people may already know some important
things that you don't yet understand.
>> What you wrote is that the syntax "irregularities" confuse the language
>> _semantics_. Not that they confuse people.
>
> i'm not sure what does it mean that a language's syntax could actually
> confuse its semantics.
I'm not sure either. BUT THAT'S WHAT _YOU_ WROTE! You listed it as a
"fundamental problem with Lisp".
Do you see how such meaningless criticism is frustrating, for those who
use and like Lisp?
>> > For example, one of the frequent question is what's the diff between:
>> > (list a b c)
>> > '(a b c)
>> > (quote a b c)
>>
>> Another chance for you to admit that you made a mistake in blaming this
>> confusion on the five "irregular" Lisp syntax characters that you mentioned.
I see that you didn't respond to this part. Despite you having made another
mistake.
>> > As a example, let me ask this: among lispers who has at least 2 years of
>> > coding lisp, how many can actually list all the lisp's syntax
>> > irregularities? How many can say, which is in Common Lisp only, or
>> > Scheme lisp, or emacs lisp?
>>
>> We're generally discussing Common Lisp only on this newsgroup. The others
>> are different languages. It doesn't even make sense to talk about how
>> differences between DIFFERENT languages confuse people.
>
> My criticism of lisp is about lisp, not specifically just Common Lisp.
> More specifically, it is about Common Lisp, Scheme Lisp, Emacs Lisp.
> My criticism, namely the irregularity of syntax and the cons business,
> is equally applicable to all these lisp family langs.
>
>> Do you think it's a legitimate complaint against Python, that it confused
>> Perl programmers because some aspects of the language are different? It's
>> a different language!
>
> If a criticism that does apply equally well to Perl and Python, then
> it is still a valid criticism. For example, if i made some criticism
> regarding imperative programing, then it applies to perl and python.
>
> In the same way, you can see that my cricisim of lisp, namely, the
> irregularity in syntax, and the cons business, are applicable to
> Common Lisp, Scheme Lisp, Emacs Lisp.
You are right, that there might be a single criticism, which applies to some
feature in common amongst a large number of languages in the Lisp family.
And certainly, such a criticism would be fair to level against all of them.
But that's not what you did! What you criticized, was not a "syntax
irregularity" in some specific lisp; or even an irregularity common to all
the lisps; what you criticized was that programmers might be confused about
_which_ irregularity corresponded to _which_ Lisp! As though there was a
problem that different languages are different.
This is a stupid criticism. It is NOBODY's goal to make all members of the
Lisp family identical. It's not a valid criticism to notice that different
languages in the Lisp family make different choices.
> As i have expressed here ambly, in general it is not my intention, to
> simply participate in honest discussion or exchange of views.
Yes, we're well aware. This is why people (legitimately) call you a troll.
You would receive more respect, if you treated other people with more
respect.
> Although lisp's syntax irregularity and cons business are rooted, and
> difficult to change, however, there are many ways to mend them
We don't yet agree that Lisp's syntax is a problem that needs fixing.
You haven't yet pointed out even a single concrete example of a problem
with the syntax.
> The point of my criticism, is that i have some hope in raising awareness.
We have awareness of your opinions. But not of any problems with Lisp.
> That essay, “fundamental problems of lisp” arose partly due to many times
> in the past years i tried to speak my own frustrations of the cons
> business, or those confusing irregular syntax chars, or speak of some ideas
> from my Mathematica background that relates to these issues, and i met with
> absolute denial from the motherfucking lisp regular morons.
That's because:
1. you write poorly, using meaningful words that don't express what you
meant (e.g. "confuses the language semantics");
2. you write arrogantly, assuming (incorrectly) that you have vastly more
knowledge about these topics than others;
3. you actually are ignorant (e.g. very little experience programming in
Common Lisp), and are conversing with (others -- not me!) extremely smart,
experienced, and knowledgable people on these subjects.
Is their reaction _really_ that much a surprise to you? It seems like a
natural consequence of your approach, having nothing at all to do with the
content of what you are trying to express. (Which is wrong too, but that's
a different story.)
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Why do programmers get Halloween and Christmas mixed up?
Because OCT(31) = DEC(25)
Dear lispers and functional programers,
there's this Don Geddis now having a debate with me.
The debate is about 2 criticisms on lisp, namely its irregularities in
its nested syntax and its use of cons for list. The criticism is
presented in this essay:
“The Fundamental Problems Of Lisp” at
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
(originally a newsgroup post)
The debate is in this long winding thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/tree/browse_frm/thread/e0ee331cfe13f214
The debate start at the message where the subject is changed to “Xah
on Lisp”.
i ran out of patience in dealing with Don.
Is he just fucking with me? or should i really try a earnest effort at
the debate?
For example, he asked for concrete examples. My essay, are perhaps
over 10 thousands words counting all supporting essays linked from it.
Though, sometimes in complex issues that may not be sufficient. Also,
a open publication for the general public really needs painstaking
efforts and volumes of examples, theorizations, citations.
I can see how i could actually add some more concrete scenarios on how
the lisp irregularity reduces the syntax's power. But that takes much
more effort. I mean, to really present my criticism well is almost
like writing a publishing quality booklet. It could be a full time 2
week's job.
But, i do think my essay really sufficiently showed my ideas to any
computer language expert who are intelligent and open minded. Don
idiot avows that he don't see any point in it. I have no doubt lispers
like Rainer Joswig don't get it at all too. I'm not sure lisper Pascal
J Bourguignon would have anything good to say about it. Sure, these
are Common Lisp fanatics. Their opinions on a piece of negative
criticism on lisp can be safely discarded. What i would like to know,
is that whether the essay is really that unreasonable, insufficient,
in getting its idea across?
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Wed, 20 Aug 2008:
> there's this Don Geddis now having a debate with me.
> i ran out of patience in dealing with Don.
Xah, I've tried to be technical with you. You write so much, and I disagree
with almost all of it, that my response got long. (I also seem to have made
a cut&paste error in my last posting; there appears to be duplicate text.
Sorry about that.)
> The debate is about 2 criticisms on lisp, namely its irregularities in
> its nested syntax and its use of cons for list. The criticism is
> presented in this essay:
> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
> For example, he asked for concrete examples. My essay, are perhaps
> over 10 thousands words counting all supporting essays linked from it.
Again, you write so many unsupported opinions, that I'm trying to focus down
to a specific technical point that we might be able to resolve. Otherwise,
if we stay so abstract, it's just a couple of people yelling at each other,
"I believe X!" "Well, I don't!" And no progress gets made.
> I can see how i could actually add some more concrete scenarios on how
> the lisp irregularity reduces the syntax's power. But that takes much
> more effort.
I'm asking for ONE, specific, example.
On your web page, you wrote:
[L]isp syntax has several irregularities, that reduces such syntax's
power and confuses the language semantics. (i.e. those �' # ; ` ,�
chars.) [...]
Lisp's irregular syntax [...] made the lang less powerful. [...]
A regular nested syntax, makes it possible to do systematic source
code transformation in a way that's also trivial to implement. There
are important consequences. Some of the examples are: lisp's macros
[...]
In this writing, and earlier in this thread, you basically say that Lisp's
"irregular" syntax causes problems, specifically with macros. I've asked you
to give me a concrete example of a Common Lisp macro that can even notice
the "irregular syntax" of Lisp. To repeat, the example is:
(defmacro xah (f n m) (list 'funcall f n m))
(defun test1 () (xah #'+ 1 #| Hi Xah! |# 2)) ; Hi again, Xah!
(defun test2 () (xah (function +) 1 2))
The challenge is: please rewrite the macro "xah", such that the functions
"test1" and "test2" (which differ only in whether they use "regular" lisp
syntax or "irregular" lisp syntax) return different values. (Right now,
both return 3).
If you are correct, and Lisp's irregular syntax is a problem for macros,
then surely you can generate this one, simple, tiny example.
Or else, if you're honest, you might admit that your assumption that these
syntax irregularities you observed, don't actually cause a problem for macros
after all, and you were wrong.
> But, i do think my essay really sufficiently showed my ideas to any
> computer language expert who are intelligent and open minded. [...] What i
> would like to know, is that whether the essay is really that unreasonable,
> insufficient, in getting its idea across?
Your ideas are clear enough. They are just incorrect. I'm trying to show
you that your claims are wrong, as quickly and clearly as I can.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
No man is an island, but some of us are long peninsulas.
> I'm asking for ONE, specific, example.
>
> On your web page, you wrote:
>
> [L]isp syntax has several irregularities, that reduces such syntax's
> power and confuses the language semantics. (i.e. those «' # ; ` ,»
> chars.) [...]
>
> Lisp's irregular syntax [...] made the lang less powerful. [...]
>
> A regular nested syntax, makes it possible to do systematic source
> code transformation in a way that's also trivial to implement. There
> are important consequences. Some of the examples are: lisp's macros
> [...]
>
> In this writing, and earlier in this thread, you basically say that Lisp's
> "irregular" syntax causes problems, specifically with macros.
It is not about causing problems to lisp lang as it exist.
It is more about possibilities; about what could have been. Please
take a quick scan of the past 2 replies i wrote. I believe in several
places i tried to express this.
> I've asked you
> to give me a concrete example of a Common Lisp macro that can even notice
> the "irregular syntax" of Lisp. To repeat, the example is:
>
> (defmacroxah(f n m) (list 'funcall f n m))
> (defun test1 () (xah#'+ 1 #| HiXah! |# 2)) ; Hi again,Xah!
> (defun test2 () (xah(function +) 1 2))
>
> The challenge is: please rewrite the macro "xah", such that the functions
> "test1" and "test2" (which differ only in whether they use "regular" lisp
> syntax or "irregular" lisp syntax) return different values. (Right now,
> both return 3).
i don't think i clearly communicated what i mean.
For example, in your example, using a lisp using regular syntax, might
be this:
(defmacro xah (f n m) (list (' funcall) f n m))
(defun test1 () (# (xah (' +) 1 (#| HiXah!) 2))) (; Hi again,Xah!)
(defun test2 () (xah (function +) 1 2))
Why is this better? Because, as you can see, the syntax all have this
regular form: “(f x1 x2 ...)”, no exceptions. What's the advantage of
this? In my view, the advantage is the same that lispers love lisp's
nested syntax for, namely the regularity, simplicity, the ability to
parse it trivially. In my essay (
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
), i have detailed many advantages and consequences of such a simple
syntax. This nested syntax, is in fact the foundation of lisps, and is
widely touted, in just about every lisp publication and advocacy. What
i'm saying, is that these publications, advocacies, almost never
mentioned the irregularities in lisp's syntax, and there are quite a
few, and actually growing in Scheme 6. Lispers themselves do not seem
to be conspicuously aware that lisp syntax actually are irregular.
What i'm saying, is that these irregularities, hampered lisp's
development. That if these irregularities did not exist, lisp would
have been better.
I'll repond to your other message, perhaps pieces by pieces...
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 21 Aug 2008:
> It is more about possibilities; about what could have been.
Exactly. I'm asking you to show me, SPECIFICALLY, how things might have
been better, with your design for Lisp.
>> I've asked you to give me a concrete example of a Common Lisp macro that
>> can even notice the "irregular syntax" of Lisp. To repeat, the example
>> is:
>> (defmacro xah (f n m) (list (quote funcall) f n m))
>> (defun test1 () (xah #'+ 1 #| HiXah! |# 2)) ; Hi again, Xah!
>> (defun test2 () (xah (function +) 1 2))
>> The challenge is: please rewrite the macro "xah", such that the functions
>> "test1" and "test2" (which differ only in whether they use "regular" lisp
>> syntax or "irregular" lisp syntax) return different values. (Right now,
>> both return 3).
>
> For example, in your example, using a lisp using regular syntax, might
> be this:
> (defmacro xah (f n m) (list (' funcall) f n m))
> (defun test1 () (# (xah (' +) 1 (#| HiXah!) 2))) (; Hi again,Xah!)
> (defun test2 () (xah (function +) 1 2))
> Why is this better? Because, as you can see, the syntax all have this
> regular form: “(f x1 x2 ...)”, no exceptions.
You've missed the point. (I rewrote my "xah" macro above using your
preferred notation.) The point is, the test1 and test2 functions.
They are IDENTICAL, except that one uses a lot of "irregular" syntax,
and the other only uses your preferred "regular" syntax.
I'm asking you to give me ANY (just one!) example of how the difference
between the _functions_ test1 and test2, can matter at all for Common Lisp
macros.
I'm asking you to write your own macro "xah", which test1 and test2 are
going to call, that can even tell the difference between test1 and test2!
Much less cause test1 (with "irregular syntax") to make writing the macro
"harder", which has been your claim from the beginning. (And is the claim
I'm trying to dispute.)
> What's the advantage of this? In my view, the advantage is the same that
> lispers love lisp's nested syntax for, namely the regularity, simplicity,
> the ability to parse it trivially.
These are all generic claims, that I disagree with. Which is why I'm trying
to get you to give me a specific piece of code. Otherwise, you just continue
to shout "it's better!" and I'll continue to shout "not it's not better!"
and the discussion will go nowhere.
So, if you are right, and "regular" syntax in CL code is better -- for
ANYTHING -- then I'm asking you to give me a SPECIFIC example where something
-- anything! -- is actually easier because of that regular syntax.
You have my example above. The functions test1 and test2 are identical,
except that one is regular syntax, and one is irregular syntax. You claim
that regular syntax is better. Fine. Show me ANY code (esp. a macro, which
is a specific part of your claim) where ANYTHING is easier/better because
of the definition of test2 (using regular syntax) instead of test1.
If you think this is true in general, then surely you can generate at least
ONE concrete example, no?
If you are unable to generate ANY concrete examples of regular syntax being
better, then I'll be forced to stick with my current theory, that it isn't
actually better. For anything. And your claims about the benefits of
"regular" syntax in your essay are simply wrong.
> What i'm saying, is that these irregularities, hampered lisp's development.
> That if these irregularities did not exist, lisp would have been better.
That's a claim. Give a concrete example. Show some piece of code that
is "better" in some way, if there is regular syntax, instead of the existing
CL syntax.
For example, define a "xah" macro in my challenge code above, that does
different things with the test1 and test2 functions. (That's just a
suggestion. _Any_ concrete example would be sufficient.)
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Mediocrity: It takes a lot less time and most people won't notice the
difference until it's too late. -- Despair.com
On Aug 21, 12:14 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
> >> I've asked you to give me a concrete example of a Common Lisp macro that
> >> can even notice the "irregular syntax" of Lisp. To repeat, the example
> >> is:
> >> (defmacroxah(f n m) (list (quote funcall) f n m))
> >> (defun test1 () (xah#'+ 1 #| HiXah! |# 2)) ; Hi again,Xah!
> >> (defun test2 () (xah(function +) 1 2))
> >> The challenge is: please rewrite the macro "xah", such that the functions
> >> "test1" and "test2" (which differ only in whether they use "regular" lisp
> >> syntax or "irregular" lisp syntax) return different values. (Right now,
> >> both return 3).
>
> > For example, in your example, using a lisp using regular syntax, might
> > be this:
> > (defmacroxah(f n m) (list (' funcall) f n m))
> > (defun test1 () (# (xah(' +) 1 (#| HiXah!) 2))) (; Hi again,Xah!)
> > (defun test2 () (xah(function +) 1 2))
> > Why is this better? Because, as you can see, the syntax all have this
> > regular form: “(f x1 x2 ...)”, no exceptions.
>
> You've missed the point. (I rewrote my "xah" macro above using your
> preferred notation.) The point is, the test1 and test2 functions.
> They are IDENTICAL, except that one uses a lot of "irregular" syntax,
> and the other only uses your preferred "regular" syntax.
Ok, i see the purpose of your 2 versions of xah macro now. Thanks for
the clarification. Yes i misunderstood you before.
Let me explain, that your macro example:
(defmacro xah (f n m) (list (quote funcall) f n m))
(defun test1 () (xah#'+ 1 #| HiXah! |# 2)) ; Hi again,Xah!
(defun test2 () (xah(function +) 1 2))
does not address the criticism on syntax irregularity.
For example, due to lisp's (almost) regular nested syntax, one of its
power is that the editor can understand the semantic structure of the
code, without actually being a parser or compiler. For example, in
emacs, you have forward-sexp, mark-sexp and a lot others that
manipulate lisp expressions. This can be done in lisp, precisely
because its syntax is based on a simple regular form. As a counter
example, this cannot be done in C, perl, java, javascript, python, etc
lang due to the fact that they don't use a regular simple syntax.
So, in your macro example, for example this one:
(defun test1 () (xah# '+ 1 #| HiXah! |# 2))
i cannot move my cursor to the “#|” part and call mark-sexp to select
it.
However, if suppore there is a RegLisp that does not have such
irregularity in syntax, suppose it looks like:
(defun test1 () (# (xah (' +) 1 (#| HiXah!) 2)))
then emacs sexp manipulation functions works anywhere in the code.
Can you see what i mean?
Also, this is one concrete, simple example, to illustrate one power
that's lost due to irregularities in syntax. I gave many detailed
explanation in my original article here: http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
I quote 3 paragraphs:
«
• Lisp relies on a regular nested syntax. Because of such regularity
of the syntax, it allows transformation of the source code by a simple
lexical scan. This has powerful ramification. (practically, lispers
realized just one: the lisp macros) For example, since the syntax is
regular, one could easily have alternative, easier to read syntaxes as
a layer. (the concept is somewhat known in early lisp as M-expression)
Mathematica took this advantage (probably independent of lisp's
influence), so that you really have easy to read syntax, yet fully
retain the regular form advantages. In lisp history, such layer been
done and tried here and there in various forms or langs ( CGOL↗,
Dylan↗), but never caught on due to largely social happenings. Part of
these reasons are political. (thanks to, in part, sensitive and
ignorant lispers here that stops proper discussion of it.)
• One of the advantage of pure fully functional syntax is that a
programer should never need to format his source code (i.e. pressing
tabs, returns) in coding, and save the hundreds hours of labor,
guides, tutorials, advices, publications, editor tools, on what's
known as “coding style convention”, because the editor can reformat
the source code on the fly based on a simple lexical scan. This is
done in Mathematica version 3 (~1996). In coding elisp, i'm pained to
no ends by the manual process of formatting lisp code. The lisp
community, established a particular way of formatting lisp code as
exhibited in emacs's lisp modes and written guides of conventions. The
recognization of such convention further erode any possibility and
awareness of automatic, uniform, universal, formatting. (e.g. the
uniform and universal part of advantage is exhibited by Python)
• Lisp relies on a regular nested syntax. One of the power of such
pure syntax is that you could build up layers on top of it, so that
the source code can function as markup of conventional mathematical
notations (i.e. MathML) and or as a word-processing-like file that can
contain structures, images (e.g. Microsoft Office Open XML↗), yet lose
practical nothing. This is done in Mathematica in ~1996 with release
of Mathematica version 3. (e.g. think of XML, its uniform nested
syntax, its diverse use as a markup lang, then, some people are adding
computational semantics to it now (i.e. a computer language with
syntax of xml. e.g. O:XML↗). You can think of Mathematica going the
other way, by starting with a computer lang with a regular nested
syntax, then add new but inert keywords to it with markup semantics.
The compiler will just treat these inert keywords like comment syntax
when doing computation. When the source code is read by a editor, the
editor takes the markup keywords for structural or stylitic
representation, with title, chapter heading, tables, images,
animations, hyperlinks, typeset math expression (e.g. think of
MathML↗) etc. The non-marked-up keywords are shown as one-dimentional
textual source code just like source code is normally shown is most
languages.)
»
are you convinced?
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
On 21 Aug., 22:32, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 12:14 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >> I've asked you to give me a concrete example of a Common Lisp macro that
> > >> can even notice the "irregular syntax" of Lisp. To repeat, the example
> > >> is:
> > >> (defmacroxah(f n m) (list (quote funcall) f n m))
> > >> (defun test1 () (xah#'+ 1 #| HiXah! |# 2)) ; Hi again,Xah!
> > >> (defun test2 () (xah(function +) 1 2))
> > >> The challenge is: please rewrite the macro "xah", such that the functions
> > >> "test1" and "test2" (which differ only in whether they use "regular" lisp
> > >> syntax or "irregular" lisp syntax) return different values. (Right now,
> > >> both return 3).
>
> > > For example, in your example, using a lisp using regular syntax, might
> > > be this:
> > > (defmacroxah(f n m) (list (' funcall) f n m))
> > > (defun test1 () (# (xah(' +) 1 (#| HiXah!) 2))) (; Hi again,Xah!)
> > > (defun test2 () (xah(function +) 1 2))
> > > Why is this better? Because, as you can see, the syntax all have this
> > > regular form: “(f x1 x2 ...)”, no exceptions.
>
> > You've missed the point. (I rewrote my "xah" macro above using your
> > preferred notation.) The point is, the test1 and test2 functions.
> > They are IDENTICAL, except that one uses a lot of "irregular" syntax,
> > and the other only uses your preferred "regular" syntax.
>
> Ok, i see the purpose of your 2 versions of xah macro now. Thanks for
> the clarification. Yes i misunderstood you before.
>
> Let me explain, that your macro example:
>
> (defmacro xah (f n m) (list (quote funcall) f n m))
> (defun test1 () (xah#'+ 1 #| HiXah! |# 2)) ; Hi again,Xah!
> (defun test2 () (xah(function +) 1 2))
>
> does not address the criticism on syntax irregularity.
>
> For example, due to lisp's (almost) regular nested syntax, one of its
> power is that the editor can understand the semantic structure of the
> code, without actually being a parser or compiler. For example, in
> emacs, you have forward-sexp, mark-sexp and a lot others that
> manipulate lisp expressions. This can be done in lisp, precisely
> because its syntax is based on a simple regular form. As a counter
> example, this cannot be done in C, perl, java, javascript, python, etc
> lang due to the fact that they don't use a regular simple syntax.
S-Expressions are not the syntax of Lisp code.
They are the syntax for Lisp data. By understanding s-expressions
the Editor still knows nothing about the syntax of Lisp code forms.
If you write (defun) it is a valid s-expression, but not
valid Lisp code. (defun (foo)) is also nicely nested, still
it is not valid Lisp code.
S-Expression support in the editor allows nice manipulations of
tree-structured data. But the editor does not know because
of just s-expressions what a variable is, what a function name is,
what a list of bindings is, what an arglist is and so on.
It does not know that the second item in
(defun foo (a b) (baz a b))
has to be a symbol and be there. It does not know that the third item
has to be a list
and be there. It does not know that after the arglist any number of
Lisp forms
is allowed.
Just because of s-expressions, the editor will not know
that DEFUN is the name of a macro, foo is the name of a function,
(a b) is an arglist, a and b are parameters, (baz a b) is a function
call
and so on. All the editor would see is a list of things.
(foobar barfoo (baz foo) (blah baz foo)) has the same semantic
content as above. It is also a list of things. The editor
will not tell you any difference just be understanding
s-expressions. s-expressions also have nothing to do with
semantics of code.
> For example, in
> emacs, you have forward-sexp, mark-sexp and a lot others that
> manipulate lisp expressions. This can be done in lisp, precisely
> because its syntax is based on a simple regular form. As a counter
> example, this cannot be done in C, perl, java, javascript, python, etc
> lang due to the fact that they don't use a regular simple syntax.
>
> So, in your macro example, for example this one:
>
> (defun test1 () (xah# '+ 1 #| HiXah! |# 2))
>
> i cannot move my cursor to the “#|” part and call mark-sexp to select
> it.
That's the stupidity of Emacs. The editor I use has the command mark-
form and
happily marks the comment form (and all other forms in Lisp).
Instead of demonstrating your non-knowledge in comp.lang.lisp for the
past
years, you could have learned some Lisp-dialect by now. Make a
decision:
either learn some Lisp dialect or stop posting here.
Xah Lee wrote
> > For example, due to lisp's (almost) regular nested syntax, one of its
> > power is that the editor can understand the semantic structure of the
> > code, without actually being a parser or compiler. For example, in
> > emacs, you have forward-sexp, mark-sexp and a lot others that
> > manipulate lisp expressions. This can be done in lisp, precisely
> > because its syntax is based on a simple regular form. As a counter
> > example, this cannot be done in C, perl, java, javascript, python, etc
> > lang due to the fact that they don't use a regular simple syntax.
Rainer Joswig wrote:
> S-Expressions are not the syntax of Lisp code.
> They are the syntax for Lisp data. By understanding s-expressions
> the Editor still knows nothing about the syntax of Lisp code forms.
>
> If you write (defun) it is a valid s-expression, but not
> valid Lisp code. (defun (foo)) is also nicely nested, still
> it is not valid Lisp code.
>
> S-Expression support in the editor allows nice manipulations of
> tree-structured data. But the editor does not know because
> of just s-expressions what a variable is, what a function name is,
> what a list of bindings is, what an arglist is and so on.
> It does not know that the second item in
Rainer, i tried to explain this several times, you insist looking into
CL and clamour about its textual representation and internal object
differences.
The point here, is that a regular syntax can be parsed trivially by a
lexical scan and allow editors to reformat the code wihtout having a
parser proper builtin. Again, this is just one simple example of the
advantage. I have by now some 20 thousands words explanations and
examples. Are you ignoring them on purpose? perhaps because your
Common Lisp fanaticism, you simply don't see it?
I also explained in detail several times, that whatever your lisp
internal shit, the lang still just have one syntax. It is the one
programers types. It's great that common lisp has this and that
internal representation and shit and what's called textual
representation or print form, but still the lang has one syntax in the
context of lineaer, text based, computer languages, ok?
> (defun foo (a b) (baz a b))
>
> has to be a symbol and be there. It does not know that the third item
> has to be a list
> and be there. It does not know that after the arglist any number of
> Lisp forms
> is allowed.
It is not the editor's job to know.
The point about emacs's understanding of sexp, is to illustrate that
because lisp has a almost regular nested syntax, it allowed any editor
to parse and understand to great degree the lang's syntactic
structure.
The point is not about whether emacs contains a full lisp parser, or
whether emacs actually understands lisp semantics, or whether emacs
sucks and and true lisp editor blows.
> Just because of s-expressions, the editor will not know
> that DEFUN is the name of a macro, foo is the name of a function,
> (a b) is an arglist, a and b are parameters, (baz a b) is a function
> call
> and so on. All the editor would see is a list of things.
>
> (foobar barfoo (baz foo) (blah baz foo)) has the same semantic
> content as above. It is also a list of things. The editor
> will not tell you any difference just be understanding
> s-expressions. s-expressions also have nothing to do with
> semantics of code.
Moron Rainer, it's not about understanding the semantic of lisp.
lisp has a almost regular syntax. This syntax, has high degree of
correspondence to its semantics. So, any dumb editor can parse the
syntax by a lexical scan, and understand to some degree of the
semantic structure or its abstract syntax tree. This is in contrast
to, for example, langs with syntax soup as its syntax such as most von
neumann langs (e.g. C, C++, Java, perl, javascript, php...).
> > For example, in
> > emacs, you have forward-sexp, mark-sexp and a lot others that
> > manipulate lisp expressions. This can be done in lisp, precisely
> > because its syntax is based on a simple regular form. As a counter
> > example, this cannot be done in C, perl, java, javascript, python, etc
> > lang due to the fact that they don't use a regular simple syntax.
>
> > So, in your macro example, for example this one:
>
> > (defun test1 () (xah# '+ 1 #| HiXah! |# 2))
>
> > i cannot move my cursor to the “#|” part and call mark-sexp to select
> > it.
>
> That's the stupidity of Emacs. The editor I use has the command mark-
> form and
> happily marks the comment form (and all other forms in Lisp).
>
> Instead of demonstrating your non-knowledge in comp.lang.lisp for the
> past
> years, you could have learned some Lisp-dialect by now. Make a
> decision:
> either learn some Lisp dialect or stop posting here.
Rainer, after the numerous detailed exchange on this issue between us
and me and others, i don't know either you are truely a idiot, or your
lisp fanaticism really prevented you from seeing any validity in
negative criticisms, or that you are here just to fuck with me.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
On 22 Aug., 00:08, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote
>
>
>
> > > For example, due to lisp's (almost) regular nested syntax, one of its
> > > power is that the editor can understand the semantic structure of the
> > > code, without actually being a parser or compiler. For example, in
> > > emacs, you have forward-sexp, mark-sexp and a lot others that
> > > manipulate lisp expressions. This can be done in lisp, precisely
> > > because its syntax is based on a simple regular form. As a counter
> > > example, this cannot be done in C, perl, java, javascript, python, etc
> > > lang due to the fact that they don't use a regular simple syntax.
> Rainer Joswig wrote:
> > S-Expressions are not the syntax of Lisp code.
> > They are the syntax for Lisp data. By understanding s-expressions
> > the Editor still knows nothing about the syntax of Lisp code forms.
>
> > If you write (defun) it is a valid s-expression, but not
> > valid Lisp code. (defun (foo)) is also nicely nested, still
> > it is not valid Lisp code.
>
> > S-Expression support in the editor allows nice manipulations of
> > tree-structured data. But the editor does not know because
> > of just s-expressions what a variable is, what a function name is,
> > what a list of bindings is, what an arglist is and so on.
> > It does not know that the second item in
>
> Rainer, i tried to explain this several times, you insist looking into
> CL and clamour about its textual representation and internal object
> differences.
It's the same in Emacs Lisp. You don't even understand the basics.
Look, this is ELISP:
ELISP> (setq myprogram '(defun foo (a) (print a)))
(defun foo
(a)
(print a))
ELISP> (eval myprogram)
foo
ELISP> (listp myprogram)
t
ELISP> (foo 3)
3
ELISP> (setq myprogram1 '(defun foo))
(defun foo)
ELISP> (listp myprogram1)
t
ELISP> (eval myprogram1)
*** Eval error *** Wrong number of arguments: defun, 1
Program source was a valid s-expression in both cases.
Both were lists.
One was a valid Lisp program, the other not.
See the ELISP?
> The point here, is that a regular syntax can be parsed trivially by a
> lexical scan and allow editors to reformat the code wihtout having a
> parser proper builtin.
Again, this is not how Lisp works. Not Emacs Lisp and not Common Lisp
and not other Lisps.
To format source code in a useful way, the formatter has to understand
more than the
s-expression syntax. Repeating your bullshit does not make it better.
See these lists:
(a b (d e) (f g h) (i j k))
How do you like it to be formatted?
If it's data, above would be fine.
Optionally I could imagine:
(a
b
(d e)
(f g h)
(i j k))
Now let's rename the symbols:
(defun foo (d e) (baz g h) (bar j k))
Now I want it formatted as:
(defun foo (d e)
(baz g h)
(bar j k))
Above is formatting of Lisp code. For that the formatter
has to know that defun should be on the first line with the name of
the function and the arglists.
The body of the code then should be indented by two characters.
LET has a different syntax.
(let ((a b)
(c d))
(+ a b))
It has a completely different formatting and a different syntactical
structure.
First is the symbol LET, then is a list of lists of two items (first a
symbol then some data),
then follows a body.
ELISP> (let (((a 1))) (foo a))
*** Eval error *** Wrong type argument: symbolp, (a 1)
ELISP>
(let (((a 1))) (foo a)) is simply not a valid Lisp program.
Still it is a valid s-expression.
> Again, this is just one simple example of the
> advantage. I have by now some 20 thousands words explanations and
> examples. Are you ignoring them on purpose? perhaps because your
> Common Lisp fanaticism, you simply don't see it?
I'd say it is your own ignorance.
>
> I also explained in detail several times, that whatever your lisp
> internal shit, the lang still just have one syntax. It is the one
> programers types.
What do you type? You don't type Lisp. You type nothing but text.
I type
(defun hex-to-bit-string (string)
(assert (evenp (length string)) (string))
(let ((result (make-string (/ (length string) 2))))
(loop for i from 0 by 2
for k from 0
while (< i (length string))
do (setf (aref result k)
(code-char (parse-integer string :start i :end (+ i
2) :radix 16))))
result))
That's Lisp code. Not just Lisp data. LET has a special syntax, defun
has, LOOP has, SETF has.
> It's great that common lisp has this and that
> internal representation and shit and what's called textual
> representation or print form, but still the lang has one syntax in the
> context of lineaer, text based, computer languages, ok?
Again, it's the same for Emacs Lisp. There is a difference what
valid s-expressions are and what syntactically valid Lisp
programs are.
(defun) is no valid Emacs program. If you don't understand that, then
you really should not be here.
ELISP> (defun)
*** Eval error *** Wrong number of arguments: defun, 0
That (defun) is a valid s-expression does not make it a valid Lisp
program.
>
> > (defun foo (a b) (baz a b))
>
> > has to be a symbol and be there. It does not know that the third item
> > has to be a list
> > and be there. It does not know that after the arglist any number of
> > Lisp forms
> > is allowed.
>
> It is not the editor's job to know.
>
> The point about emacs's understanding of sexp, is to illustrate that
> because lisp has a almost regular nested syntax, it allowed any editor
> to parse and understand to great degree the lang's syntactic
> structure.
Just data syntax. Not the programming language syntax.
Same for CL and Emacs Lisp and almost all other Lisp out there.
>
> The point is not about whether emacs contains a full lisp parser, or
> whether emacs actually understands lisp semantics, or whether emacs
> sucks and and true lisp editor blows.
>
The point is that your postings suck because they are removed
from anything software. You haven't written a single Lisp
program in any Lisp dialect of more then a few lines.
You are unwilling to read a manual or a text book about
Lisp, still you post your shit here. That sucks.
> > Just because of s-expressions, the editor will not know
> > that DEFUN is the name of a macro, foo is the name of a function,
> > (a b) is an arglist, a and b are parameters, (baz a b) is a function
> > call
> > and so on. All the editor would see is a list of things.
>
> > (foobar barfoo (baz foo) (blah baz foo)) has the same semantic
> > content as above. It is also a list of things. The editor
> > will not tell you any difference just be understanding
> > s-expressions. s-expressions also have nothing to do with
> > semantics of code.
>
> Moron Rainer, it's not about understanding the semantic of lisp.
>
> lisp has a almost regular syntax. This syntax, has high degree of
> correspondence to its semantics. So, any dumb editor can parse the
> syntax by a lexical scan, and understand to some degree of the
> semantic structure or its abstract syntax tree. This is in contrast
> to, for example, langs with syntax soup as its syntax such as most von
> neumann langs (e.g. C, C++, Java, perl, javascript, php...).
Understanding lisp expressions is the level of a 'lexer'
in most languages. The syntax of Lisp programs cannot
be understood by that alone. Lisp itself uses 'code walkers' to
do manipulations to code - these are programs that
understand the syntax of the programming langauge Lisp.
> Rainer, after the numerous detailed exchange on this issue between us
> and me and others, i don't know either you are truely a idiot, or your
> lisp fanaticism really prevented you from seeing any validity in
> negative criticisms,
Your criticisms are simply not based on any practical experience.
They are useless and suck.
> or that you are here just to fuck with me.
I just think that you are an idiot posting here and being totally
unable to learn anything. Nobody takes you serious if you
have almost zero experience in actual programming in Lisp.
You are posting here now for years and all we got was
ten lines of Emacs Lisp? All code shown to you was not
understood by you. It takes about a week to learn the basics
of Scheme or Common Lisp. Why don't you just invest the time?
All you do is beg people to use Emacs Lisp so you think that
you may be able to understand something. But you don't even
understand Emacs Lisp.
Xah, learn something useful to participate here, or just go and do
something
else. Paint keyboard bindings or such.
>
> Xah
> ∑http://xahlee.org/
>
> ☄
Rainer Joswig wrote:
> It's the same in Emacs Lisp. You don't even understand the basics.
>
> Look, this is ELISP:
>
> ELISP> (setq myprogram '(defun foo (a) (print a)))
> (defun foo
> (a)
> (print a))
>
> ELISP> (eval myprogram)
> foo
> ELISP> (listp myprogram)
> t
> ELISP> (foo 3)
> 3
> ELISP> (setq myprogram1 '(defun foo))
> (defun foo)
>
> ELISP> (listp myprogram1)
> t
> ELISP> (eval myprogram1)
> *** Eval error *** Wrong number of arguments: defun, 1
>
> Program source was a valid s-expression in both cases.
> Both were lists.
it's not about the lists. It's about syntax.
For example, let's say this non lang plain text:
[something [3 4] [yes [nah] oh] no but]
can you see, the regularity of this text? In in is a textual
representation of a tree.
And such textual representation, can be manipulated by a text editor
with a simple lexical scan, and do all sort of transformation on it,
yet the editor or tool needs not to know any meaning of it. You see?
XML is a good example.
But now let's say, instead of the regularity in
[something [3 4] [yes [nah] oh] no but]
you have
[something [3 4] yes[ [nah] oh] no] ; but
can you see that, it no longer has a simple tree structure?
For more detail, see:
★ “Fundamental Problems of Lisp”
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
★ “The Concepts and Confusions of Prefix, Infix, Postfix and Fully
Functional Notations”
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/notations.html
> Xah, learn something useful to participate here, or just go and do
> something
> else. Paint keyboard bindings or such.
do you mean you liked my ergonomic based emacs shortcut set?
★ “A Ergonomic Keyboard Shortcut Layout For Emacs”
http://xahlee.org/emacs/ergonomic_emacs_keybinding.html
this messag is posted to: comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.scheme,
comp.lang.functional .
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 21 Aug 2008:
> Let me explain, that your macro example:
> (defmacro xah (f n m) (list (quote funcall) f n m))
> (defun test1 () (xah #'+ 1 #| Hi Xah! |# 2)) ; Hi again, Xah!
> (defun test2 () (xah (function +) 1 2))
> does not address the criticism on syntax irregularity.
You have said many things about lisp's "syntax irregularity", but one of
the things was that it makes writing macros harder/more difficult/wrong.
I'm asking you to prove that very narrow claim. Or to withdraw it.
Show me how the "syntax irregularity" of Common Lisp, affects Common Lisp
macros. In any way at all.
> For example, due to lisp's (almost) regular nested syntax, one of its power
> is that the editor can understand the semantic structure of the code,
> without actually being a parser or compiler.
OK, so now you've moved on to editing source text. That's a different
discussion than programming macros.
I'm trying to get you to focus, Xah. You say so many (wrong!) things, that I
want to pin you down on a single one at a time. You have a habit of moving
on to new topics, when you get challenged or become uncomfortable with the
offhand claims you've made on old ones.
You said that syntax irregularities in lisp make macros more difficult.
Stick to that topic. Prove it.
> For example, in emacs, you have forward-sexp, mark-sexp and a lot others
> that manipulate lisp expressions. This can be done in lisp, precisely
> because its syntax is based on a simple regular form. As a counter example,
> this cannot be done in C, perl, java, javascript, python, etc lang due to
> the fact that they don't use a regular simple syntax.
Yes, yes. We all know this part.
> So, in your macro example, for example this one:
> (defun test1 () (xah #'+ 1 #| Hi Xah! |# 2))
> i cannot move my cursor to the “#|” part and call mark-sexp to select it.
Well, the content inside is English text, which is a _different_ syntax than
sexps, so it's no surprise that "mark-sexp" shouldn't mark it. (Consider,
for example, this comment fragment: #| ))))(( (a) (b (( |#. What do you even
think a "mark-sexp" operation ought to do, on a form that isn't a sexp?)
But you're wrong about your overall concern anyway. Unless maybe you don't
know how to use emacs? Because I find that I can manipulate that expression
perfectly fine using emacs commands like forward-sexp, etc. Put the cursor
after the "1", do a "forward-sexp", and you wind up just after the "2",
exactly as desired.
Unlike your claims, the syntax of lisp causes NO PROBLEMS when manipulating
the source code in a lisp-syntax-aware editor like emacs.
> However, if suppore there is a RegLisp that does not have such
> irregularity in syntax, suppose it looks like:
> (defun test1 () (# (xah (' +) 1 (#| HiXah!) 2)))
And what kind of restrictions do you think you'll need to force on the
content of the comment text? Does imposing the restrictions buy you any
value?
> then emacs sexp manipulation functions works anywhere in the code.
Just as they work on existing Common Lisp code ALREADY, even despite the
"syntax irregularities" that have you so concerned.
> Can you see what i mean?
I see what you think you mean. You are just wrong about what the problems
might be.
> I gave many detailed explanation in my original article here
> I quote 3 paragraphs:
Yes, yes. I've read your original article many times. Strangely, it becomes
no more compelling on each additional reading. It's still full of incorrect,
unsupported wild claims. And no proof.
> are you convinced?
Not even close.
Are you?
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Scott: You know, if you don't yell you're more likely to get what you want.
Boss: I want to yell.
Scott: I see. That is a flaw in the plan.
-- Basic Instructions, "How to Be Diplomatic", 5/4/2008
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:07:41 -0700, Don Geddis wrote:
> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Wed, 20 Aug 2008:
>> there's this Don Geddis now having a debate with me. i ran out of
>> patience in dealing with Don.
>
> Xah, I've tried to be technical with you. You write so much, and I
> disagree with almost all of it, that my response got long. (I also seem
> to have made a cut&paste error in my last posting; there appears to be
> duplicate text. Sorry about that.)
Hi Don,
Why do you argue with him? Don't you see that he doesn't care about
understanding, so you have no common ground? He just keep ranting on
CLL. First I thought he was an AI, but a well-programmed AI would be
able to generate correct English text.
Your (and others') efforts to convince him or explain something to him
are in vain, you might as well try to teach your houseplants to play the
violin. You are wasting your time. Accidentally, you also increase the
signal/noise ratio for others who have long ago killfiled Xah, if people
did not keep replying to him, we would not see him at all.
Best,
Tamas
Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> writes:
> Why do you argue with him? Don't you see that he doesn't care about
> understanding, so you have no common ground? He just keep ranting on
> CLL. First I thought he was an AI, but a well-programmed AI would be
> able to generate correct English text.
Well, perhaps not correct English, but an AI would aim to *learn*
something at least...
> Your (and others') efforts to convince him or explain something to him
> are in vain, you might as well try to teach your houseplants to play the
> violin. You are wasting your time.
Which indeed is not the case.
> Accidentally, you also increase the
> signal/noise ratio for others who have long ago killfiled Xah, if people
> did not keep replying to him, we would not see him at all.
Sorry.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
Why do you keep regurgitating stuff that other people wrote.
Cor
--
Mijn Tools zijn zo modern dat ze allemaal eindigen op 'saurus'
(defvar My-Computer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
SPAM DELENDA EST http://www.clsnet.nl/mail.php
1st Law of surviving armed conflict : Have a gun !
On Aug 20, 1:26 pm, Cor Gest <····@clsnet.nl> wrote:
> Why do you keep regurgitating stuff that other people wrote.
Huh?
Do you mean to say that my lisp criticism
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
are on the spot, but the problem i discussed is actually well known
and has been written about in the lisp community?
If that's what you mean, then apparently many lispers here disagree or
don't seem to be aware of it. As you can see in this thread, they are
explicitly saying i don't know lisp, i was incorrect, i'm a troll,
etc.
Also, i agree that lisp's cons considered as a language flaw, is a
well known in lisp community. (but seldomly explicitly acknowledged as
a flaw) However, the lisp syntax irregularity, and the detail that i
criticised, is i think new.
One might ask, that if lisp's irregular syntax is a problem, why
didn't any lispers in the past few decades noticed or wrote about it?
It is my guess that there are people who have noticed it as a problem
in almost the same way as i detailed in my criticism. Perhaps they
might have even have published papers about it. (hopefully someone
resourceful might dig up something)
On the other hand, the fact that very few actually explicitly
criticized lisp's irregular syntax problem and the cons problem as i
have done, i think is because most so-called computer scientists are
morons. (Actually, in the past few years as i get older, i consider it
more that i'm relatively a genius.)
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
2008-08-21
Don Geddis wrote:
> Not the power of a "language". The power of a language's _syntax_.
> Recall, _you_ are the one making the claim, that the irregularities
> "reduce [the] syntax's power".
Here's some concrete examples of what i mean by power of syntax.
In lisp, the comment is done by the char “;” running to end of line.
Note that this does not allow nested comment. So for example, if you
have multi-line code, and you want to comment out them all, you have
to prepend each line by a semicolon. However, if you have nested
comment syntax, one could just braket the block of code to comment it
out. This, is a simple, perhaps trivial, example of “power of a
syntax”.
You know that in Python, the formatting is part of the lang's syntax.
Many programers may not like it, but it is well accepted that due to
Python's syntax, python code is very easy to read, and it much done
away about programer preferences and argument about code formatting.
This is example of power of a syntax.
Let me give another, different example. You know that perl's syntax,
often the function's arguments do not necessarily need to have a paren
around it. For example, “print (3);” and “print 3;” are the same
thing. This is a example of power of syntax, when considered as a
flexibity or save of typing, for good or bad. Similarly, in javascript
for example, ending semicolon is optional.
(for sample perl and python code, see
http://xahlee.org/perl-python/index.html
)
In Mathematica, the language has a systax syntem such that you can
have fully uniform nested notation, or you have have a uniform postfix
notation, and prefix notation, as well as infix notation, for ANY
function in the language, and you can mix all of the above. This is a
example of power of syntax.
(for detailed explanation of Mathematica syntax and comparison to
lisp's, see:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/notations.html
)
In general, a computer lang has a syntax. The syntax, as text written
from left to right, has various properties and characteristics. Ease
of input (think of APL as counter example), succinctness (e.g. Perl,
APL), variability (Perl, Mathematica), readibility (Python),
familiarity (C, Java, Javascript, ...), 2-dimentional math notation
(Mathematica), ease of parsing (lisp), regularity (APL, Mathematica,
Lisp, ...), flexibility (Mathematica)... etc. Basically, you can look
at syntax, and programer's need to type them, from many perspectives.
The good qualities, such as ease of use, flexibitity, ease of reading,
ease of parsing, ease of input, etc, can be considered as the syntax's
power.
As a example of syntax of little power... think of a lang using binary
digits as its sole char set.
I hope the above clarified what i mean by syntax's power, when i used
the phrase “reduces such syntax's power” in my criticism
“Fundamental Problems of Lisp” at
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
. (note that the essay isn't well written as it was originally a
newsgroup post. Possibly i'll edit it later)
Possibly we can start the argument from this point if you don't agree
i have a valid criticism. Or, if you have other points in your
previous post that i should address, please let me know. (i'll read
more and may reply but possibly tomorrow...)
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
······@gmail.com wrote:
> 2008-08-21
>
> Don Geddis wrote:
>
>
>>Not the power of a "language". The power of a language's _syntax_.
>>Recall, _you_ are the one making the claim, that the irregularities
>>"reduce [the] syntax's power".
>
>
> Here's some concrete examples of what i mean by power of syntax.
>
> In lisp, the comment is done by the char “;” running to end of line.
> Note that this does not allow nested comment. So for example, if you
> have multi-line code, and you want to comment out them all, you have
> to prepend each line by a semicolon.
I use a feature like #+nicetrybozo or #+chya for multi-liners.
For print statements that are getting distracting but which may prove
useful in the future I use #+shhhh
I also have a feature X42 that is indeed on *features* list and some of
those prints that come and go repeatedly are featured #+x42 when I want
them active, #+x4x when not. To enable such a print, I just change the
trailing x to 2. When a debugging firefight is over I do a global
search/replace on x42/x4x to quickly silence those.
kt
Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 21 Aug 2008:
> ······@gmail.com wrote:
>> Don Geddis wrote:
>>>Not the power of a "language". The power of a language's _syntax_.
>>>Recall, _you_ are the one making the claim, that the irregularities
>>>"reduce [the] syntax's power".
>>
>> In lisp, the comment is done by the char “;” running to end of line.
>> Note that this does not allow nested comment. So for example, if you
>> have multi-line code, and you want to comment out them all, you have
>> to prepend each line by a semicolon.
>
> I use a feature like #+nicetrybozo or #+chya for multi-liners.
> For print statements that are getting distracting but which may prove useful
> in the future I use #+shhhh
And also:
#|
...<multiline code> ...
|#
is another easy way to quickly comment out multiple lines.
So, Xah, Kenny and I have shown you two different ways, in standard Common
Lisp, to easily comment-out multi-line code.
On this narrow topic, can you admit that you were in error, and this isn't
a "fundamental problem of Lisp" after all?
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Job vacancy advertisment. Wanted: Small man for job as a mud flap.
Must be flexible and willing to travel.
On Aug 21, 11:58 am, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
> Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 21 Aug 2008:
>
> >······@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Don Geddis wrote:
> >>>Not the power of a "language". The power of a language's _syntax_.
> >>>Recall, _you_ are the one making the claim, that the irregularities
> >>>"reduce [the] syntax's power".
>
> >> In lisp, the comment is done by the char “;” running to end of line.
> >> Note that this does not allow nested comment. So for example, if you
> >> have multi-line code, and you want to comment out them all, you have
> >> to prepend each line by a semicolon.
>
> > I use a feature like #+nicetrybozo or #+chya for multi-liners.
> > For print statements that are getting distracting but which may prove useful
> > in the future I use #+shhhh
>
> And also:
> #|
> ...<multiline code> ...
> |#
> is another easy way to quickly comment out multiple lines.
>
> So,Xah, Kenny and I have shown you two different ways, in standard Common
> Lisp, to easily comment-out multi-line code.
>
> On this narrow topic, can you admit that you were in error, and this isn't
> a "fundamental problem of Lisp" after all?
Dear Don Geddis fuckface, are you still trying to have a earnest
conversation, or are you reverting back to playing a game?
You want me to clarify “power of syntax” by concrete examples, and i
gave you 4 examples using lisp, perl, python, mathematica. One of them
uses lisp to illustrate single-line comment vs multi-line comment
systems, and how the latter con be considered more powerful.
The “#|” is not a valid comment in emacs lisp.
*** Welcome to IELM *** Type (describe-mode) for help.
ELISP> (+ 3 4 #| see |#)
*** Read error *** Invalid read syntax: "#"
ELISP>
suppose the #| is common lisp's comment in macros. That's good but
then it introduces complexity. For example, now there are 2 comments.
But anyhow, both “;” and “#| ... |#” are irregularities of lisp's
nested syntax.
nice try though bozo.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 21 Aug 2008:
> On Aug 21, 11:58 am, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
>> Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 21 Aug 2008:
>> >······@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> Don Geddis wrote:
>> >>>Recall, _you_ are the one making the claim, that the irregularities
>> >>>"reduce [the] syntax's power".
>>
>> >> In lisp, the comment is done by the char “;” running to end of line.
>> >> Note that this does not allow nested comment. So for example, if you
>> >> have multi-line code, and you want to comment out them all, you have
>> >> to prepend each line by a semicolon.
>>
>> > I use a feature like #+nicetrybozo or #+chya for multi-liners. For
>> > print statements that are getting distracting but which may prove useful
>> > in the future I use #+shhhh
>>
>> And also:
>> #|
>> ...<multiline code> ...
>> |#
>> is another easy way to quickly comment out multiple lines.
>
> One of them uses lisp to illustrate single-line comment vs multi-line
> comment systems, and how the latter con be considered more powerful.
But, as Kenny and I showed you, Common Lisp _already_ has a multi-line
comment system. Despite your claim (above) that:
if you have multi-line code, and you want to comment out them all,
you have to prepend each line by a semicolon.
You were wrong about this, just like you have been wrong about almost all
your criticisms of lisp.
> The “#|” is not a valid comment in emacs lisp.
> *** Welcome to IELM *** Type (describe-mode) for help.
> ELISP> (+ 3 4 #| see |#)
> *** Read error *** Invalid read syntax: "#"
> ELISP>
I've told you many times: I'm only discussing Common Lisp. It is not a valid
criticism of CL, to complain that Emacs Lisp does something differently. I
don't care what Emacs Lisp does.
> suppose the #| is common lisp's comment in macros.
Wrong again. #| ... |# comments have nothing at all to do with macros.
> That's good but then it introduces complexity. For example, now there are 2
> comments. But anyhow, both “;” and “#| ... |#” are irregularities of
> lisp's nested syntax.
Yes, I'm aware that they are "irregular" in the manner that bothers you
so much.
What you have failed to do, is demonstrate even a single example of why
this so-called irregularity matters at all to any programmer.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Giving a person a high IQ is kind of like giving a person a million dollars.
A few individuals will do something interesting with it, but most will piss
it away on trinkets and pointless exercises. -- J. Andrew Rogers
Don Geddis wrote:
> Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 21 Aug 2008:
>
>>······@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>Don Geddis wrote:
>>>
>>>>Not the power of a "language". The power of a language's _syntax_.
>>>>Recall, _you_ are the one making the claim, that the irregularities
>>>>"reduce [the] syntax's power".
>>>
>>>In lisp, the comment is done by the char “;” running to end of line.
>>>Note that this does not allow nested comment. So for example, if you
>>>have multi-line code, and you want to comment out them all, you have
>>>to prepend each line by a semicolon.
>>
>>I use a feature like #+nicetrybozo or #+chya for multi-liners.
>>For print statements that are getting distracting but which may prove useful
>>in the future I use #+shhhh
>
>
> And also:
> #|
> ...<multiline code> ...
> |#
> is another easy way to quickly comment out multiple lines.
Easy? Now I have to keychord to the end of the block, type in a separate
delimiter, and when I want to restore take out two things.
You must like typing. :)
>
> So, Xah, Kenny and I have shown you two different ways, in standard Common
> Lisp, to easily comment-out multi-line code.
>
> On this narrow topic, can you admit that you were in error, and this isn't
> a "fundamental problem of Lisp" after all?
The Xah cannot be in error any more than Picasso can screw up by putting
both eyes on one side of the face.
kt
On Aug 21, 1:44 pm, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don Geddis wrote:
> > Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 21 Aug 2008:
>
> >>······@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>Don Geddis wrote:
>
> >>>>Not the power of a "language". The power of a language's _syntax_.
> >>>>Recall, _you_ are the one making the claim, that the irregularities
> >>>>"reduce [the] syntax's power".
>
> >>>In lisp, the comment is done by the char “;” running to end of line.
> >>>Note that this does not allow nested comment. So for example, if you
> >>>have multi-line code, and you want to comment out them all, you have
> >>>to prepend each line by a semicolon.
>
> >>I use a feature like #+nicetrybozo or #+chya for multi-liners.
> >>For print statements that are getting distracting but which may prove useful
> >>in the future I use #+shhhh
>
> > And also:
> > #|
> > ...<multiline code> ...
> > |#
> > is another easy way to quickly comment out multiple lines.
>
> Easy? Now I have to keychord to the end of the block, type in a separate
> delimiter, and when I want to restore take out two things.
>
> You must like typing. :)
>
>
>
> > So, Xah, Kenny and I have shown you two different ways, in standard Common
> > Lisp, to easily comment-out multi-line code.
>
> > On this narrow topic, can you admit that you were in error, and this isn't
> > a "fundamental problem of Lisp" after all?
>
> The Xah cannot be in error any more than Picasso can screw up by putting
> both eyes on one side of the face.
>
> kt
Kenny, is this Rainer Joswig and this Don Geddis truely idiots? or
they just fucking around?
Seriously, their IQs can't be at the idiot level. I do think they are
a bit of fucking around attitude, due to my returning insults.
However, i think overall they are still sincerely thinking they have a
point, even though i think they are beginning to see that my criticism
has valid points. I think what's really going on, is that their common
lisp fanaticism blinded their judgement.
As you know, in this month i tried a conversational styled posting
manner in gnu.emacs.help, and really tried to stick on topic, and
refrain from swearing at these idiotic tech geekers. My experiences is
that it actually worked. It actually taught, shown light, convinced
these tech geekers something in the few hundreds of posts among 3+
threads. However, in comp.lang.lisp esp in this thread, even though i
did chat style and reply to almost all posts addressed to me, but i
have not refrained from calling morons morons. I think that is the
cause that these morons are still being morons.
So, if i go all out in the effort to educate, i.e. refrain from
showing any attitude, be the most patient, i think i'll be able to
convince these morons. Should i? but i don't want to. I consider
myself a member of the lisp community, in particular in the faction of
emacs and emacs lisp. I don't see myself venturing into Common Lisp
anytime soon. I have a personal interest in seeing emacs prosper. I
don't have particular interest in seeing common lisp prosper. I mean,
sure i'd help whenever i can, or even learn CL tidbits, but not when
common lisp morons insist being obtuse and fuck with me. So, i don't
think i'll let common lisp morons run around here without a moron tag.
Yeah, Rainer and Don are morons. LOL. Rainer and Don, you are morons.
M, O, R, O, N, and i think i will be sticking around here to make sure
you wear the tag.
Also note, notice how other lispers, who probably see the validity of
my criticism by now, but they cower in their pants quietly and watch
the show. How funny. Chinese has a saying on this: 隔桥观虎斗, meaning,
watching the tigers fight over the other side of a river. What would
be a english saying for this situation?
This post is posted to:
comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.functional
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
On 22 Aug., 01:12, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 1:44 pm, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Don Geddis wrote:
> > > Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 21 Aug 2008:
>
> > >>······@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >>>Don Geddis wrote:
>
> > >>>>Not the power of a "language". The power of a language's _syntax_.
> > >>>>Recall, _you_ are the one making the claim, that the irregularities
> > >>>>"reduce [the] syntax's power".
>
> > >>>In lisp, the comment is done by the char “;” running to end of line.
> > >>>Note that this does not allow nested comment. So for example, if you
> > >>>have multi-line code, and you want to comment out them all, you have
> > >>>to prepend each line by a semicolon.
>
> > >>I use a feature like #+nicetrybozo or #+chya for multi-liners.
> > >>For print statements that are getting distracting but which may prove useful
> > >>in the future I use #+shhhh
>
> > > And also:
> > > #|
> > > ...<multiline code> ...
> > > |#
> > > is another easy way to quickly comment out multiple lines.
>
> > Easy? Now I have to keychord to the end of the block, type in a separate
> > delimiter, and when I want to restore take out two things.
>
> > You must like typing. :)
>
> > > So, Xah, Kenny and I have shown you two different ways, in standard Common
> > > Lisp, to easily comment-out multi-line code.
>
> > > On this narrow topic, can you admit that you were in error, and this isn't
> > > a "fundamental problem of Lisp" after all?
>
> > The Xah cannot be in error any more than Picasso can screw up by putting
> > both eyes on one side of the face.
>
> > kt
>
> Kenny, is this Rainer Joswig and this Don Geddis truely idiots? or
> they just fucking around?
>
> Seriously, their IQs can't be at the idiot level. I do think they are
> a bit of fucking around attitude, due to my returning insults.
> However, i think overall they are still sincerely thinking they have a
> point, even though i think they are beginning to see that my criticism
> has valid points. I think what's really going on, is that their common
> lisp fanaticism blinded their judgement.
>
> As you know, in this month i tried a conversational styled posting
> manner in gnu.emacs.help, and really tried to stick on topic, and
> refrain from swearing at these idiotic tech geekers. My experiences is
> that it actually worked. It actually taught, shown light, convinced
> these tech geekers something in the few hundreds of posts among 3+
> threads. However, in comp.lang.lisp esp in this thread, even though i
> did chat style and reply to almost all posts addressed to me, but i
> have not refrained from calling morons morons. I think that is the
> cause that these morons are still being morons.
>
> So, if i go all out in the effort to educate, i.e. refrain from
> showing any attitude, be the most patient, i think i'll be able to
> convince these morons. Should i? but i don't want to. I consider
> myself a member of the lisp community, in particular in the faction of
> emacs and emacs lisp. I don't see myself venturing into Common Lisp
> anytime soon. I have a personal interest in seeing emacs prosper. I
> don't have particular interest in seeing common lisp prosper. I mean,
> sure i'd help whenever i can, or even learn CL tidbits, but not when
> common lisp morons insist being obtuse and fuck with me. So, i don't
> think i'll let common lisp morons run around here without a moron tag.
> Yeah, Rainer and Don are morons. LOL. Rainer and Don, you are morons.
> M, O, R, O, N, and i think i will be sticking around here to make sure
> you wear the tag.
Look Xah, you are a Lisp loser. You have failed to learn the basics
for years. Basic manners, basic programming, etc. I think
I'm now so bored by your stuff that I put you back in my killfile
for the next years.
>
> Also note, notice how other lispers, who probably see the validity of
> my criticism by now, but they cower in their pants quietly and watch
> the show. How funny. Chinese has a saying on this: 隔桥观虎斗, meaning,
> watching the tigers fight over the other side of a river. What would
> be a english saying for this situation?
>
> This post is posted to:
> comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.functional
>
> Xah
This user is now killfiled again.
> ∑http://xahlee.org/
>
> ☄
······@gmail.com wrote:
> So, if i go all out in the effort to educate, i.e. refrain from
> showing any attitude, be the most patient, i think i'll be able to
> convince these morons. Should i? but i don't want to.
Life is short. Move on. Many are called, few are chosen.
Exchanges of more than a certain length are probably futile and
certainly become less and less fun. We need one fo your formulas: fun
times chance of persuading times prospect of producing world peace over
frustration.
I consider
> myself a member of the lisp community, in particular in the faction of
> emacs and emacs lisp. I don't see myself venturing into Common Lisp
> anytime soon. I have a personal interest in seeing emacs prosper. I
> don't have particular interest in seeing common lisp prosper. I mean,
> sure i'd help whenever i can, or even learn CL tidbits, but not when
> common lisp morons insist being obtuse and fuck with me. So, i don't
> think i'll let common lisp morons run around here without a moron tag.
> Yeah, Rainer and Don are morons. LOL. Rainer and Don, you are morons.
> M, O, R, O, N, and i think i will be sticking around here to make sure
> you wear the tag.
We call this a non-disengaging disengagement.
>
> Also note, notice how other lispers, who probably see the validity of
> my criticism by now, but they cower in their pants quietly and watch
> the show. How funny. Chinese has a saying on this: 隔桥观虎斗, meaning,
> watching the tigers fight over the other side of a river.
Nice. Healthier or non-combatants than "when the elephants fight the
grass gets trampled".
> What would
> be a english saying for this situation?
"staying out of it".
kt
Some entity, AKA Kenny <·········@gmail.com>,
wrote this mindboggling stuff:
(selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
>> What would
>> be a english saying for this situation?
>
> "staying out of it".
Quietly stepping aside to watch the squeaking puppy being devoured.
Cor
--
Mijn Tools zijn zo modern dat ze allemaal eindigen op 'saurus'
(defvar My-Computer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
SPAM DELENDA EST http://www.clsnet.nl/mail.php
1st Law of surviving armed conflict : Have a gun !
Well, gotta say I'm kinda new to this ng and Lisp in general, but I've
already got enough of this meaningless arrogant troll.
hey, I know you don't like the sound, so check it out: *plonk*
It was fun for a while, Mr. Celebrity.
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> On Aug 21, 1:44 pm, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Don Geddis wrote:
>> > Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 21 Aug 2008:
>>
>> >>······@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>Don Geddis wrote:
>>
>> >>>>Not the power of a "language". The power of a language's _syntax_.
>> >>>>Recall, _you_ are the one making the claim, that the irregularities
>> >>>>"reduce [the] syntax's power".
>>
>> >>>In lisp, the comment is done by the char “;” running to end of line.
>> >>>Note that this does not allow nested comment. So for example, if you
>> >>>have multi-line code, and you want to comment out them all, you have
>> >>>to prepend each line by a semicolon.
>>
>> >>I use a feature like #+nicetrybozo or #+chya for multi-liners.
>> >>For print statements that are getting distracting but which may prove useful
>> >>in the future I use #+shhhh
>>
>> > And also:
>> > #|
>> > ...<multiline code> ...
>> > |#
>> > is another easy way to quickly comment out multiple lines.
>>
>> Easy? Now I have to keychord to the end of the block, type in a separate
>> delimiter, and when I want to restore take out two things.
>>
>> You must like typing. :)
>>
>>
>>
>> > So, Xah, Kenny and I have shown you two different ways, in standard Common
>> > Lisp, to easily comment-out multi-line code.
>>
>> > On this narrow topic, can you admit that you were in error, and this isn't
>> > a "fundamental problem of Lisp" after all?
>>
>> The Xah cannot be in error any more than Picasso can screw up by putting
>> both eyes on one side of the face.
>>
>> kt
>
>
> Kenny, is this Rainer Joswig and this Don Geddis truely idiots? or
> they just fucking around?
>
> Seriously, their IQs can't be at the idiot level. I do think they are
> a bit of fucking around attitude, due to my returning insults.
> However, i think overall they are still sincerely thinking they have a
> point, even though i think they are beginning to see that my criticism
> has valid points. I think what's really going on, is that their common
> lisp fanaticism blinded their judgement.
>
Oh Xah, it has just been so entertaining!
However, this takes the biscuit. You see, the only two people who were
actually taking your claims at all seriously are Don and Rainer. Kenny
on the other hand is just stirring the pot and playing with you. I'm
surprised that a genius such as yourself hasn't realised this.
With respect to your claims regarding your writing being better than the
average english professor or journalist, I have to say your sadly
mistaken. Your expressive style actually confuses and detracts from your
arguements. You seem to believe your style is a new radical form of
expression and those that criticise it are just morons who don't
appreciate your great talent. Such an arguement may have merit in a work
of fiction in which you are trying to push the boundries. However, it
simply detracts from what your trying to express when your dealing with
issues of fact or arguements regarding issues of technology, sociology,
philosophy or belief. If you honestly want to address such issues, you
need to express them in a clear concise manner that presents your
arguments without the distractions of unfamiliar style. I persoanlly
always asumed your poor grammer was due to english not being your native
tongue. If this is not the case, then I'd just have to assume you were a
student who was above average at math, but below average in
english. This is not uncommon. Many students find the more precise
nature of maths easier to grasp than the less precise rules of english
grammer (noting that english is often cited as the most difficult
language to learn because of its inconsistent and complex grammatical
structure). If your aim is to communicate and educate, then yu need to
write in a style that makes your points clear. Your claim that you are a
genius with a new style of expression is just a poor excuse for not
having a good grasp of english grammer and an inability to honestly edit
yourself to assist the reader rather than stroke your own ego. Rather
than an intelligent and philosophical genius, you come across as an
extremely insecure, lonely and bitter individual who has trouble fitting
in and blames everyone else rather than considering that their own
actions and personallity may have some baring on the situation.
In this current thread, I believe I can understand your arguement and I
even think Don and Rainer have missed your point. However, this is
primarily because of how you have tried to express it. I can
appreciate what your saying about the irregularities intriduced by
the 5 characters you reference. I agree that new users may be a little
confused at first and I agree that to a limited extent, editors could
parse the code easier at some levels without them. However, these are
not fundamental limitations to the language and I disagree they have
fundamentally limited or restricted the development of the
language. Your criticism is in fact quite shallow and certainly doesn't
identify anything fundamental. To disprove this, you need to make a
distinction between using the language, in the sense of actually coding
with it and all the associated tools, editors and convenience and the
actual power of the language i.e. what you can do with it - the types of
problems you can solve and how difficult/easy this is with the
language.
The only possible merit in your arguement is that if all the language
had followed the nested syntax properly, we may have more consistent
formatting of code and maybe more sophisticated development
environments. However, it is also important to note that most of the
people I've seen comment on this who have actually used rigid structured
editors have ended up not liking them. I also feel that what you are
talking about is an abstract theoretical advantage which you imagine is
superior, but which has never existed with any general purpose language
(there are some special purpose domain specific languages that have done
this, but that is a different and more precisely defined environment and
therefore easier to do and less likely to be inconvenient).
While Don and Rainer may not have understood your arguement, you have
totally failed to appreciate what they have been saying. You
immediately take the position that anyone who doesn't automatically
agree with your arguement is just a tech geek moron who can't appreciate
your great genius. This arrogance on your part makes you blind to the
valid points they are making and makes you appear insecure and
defensive. Rather than viewing alternative positions and criticisms of
your arguuement as a personal attack, start by assuming they are genuine
and attempt to address them in a genuine manner.
As an example, you argue that due to the irregularities introduced by
the characters you refernce, lisp has lost the opportunity of having
powerful and automatic formatting. I imagine you dream of a development
environment in which you can just express the ideas and the environment
will take care of all the formatting and we will have a utopian world of
consistently formatted code which everyone can easily
udnerstand. However, as has already been pointed out to you, the nested
syntax is not sufficient for this. While s-expressions do provide a lot
of convenience and while they may be sufficient for formatting pure
data, they are not sufficient for good formatting of code. This is where
your comparison with XMl falls down. A clear example of this difference
was provided in an earlier post in this thread (which I note you failed
to respond to directly and instead attacked by stating the poster was a
moron. As they say, you should play the ball and not the player)
Your claim that these irregularities reduce the power of the language
and are a fundamental problem with the language are also misguided. As
pointed out many times in this thread, these irregularities are handled
by the reader and are gone by the time the code is evaluated. for this
reason, its not a fundamental limitation in the power of the
language. However, it could be argued that it does make it harder to get
consistent formatting by the editor or that it causes confusion for new
users and this may have impacted on the adoption of the language (though
I don't believe this has in fact had any real impact and that in fact
these irregularities actually make the language more convenient and
easier to use for the experienced programmer). It cold also be argued
that because of these so called irregularities, the user is required to
put effort into formatting the code (e.g. hitting tab, enter etc) that
could be handled automatically. However, having used systems that do
this type of thing, I find such 'convenience' inconvenient. More of a
problem is that I rarely think in completed well formed
s=expressions. My code is often 'broken' as I move from an incompleted
s-expression to modify an earlier piece of code because I've realised a
minor change earlier makes what I'm doing next easier. A structured
editor would make this more difficult and not easier. I can fully
appreciate that others may adopt a different style of progrmming and for
them, a structured editor may be more convenient. But this just
emphasises that we all come from different perspectives and what may
appear to be a valuable alternative to one may be irrelevent or of
little value to someone else. this is a point you seem unable to
appreciate and assume anyone who doesn't agree with your perspective is
a moron or fuckwit. Someone who is a genius or at least a little smart
should be able to realise this and acknowledge that different people
have different priorities and requirements.
Whatever your pespective, arguing that the irregularities impact on the
power of the language is simply incorrect. If it was true, it would be
easy to show a straight-forward example of something you can do with a
purely nested syntax language that you cannot do with the existing
language. Don and others have asked you to show such and example. You
have failed to do so. All you have done is repeatably reference your
existing 'essays' - if these had such proof, people wouldn't continue to
ask you to provide one.
I have noticed a theme in many of your posts and essays. On the whole,
they seem to be inspired by frustration and anger at what you find
difficult and beleive should be easier. On one hand, this is fair
enough. However, you often lable and describe the problem in a
misleading and aggressive manner that writes the whole thing off because
of one or two issues. You also tend to attack a specific existing language or
technology when the problem is really across the whole discipline. for
example, your arguement about lisps irregularities in syntax is less
compelling when you consider that lisp probably has the most consistent,
straight-forward syntax of any language. I suspect your real issue is
with inconsistency in syntax generally and not specific to the lisp
family of languages. If you had written a well thought out and
structured essay on why many programming languages ar difficult to use
because they lack a consistency of syntax, you would likely have found
many would have supported your ideas and commended you on writing such
thought provoking material. Remember, if your real goal is to educate
then you want people to both hear what you are saying and think about
it. Presenting yor arguements in poorly structured grammer with lots of
emotional over-loading just causes 'line noise' and makes you appear to
be nothing more than an emotional dumb ass venting over what they find
frustrating about whatever current thing they are working with.
Your arguements are often undermined by the obvious fact that many of
your posts and essays are written from the perspective of a new user
with little experience with or in the language. You have freely admitted
you don't know common lisp and you make lots of examples out of emacs
lisp, which is a specialised dialect of lisp with a specific goal and
not a general purpose lisp implementation. It is also very much an older
style lisp dialect and not a good basis for making any judgement on the
current state of lisp as a language family. to have any real credibility
in arguing about the lisp family, you need to show a higher than average
familiarity with the main language implementations in the lisp family,
including more than just a couple of hours 'playing' with each. You
indicate you don't have time for such things and thats fine. However, if
you don't hae the time to learn, then you don't have the credibility to be
listened to either.
While on the topic of credibility, don't refer to yourself as a
genius. Yor obviously not. A true genius dosen't consider themselves a
genius because their superior intellect lets them know how much they
don't know. The label of genius is given to someone by others who are
impressed by the work they do. I suspect your above average intelligence
in some areas and well below average in others - for example, I suspect
you have a very low emotional intelligence. You have an obvious desire
to gain knowledge and don't limit yourself to any specific field or
discipline, which is an admiral trait IMO. However, I would say that
you are more a jack of all trades and master of none than anything
else. This is fine too - there are too many who are experts in just one
limited area and completely ignorant in everything else. A thirst for
knowledge is a very admirable trait, but a belief that such a thirst
makes you in any way superior to everyone else is just proof that your
thirst has failed to really educate you or teach you anything and that
while you may have a broad scope of knowledge, it is shallow and
superficial.
Consider that whenever you argue you have a superior intelligence, you
are really saying you have a superior something which is poorly defined
and for which nobody has ever been able to find a means of measuring in
an objective manner. I have no issue in agreeing you have a superior
poorly defined something that cannot be measured.
tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>On Aug 21, 1:44 pm, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Don Geddis wrote:
>>>
>>>>Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 21 Aug 2008:
>>>
>>>>>······@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Don Geddis wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>Not the power of a "language". The power of a language's _syntax_.
>>>>>>>Recall, _you_ are the one making the claim, that the irregularities
>>>>>>>"reduce [the] syntax's power".
>>>
>>>>>>In lisp, the comment is done by the char “;” running to end of line.
>>>>>>Note that this does not allow nested comment. So for example, if you
>>>>>>have multi-line code, and you want to comment out them all, you have
>>>>>>to prepend each line by a semicolon.
>>>
>>>>>I use a feature like #+nicetrybozo or #+chya for multi-liners.
>>>>>For print statements that are getting distracting but which may prove useful
>>>>>in the future I use #+shhhh
>>>
>>>>And also:
>>>> #|
>>>> ...<multiline code> ...
>>>> |#
>>>>is another easy way to quickly comment out multiple lines.
>>>
>>>Easy? Now I have to keychord to the end of the block, type in a separate
>>>delimiter, and when I want to restore take out two things.
>>>
>>>You must like typing. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>So, Xah, Kenny and I have shown you two different ways, in standard Common
>>>>Lisp, to easily comment-out multi-line code.
>>>
>>>>On this narrow topic, can you admit that you were in error, and this isn't
>>>>a "fundamental problem of Lisp" after all?
>>>
>>>The Xah cannot be in error any more than Picasso can screw up by putting
>>>both eyes on one side of the face.
>>>
>>>kt
>>
>>
>>Kenny, is this Rainer Joswig and this Don Geddis truely idiots? or
>>they just fucking around?
>>
>>Seriously, their IQs can't be at the idiot level. I do think they are
>>a bit of fucking around attitude, due to my returning insults.
>>However, i think overall they are still sincerely thinking they have a
>>point, even though i think they are beginning to see that my criticism
>>has valid points. I think what's really going on, is that their common
>>lisp fanaticism blinded their judgement.
>>
>
>
> Oh Xah, it has just been so entertaining!
>
> However, this takes the biscuit. You see, the only two people who were
> actually taking your claims at all seriously are Don and Rainer. Kenny
> on the other hand is just stirring the pot and playing with you.
You must be honored. Only once a year am I so astonished by the
copiousness of someone's copiousness that I cut and paste it into
software capable of word count: the above error is followed by 2027
words? That is some biscuit.
As for the error, you mistake my persistent good humor in all directions
as directed at Xah, because you are so desperately insecure in your
conviction that your subconscious has dragged me onto your side. And
written 2027 more words.
I am neither pro-Xah nor anti-Xah. That is not why The Xah exists.
As for dictating my emotions for me.... the good news is that the hounds
will not be distrubed, the bad news is that I have /not/ had my shots.
hth, kt
Kenny <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> However, this takes the biscuit. You see, the only two people who were
>> actually taking your claims at all seriously are Don and Rainer. Kenny
>> on the other hand is just stirring the pot and playing with you.
>
>
> You must be honored. Only once a year am I so astonished by the copiousness
> of someone's copiousness that I cut and paste it into software capable of
> word count: the above error is followed by 2027 words? That is some
> biscuit.
>
Thanks, though I thought it was longer than that
> As for the error, you mistake my persistent good humor in all directions as
> directed at Xah, because you are so desperately insecure in your conviction
> that your subconscious has dragged me onto your side. And written 2027 more
> words.
I should have said '...just stirring the pot and playing' rather than
'just stirring the pot and playing with you' as I didn't mean to imply
you were specifically playing with him in particular. My mistake. My
intention was to emphasise that I thought Xah had it around the wrong
way and interpreted Don and Rainer as playing and you as serious when in
fact I thought your posts were humorous and theirs were serious. I
thought of your contribution as akin to that of the court jester and
didn't actualy consider your motives at all.
Your comments lead me to believe you didn't read what I wrote. thats
fair enough as it was long and it was directed to Xah. However, if you
had, you would have found that I'm not against Xah nor have I taken any
side. In fact, I think he has some valid points, but he expresses them
poorly and in a way that makes his points obscure and easily
misinterpreted. I don't agree with everything he states, but do see
there is some validity in part of what he is arguing, though his
examples and references are misleading and obscured by too much
emotional content.
> I am neither pro-Xah nor anti-Xah. That is not why The Xah exists.
Neither am I.
> As for dictating my emotions for me.... the good news is that the hounds
> will not be distrubed, the bad news is that I have /not/ had my shots.
>
Funny. Luckily my hounds have not been disturbed by your dictating of my
emotions either.
hth, Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> Kenny <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>>However, this takes the biscuit. You see, the only two people who were
>>>actually taking your claims at all seriously are Don and Rainer. Kenny
>>>on the other hand is just stirring the pot and playing with you.
>>
>>
>>You must be honored. Only once a year am I so astonished by the copiousness
>>of someone's copiousness that I cut and paste it into software capable of
>>word count: the above error is followed by 2027 words? That is some
>>biscuit.
>>
>
>
> Thanks, though I thought it was longer than that
>
>
>>As for the error, you mistake my persistent good humor in all directions as
>>directed at Xah, because you are so desperately insecure in your conviction
>>that your subconscious has dragged me onto your side. And written 2027 more
>>words.
>
>
> I should have said '...just stirring the pot and playing' rather than
> 'just stirring the pot and playing with you' as I didn't mean to imply
> you were specifically playing with him in particular. My mistake.
Ah.
> My
> intention was to emphasise that I thought Xah had it around the wrong
> way and interpreted Don and Rainer as playing and you as serious when in
> fact I thought your posts were humorous and theirs were serious. I
> thought of your contribution as akin to that of the court jester and
> didn't actualy consider your motives at all.
Oh, sure. I got those shots for nothing, then.
> Funny. Luckily my hounds have not been disturbed by your dictating of my
> emotions either.
Your hounds were just by to ask about tutoring in expository writing for
you. (I was not dictating, I was reading accurately.)
peace, k
2008-08-22
Tim X wrote:
> Oh Xah, it has just been so entertaining!
Thanks. LOL. I enjoy being red.
> However, this takes the biscuit. You see, the only two people who were
> actually taking your claims at all seriously are Don and Rainer. Kenny
> on the other hand is just stirring the pot and playing with you. I'm
> surprised that a genius such as yourself hasn't realised this.
>
> With respect to your claims regarding your writing being better than the
> average english professor or journalist, I have to say your sadly
> mistaken. Your expressive style actually confuses and detracts from your
> arguements. You seem to believe your style is a new radical form of
> expression and those that criticise it are just morons who don't
> appreciate your great talent. Such an arguement may have merit in a work
> of fiction in which you are trying to push the boundries. However, it
> simply detracts from what your trying to express when your dealing with
> issues of fact or arguements regarding issues of technology, sociology,
> philosophy or belief. If you honestly want to address such issues, you
> need to express them in a clear concise manner that presents your
> arguments without the distractions of unfamiliar style.
You said it right. The question is, if i want to.
> I persoanlly
> always asumed your poor grammer was due to english not being your native
> tongue. If this is not the case, then I'd just have to assume you were a
> student who was above average at math, but below average in
> english.
Haha.
My newsgroup writings are particularly crafted to entice the tech
geeking morons. If the tech geekers thought that i'm new to english
thus my bad writing, that's exactly what i want them to think. Due to
my persistence and osmosis, they eventually realized that they are the
victim of my advanced craft, and bang, they become my fan.
This is somewhat like orgasm. Those with prolonged foreplay are the
spectacular ones. So, i set out to tease and trap the morons. They
think they got a idiot at hand. But i persist. They find my writings
amiss yet cant resist. Lil' by lil', they sip and fight it. After a
while, they come to a full realization that they are the underskilled
ones, and that's when, they appreciate me more than if i just come out
straight.
> This is not uncommon. Many students find the more precise
> nature of maths easier to grasp than the less precise rules of english
> grammer (noting that english is often cited as the most difficult
> language to learn because of its inconsistent and complex grammatical
> structure).
Being someone with linguistic knowledge far beyond most tech geekers
(i'd say my linguistic knowledge is, better than the average who has a
degree in linguistics), i'd say that the notion of English being the
most difficult language is largely the figment of the wasp.
> If your aim is to communicate and educate, then yu need to
> write in a style that makes your points clear.
actually, the problem is just whether i want to eliminate the brain
washing and insult elements when conversing with tech geeking morons
and fuckfaces.
logical clarity and communicative power is actually the salient
feature of my writing skill.
most of my post in the past month or 2, with my adaption to a chat
style to emulate and appease the tech geekers, are not carefully
written. My posts in the past decade, which i post at a intentionally
limited rate about 1 or 2 messages per week, are usually carefully
written, long, and each took 1 to 6 hours. (for detail, see
http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/why_cant_you_be_normal.html ) But
even in these posts, typically there are typos, spelling errors, and
many unintended grammatical errors, and some phrasing and structure
that could have been better. These type of errors gets fixed when i
later edit and put them to my website.
So, for example, my lisp criticism about its irregular syntax and cons
business, originally is just a post here as a side effect of aswering
a lisper's question about processing trees. Now, i've edited it
somewhat so it's on my website for more general public consumption:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
It still contains the fuck words. But say, if one day i decide to
publish my writings in a book, or say, submit to Calculus Esoterica
quarterly, then these writings serve as a draft.
As you know that recently we discussed emacs issues in gnu.emacs.help.
Many of them are on my website now, e.g.
★ Emacs's M-‹key› Notation vs Alt+‹key› Notation
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization_meta_key.html
★ Emacs Should Support HTML Mail
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization_html_mail.html
★ Emacs's HTML Mode Sucks
http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_html_sucks.html
★ Why You Should Not Swap Caps Lock With Control
http://xahlee.org/emacs/swap_CapsLock_Ctrl.html
★ Keyboard Hardware Design Flaws
http://xahlee.org/emacs/keyboard_problems.html
Since these are linked in a more visible section of my emacs & elisp
tutorial, so fuck words are edited out and rantiness are mostly gone.
They are still not book quality though.
you can get a glimps of what my book quality technical writings is
like, and perhaps evaluate it, at my emacs and elisp tutorials.
http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs.html
http://xahlee.org/emacs/elisp.html
The writing quality of the articles linked directly in that page, are
what i consider perfect technical writing. Though, they still exhibit
full idiosyncracy of me. For example, you will still see things like
the use of “i” for “I”, starting a sentence with a conjunction, lack
of conjunction at the penultimate position of a sequence, lack of “an”
form, “programing” instead of the more common orthography
“programming”, no use of period for abbreviations or middle names, use
of nested parens ... and quite a few others. Lol. It's that way
partly because i want to sting and elicit the grammarian and pundit
morons out there, and partly serve as education in general public (the
mechanism is by raising awareness (for example, if some grammar
sensitive moron hit me in some rude way in public, then i'll reply and
explain with a carefully crafted writing. Soon, the discussion will
snowball into a public controversy. Eventually, the world's top
experts in writing, linguistics, literature, comes out, and the
majority are likely to be on my side. This is when, the educational
purpose embedded in my “awkward” english takes effect, in fact carries
the seed of revolution. (as a example, did you notice how i mentioned
the origin of the word “OK” in gnu.emacs.help? The tech geekers
started to discuss about it and learn among themselfs, meanwhile,
reinforced my argument that the situation of the term “buffer” in
emacs isn't what they thought is.)).).
One might ask: “so where can i really see Xah's writings that
demonstrate its quality with respect to conventional English
standard?”. Well, if i write formal letter to strangers, love letter
to studious college girls, correspondence to government, educational
institutions, publishers, math journals, documentations for a company
or contract, personal communication to math professor friends and
acquatances etc, that's where. There are a few that are public that i
can cite, but i don't want to. But if anyone here really want to, you
can hire me to write technical documentation for you. I guarantee
you'll be satisfied or your money back.
O, actually, you can check out this work where orthodox writing is
employed:
“The Discontinuous Groups of Rotation and Translation in the Plane”
(1997)
Xah Lee
http://xahlee.org/Wallpaper_dir/c0_WallPaper.html
Written in 1997. That's before i have become a troll with my fully
developed bag of idiosyncracies. It is linked by math professors and
math institutions around the world, btw. (just ask, i'll show you the
hundreds of urls that link to it)
Btw, this year, i have replaced all proper use of “an” to all just “a”
on that site, in accordance of my kookiness that has developed in my
late recent life. If you want to see the “an” form, you can use
archive.org . I haven't become nutty enough to replace all “I” by “i”
in that work. Though it's on my mind.
> Your claim that you are a
> genius with a new style of expression is just a poor excuse for not
> having a good grasp of english grammer and an inability to honestly edit
> yourself to assist the reader rather than stroke your own ego.
when it comes to newsgroup, stroke my own ego takes priority than
education.
> Rather
> than an intelligent and philosophical genius, you come across as an
> extremely insecure, lonely and bitter individual who has trouble fitting
> in and blames everyone else rather than considering that their own
> actions and personallity may have some baring on the situation.
Thank you in general, for your feedback and views.
Possibly i'll write a reply to the other part of your message
concerning the lisp criticism.
Yesterday, i tried to post a respond to Rainer's valediction and
google groups alerted me that i've exceeded my posting quota for this
account. Lol. I'm the #1 frequent poster in gnu.help.emacs this month
and i'm the 3rd for comp.lang.lisp
(
see
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.emacs.help/about
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/about
)
That's quite a deed for someone who used to post just few a month in
the past decade. I'm not sure i want to post more. Also, i'm not sure
i want to keep up with the chat style posting like the gaggle of
newsgroup morons. My need to be aloof is tingling. Perhaps Kenny's
right, it's time to cut back on the drinks. (O, but it's so
addictive.)
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> 2008-08-22
>
>> With respect to your claims regarding your writing being better than the
>> average english professor or journalist, I have to say your sadly
>> mistaken. Your expressive style actually confuses and detracts from your
>> arguements. You seem to believe your style is a new radical form of
>> expression and those that criticise it are just morons who don't
>> appreciate your great talent. Such an arguement may have merit in a work
>> of fiction in which you are trying to push the boundries. However, it
>> simply detracts from what your trying to express when your dealing with
>> issues of fact or arguements regarding issues of technology, sociology,
>> philosophy or belief. If you honestly want to address such issues, you
>> need to express them in a clear concise manner that presents your
>> arguments without the distractions of unfamiliar style.
>
> You said it right. The question is, if i want to.
My mistake. I took your other claims of wanting to educate, teach and
open the eyes of 'tech geekers' as genuine. I didn't realise you were
deliberately trying to be annoying and offensive.
>
>> I persoanlly
>> always asumed your poor grammer was due to english not being your native
>> tongue. If this is not the case, then I'd just have to assume you were a
>> student who was above average at math, but below average in
>> english.
>
> Haha.
>
> My newsgroup writings are particularly crafted to entice the tech
> geeking morons. If the tech geekers thought that i'm new to english
> thus my bad writing, that's exactly what i want them to think. Due to
> my persistence and osmosis, they eventually realized that they are the
> victim of my advanced craft, and bang, they become my fan.
>
> This is somewhat like orgasm. Those with prolonged foreplay are the
> spectacular ones. So, i set out to tease and trap the morons. They
> think they got a idiot at hand. But i persist. They find my writings
> amiss yet cant resist. Lil' by lil', they sip and fight it. After a
> while, they come to a full realization that they are the underskilled
> ones, and that's when, they appreciate me more than if i just come out
> straight.
Reasonable rationalisation, but I think your deluding yourself.
>
>> This is not uncommon. Many students find the more precise
>> nature of maths easier to grasp than the less precise rules of english
>> grammer (noting that english is often cited as the most difficult
>> language to learn because of its inconsistent and complex grammatical
>> structure).
>
> Being someone with linguistic knowledge far beyond most tech geekers
> (i'd say my linguistic knowledge is, better than the average who has a
> degree in linguistics), i'd say that the notion of English being the
> most difficult language is largely the figment of the wasp.
Actually, that criticism of english usually comes form those whose
native tongue is not english, especially when they come from culture
where the language has a more consistent grammar.
>
>> If your aim is to communicate and educate, then yu need to
>> write in a style that makes your points clear.
>
> actually, the problem is just whether i want to eliminate the brain
> washing and insult elements when conversing with tech geeking morons
> and fuckfaces.
>
> logical clarity and communicative power is actually the salient
> feature of my writing skill.
>
Not in the way you demonstrate it in these groups.
> most of my post in the past month or 2, with my adaption to a chat
> style to emulate and appease the tech geekers, are not carefully
> written. My posts in the past decade, which i post at a intentionally
> limited rate about 1 or 2 messages per week, are usually carefully
> written, long, and each took 1 to 6 hours. (for detail, see
> http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/why_cant_you_be_normal.html ) But
> even in these posts, typically there are typos, spelling errors, and
> many unintended grammatical errors, and some phrasing and structure
> that could have been better. These type of errors gets fixed when i
> later edit and put them to my website.
>
> So, for example, my lisp criticism about its irregular syntax and cons
> business, originally is just a post here as a side effect of aswering
> a lisper's question about processing trees. Now, i've edited it
> somewhat so it's on my website for more general public consumption:
>
On the whole, its not the spelling, typos or even small grammatical
errors that make it difficult to understand your arguments. Your
phrasing is often poorly structured and actually makes it quite
difficult to determine exactly what your arguement is. this causes
confusion, which you obviously enjoy. However, it doesn't contribute to
your stated goal of teaching and educating. However, from this post, I
realise this isn't really what you want to achieve. It seems your more
interested in your own notoriety and ego stroking. Its what the English
would call 'being a wanker'. I'm sure you will like that label and all
credit to you if thats what you want. Personally, I find it difficult to
understand how the opinions of lots of faceless usernet users is of any
value. As the cartoon said, on the internet, nobody knows your a dog.
>
> It still contains the fuck words. But say, if one day i decide to
> publish my writings in a book, or say, submit to Calculus Esoterica
> quarterly, then these writings serve as a draft.
>
Others may disagree, but the 'fuck words' are not anything I have an
issue with. they are just words and in fact, I find it amusing we use a
word as an insult that represents something we all (or most of us) like
to do as often as possible.
>
> The writing quality of the articles linked directly in that page, are
> what i consider perfect technical writing. Though, they still exhibit
> full idiosyncracy of me. For example, you will still see things like
> the use of “i” for “I”, starting a sentence with a conjunction, lack
> of conjunction at the penultimate position of a sequence, lack of “an”
> form, “programing” instead of the more common orthography
> “programming”, no use of period for abbreviations or middle names, use
> of nested parens ... and quite a few others. Lol. It's that way
> partly because i want to sting and elicit the grammarian and pundit
> morons out there, and partly serve as education in general public (the
> mechanism is by raising awareness (for example, if some grammar
> sensitive moron hit me in some rude way in public, then i'll reply and
> explain with a carefully crafted writing. Soon, the discussion will
> snowball into a public controversy. Eventually, the world's top
> experts in writing, linguistics, literature, comes out, and the
> majority are likely to be on my side. This is when, the educational
> purpose embedded in my “awkward” english takes effect, in fact carries
> the seed of revolution. (as a example, did you notice how i mentioned
> the origin of the word “OK” in gnu.emacs.help? The tech geekers
> started to discuss about it and learn among themselfs, meanwhile,
> reinforced my argument that the situation of the term “buffer” in
> emacs isn't what they thought is.)).).
While I agree there are some people who are far too up tight regarding
grammar and can come across as grammar nazis, there is a point to having
structure - to enable clear expression of thoughts, ideas and points of
arguement in a way that is less likely to be misinterpreted due to
different understanding of what the text means and instead allow discussion,
arguement and debate over the content. From what you write, I can see
what your aim is, but I think your trying too hard or trying to be too
clever. However, it all probably depends on what your real motives
are. I had assumed you were more genuine and that was my mistake.
>
> Written in 1997. That's before i have become a troll with my fully
> developed bag of idiosyncracies. It is linked by math professors and
> math institutions around the world, btw. (just ask, i'll show you the
> hundreds of urls that link to it)
>
I don't understand why you feel its an achievement to be a troll. There
is little skill in achieving such a badge - in fact, many achieve it
without wanting to or even trying.
> Btw, this year, i have replaced all proper use of “an” to all just “a”
> on that site, in accordance of my kookiness that has developed in my
> late recent life. If you want to see the “an” form, you can use
> archive.org . I haven't become nutty enough to replace all “I” by “i”
> in that work. Though it's on my mind.
>
>> Your claim that you are a
>> genius with a new style of expression is just a poor excuse for not
>> having a good grasp of english grammer and an inability to honestly edit
>> yourself to assist the reader rather than stroke your own ego.
>
> when it comes to newsgroup, stroke my own ego takes priority than
> education.
so it would seem. Unfortunate perhaps. At least your intentions are now
clear and others may now have more insight into how to respond.
>
> Possibly i'll write a reply to the other part of your message
> concerning the lisp criticism.
>
I wouldn't bother. As I stated before, I believed you were genuine in
your claims to want to enducate and teach. I'm not interested in helping
you stroke your ego or feed your fantasies regarding being some sort of
usernet 'celebrity'. I will often give people the benefit of the doubt,
which may mean I'm more naive than I should be, but I now know
better. Thanks for at least coming clean and making your true motives
clear.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> My mistake. I took your other claims of wanting to educate, teach and
> open the eyes of 'tech geekers' as genuine. I didn't realise you were
> deliberately trying to be annoying and offensive.
My “deliberately trying to be annoying and offensive”, as you put it,
can be likened to, say, the beautiful pussy Hypathia. She got dragged
naked to death by the Christans.
You can see a naked picture of her at:
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/lacru/Charles_William_Mitchell.html
> I don't understand why you feel its an achievement to be a troll. There
> is little skill in achieving such a badge - in fact, many achieve it
> without wanting to or even trying.
i can't say it's a achievement or not. It's odd to even think of it
that way. In fact, the very existance of the concept, and the term,
“troll”, i take to be socially damaging. For detail, see:
“On Ignoring Trolls” (2002) by Xah Lee.
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/troll_ignorance.html
Quote:
«
I'll find a day to massacre them all,
And raze their faction and their family...
—William Shakespeare, in Titus Andronicus
magic a scissor i wish
so sharp and so cross
so that i can chop
chop off brainless heads
i would like to swing
a giant ax swing
off with their heads
of priests and deans
evil wish i be
hatred i behold
the righteous and the main
torture with no death
befalls to them
— Xah Lee
»
Tim wrote:
«I wouldn't bother. As I stated before, I believed you were genuine in
your claims to want to enducate and teach. I'm not interested in
helping you stroke your ego or feed your fantasies regarding being
some sort of usernet 'celebrity'. I will often give people the benefit
of the doubt, which may mean I'm more naive than I should be, but I
now know better. Thanks for at least coming clean and making your true
motives clear.»
O Tim, ease up on painting me.
Check out this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality
quote:
«Master morality weighs actions on a scale of good or bad consequences
unlike slave morality which weighs actions on a scale of good or evil
intentions. »
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
······@gmail.com wrote:
> Tim X wrote:
>
>
>>My mistake. I took your other claims of wanting to educate, teach and
>>open the eyes of 'tech geekers' as genuine. I didn't realise you were
>>deliberately trying to be annoying and offensive.
>
>
> My “deliberately trying to be annoying and offensive”, as you put it,
> can be likened to, say, the beautiful pussy Hypathia. She got dragged
> naked to death by the Christans.
Oh those whacky Christians. I missed that bit in her biography when I
was building the medal set for the Algebra software.
Not good.
>
> You can see a naked picture of her at:
> http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/lacru/Charles_William_Mitchell.html
>
That will make a better medal.
kt
---
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 21 Aug 2008:
> The Xah cannot be in error any more than Picasso can screw up by putting both
> eyes on one side of the face.
Kenny wins again. I am humbled by his insight.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
I don't think I'm alone when I say I'd like to see more and more planets fall
under the ruthless domination of our solar system.
-- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey [SNL]
The following are some additions to the my lisp criticism essay, that
are added as a result of this debate.
----------------------------------
Q: You say that lisp syntax irregularities “reduce such syntax's
power”. What you mean by “syntax's power”?
Here's some concrete examples of what i mean by power of syntax.
In lisp, the comment is done by the char “;” running to end of line.
Note that this does not allow nested comment. So for example, if you
have multi-line code, and you want to comment out them all, you have
to prepend each line by a semicolon. However, if you have nested
comment syntax, one could just braket the block of code to comment it
out. This, is a simple, perhaps trivial, example of “power of a
syntax”.
In Python, the formatting is part of the lang's syntax. Many
programers may not like it, but it is well accepted that due to
Python's syntax, python code is very easy to read, and it much done
away about programer preferences and argument about code formatting.
This is example of power of a syntax.
Let me give another, different example. You know that perl's syntax,
often the function's arguments do not necessarily need to have a paren
around it. For example, “print (3);” and “print 3;” are the same
thing. This is a example of power of syntax, when considered as a
flexibity or save of typing, for good or bad. Similarly, in javascript
for example, ending semicolon is optional. (for sample perl and python
code, see Xah's Perl and Python Tutorial)
In Mathematica, the language has a systax syntem such that you can
have fully uniform nested notation, or you have have a uniform postfix
notation, and prefix notation, as well as infix notation, for ANY
function in the language, and you can mix all of the above. This is a
example of power of syntax.
(for detailed explanation of Mathematica syntax and comparison to
lisp's, see: The Concepts and Confusions of Prefix, Infix, Postfix and
Fully Functional Notations )
In general, a computer lang has a syntax. The syntax, as text written
from left to right, has various properties and characteristics. Ease
of input (think of APL as counter example), succinctness (e.g. Perl,
APL), variability (Perl, Mathematica), readibility (Python),
familiarity (C, Java, Javascript, ...), 2-dimentional math notation
(Mathematica), ease of parsing (lisp), regularity (APL, Mathematica,
Lisp, ...), flexibility (Mathematica)... etc. Basically, you can look
at syntax, and programer's need to type them, from many perspectives.
The good qualities, such as ease of use, flexibitity, ease of reading,
ease of parsing, ease of input, etc, can be considered as the syntax's
power.
As a example of syntax of little power, think of a lang using binary
digits as its sole char set.
----------------------------------
Q: If you don't like cons, Common Lisp has arrays and hashmaps, too.
Suppose there's a lang called gisp. In gisp, there's cons but also
fons. Fons are just like cons except it has 3 cells with car, cbr,
cdr. Now, gisp is a old lang, the fons are deeply rooted in the lang.
Every some 100 lines of code you'll see a use of fons and car, cbr,
cdr, or any one of the caar, cdar, cbbar, cdbbar, etc. You got annoyed
by this. You as a critic, complains that fons is bad. But then some
gisp fan retort by saying: “If you don't like fons, gisp has cons,
too.”.
You see, by “having something too”, does not solve the problem of
polution. Sure, you can use just cons in gisp, but every lib or
other's code you encounter, there's a invasion of fons with its cbbar,
cdbbar, cbbbr. The problem created by fons cannot be solved by “having
cons too”.
----------------------------------
Q: I like the cons concept. Even in functional languages like Haskell
it is popular, e.g. when matching in the form of (x:xs), which is the
same like car/cdr in Lisp.
Languages that has a list datatype and First, Rest functions do not
mean it has lisp's cons problem.
One part of the cons problem in lisp is that it forces programer to
think of list in a low-level nested of 2-item construction, with
explicit functions like “cons”, “car”, “cdr”, “caar”, “cadr”, “cdar”,
“cddr”, “caaar”, “caadr” etc.
In other langs, the programer is not forced to think of nested 2-
items.
The other problem with lisp's cons, is that it hinders any development
of tree data structure. For example, one might write a function that
extracts the leafs of a tree. But due to lisp's list made of cons,
there is a different interpretations of what's considered a leaf.
Similarly, binary tree in lisp can be implemented either using cons
natively, or use so-called “proper list” that is implemented on top of
cons. Worse, any proper list can be mixed with improper list. So, you
can have a list of cons, or cons of lists, cons of cons, list of
lists, or any mix. The overall effect of the cons is that it prevents
lisp to have a uniform view of tree structure, with the result that
development of functions that work on tree are inconsistent, few, or
otherwise hampered.
----------------------------------
The full article is at:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
These are old arguments.
······@gmail.com wrote:
> The following are some additions to the my lisp criticism essay, that
> are added as a result of this debate.
>
> ----------------------------------
> Q: You say that lisp syntax irregularities ?reduce such syntax's
> power?. What you mean by ?syntax's power??
>
> Here's some concrete examples of what i mean by power of syntax.
> ...
Although I agree with your original statement, I think your response misses
the point. The stock Lisper response is "Languages like Python lack Lisp's
macros". So you should have said "Mathematica syntax is better and includes
much more powerful support for macros".
> ----------------------------------
> Q: If you don't like cons, Common Lisp has arrays and hashmaps, too.
> ...
Within the limitations of dynamic typing, it is clearly better to globally
replace Lisp's cons cells with arrays, as Mathematica did.
> ----------------------------------
>
> Q: I like the cons concept. Even in functional languages like Haskell
> it is popular, e.g. when matching in the form of (x:xs), which is the
> same like car/cdr in Lisp.
>
> Languages that has a list datatype and First, Rest functions do not
> mean it has lisp's cons problem.
>
> One part of the cons problem in lisp is that it forces programer to
> think of list in a low-level nested of 2-item construction, with
> explicit functions like ?cons?, ?car?, ?cdr?, ?caar?, ?cadr?, ?cdar?,
> ?cddr?, ?caaar?, ?caadr? etc.
>
> In other langs, the programer is not forced to think of nested 2-
> items.
>
> The other problem with lisp's cons, is that it hinders any development
> of tree data structure...
That is caused by typeless programming which is an inevitable consequence of
having a very rudimentary type system. Again, the only people who will
disagree with you will be those unaware of the alternatives.
> ----------------------------------
>
> The full article is at:
> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
Although I agree that Lisp is long since extinct I do take issue with your
claim that it was devoid of merit. Many successful languages have drawn
upon Lisp. Indeed, I would say that Mathematica is what Lisp should have
been.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?u
Jon Harrop <···@ffconsultancy.com> wrote on Fri, 22 Aug 2008:
> ······@gmail.com wrote:
Fabulous! I was hoping you might pop up on this thread.
Xah, meet Jon. Jon, Xah.
Xah: Jon is a huge fan of OCaml and F#, knows little about Common Lisp, but
loves posting on this newsgroup specifically to insult CL fans.
Jon: Xah is a huge fan of Wikipedia, possibly of Emacs Lisp, knows little
about Common Lisp, but loves posting on this newsgroup specifically to insult
CL fans.
I suspect you two will have much to talk about with each other. Between the
two of you, you ought to be able to keep this thread going for months.
All we need is a new brilliant analogy from Kenny, to put the Xah-Jon
conversation in context.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
We should have a Volleyballocracy. We elect a six-pack of presidents.
Each one serves until they screw up, at which point they rotate.
-- Dennis Miller
Don Geddis wrote:
> Jon Harrop <···@ffconsultancy.com> wrote on Fri, 22 Aug 2008:
>
>>······@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Fabulous! I was hoping you might pop up on this thread.
>
> Xah, meet Jon. Jon, Xah.
>
> Xah: Jon is a huge fan of OCaml and F#, knows little about Common Lisp, but
> loves posting on this newsgroup specifically to insult CL fans.
>
> Jon: Xah is a huge fan of Wikipedia, possibly of Emacs Lisp, knows little
> about Common Lisp, but loves posting on this newsgroup specifically to insult
> CL fans.
>
> I suspect you two will have much to talk about with each other. Between the
> two of you, you ought to be able to keep this thread going for months.
>
> All we need is a new brilliant analogy from Kenny, to put the Xah-Jon
> conversation in context.
Poor Don. He sees Lincoln and Bush are both US Presidents and thinks
they will have /anything/ to talk about.
Meanwhile, Xah cannot insult anyone because he insults everyone so it is
not an insult, just a measure of his frustration.
Have you people learned nothing from My Presence?
kzo
I'm brand new to this group. Do you guys try to discuss lisp here at
all? If anyone wants to think they are 'most high IQ' don't you folks
think it is better to let it be. In the interest of keeping such
forums noise-free?
-shiri
On Aug 17, 10:27 pm, shiri <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm brand new to this group. Do you guys try to discuss lisp here at
> all? If anyone wants to think they are 'most high IQ' don't you folks
> think it is better to let it be. In the interest of keeping such
> forums noise-free?
This question is definitely too intelligent for this thread.
(Not that we have any hope of keeping this forum noise-free anyway.)
Yes we do discuss Lisp, but there just isn't always anything technical
that's interesting to talk about. If you have a question, feel free
to start a new thread...
-- Scott
shiri wrote:
> I'm brand new to this group. Do you guys try to discuss lisp here at
> all? If anyone wants to think they are 'most high IQ' don't you folks
> think it is better to let it be. In the interest of keeping such
> forums noise-free?
> -shiri
I notice you did not say or ask or offer anything about Lisp. Had you
done so, this group would then be talking about Lisp.
See how that works?
In the meantime, things are a little slow around here during the
northern hemishere summer, we talk about what we can to keep our
keyboards from rusting.
hth, kenny
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:27:14 -0700 (PDT), shiri <··········@gmail.com>
wrote:
>I'm brand new to this group. Do you guys try to discuss lisp here at
>all? If anyone wants to think they are 'most high IQ' don't you folks
>think it is better to let it be. In the interest of keeping such
>forums noise-free?
>-shiri
We try ... but this group is not currently moderated so anyone is free
to post on irrelevant topics. If you follow the group for a while,
you'll learn whose posts you can ignore.
George
George Neuner wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:27:14 -0700 (PDT), shiri <··········@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm brand new to this group. Do you guys try to discuss lisp here at
>>all? If anyone wants to think they are 'most high IQ' don't you folks
>>think it is better to let it be. In the interest of keeping such
>>forums noise-free?
>>-shiri
>
>
> We try ... but this group is not currently moderated so anyone is free
> to post on irrelevant topics. If you follow the group for a while,
> you'll learn whose posts you can ignore.
I think you missed the fact that this clown's first post to a new NG was
to dive headlong into the noise and add to it with a load of holier than
thou crap bound to make more trouble. You are going to have him ignoring
his own posts, which means he will have to be blindfolded while he types
and if he is a touch typist he will have to be unconscious as well.
Hmmm, maybe you have something...
kt
On Aug 18, 12:10 pm, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> George Neuner wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:27:14 -0700 (PDT), shiri <··········@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>I'm brand new to this group. Do you guys try to discuss lisp here at
> >>all? If anyone wants to think they are 'most high IQ' don't you folks
> >>think it is better to let it be. In the interest of keeping such
> >>forums noise-free?
> >>-shiri
>
> > We try ... but this group is not currently moderated so anyone is free
> > to post on irrelevant topics. If you follow the group for a while,
> > you'll learn whose posts you can ignore.
>
> I think you missed the fact that this clown's first post to a new NG was
> to dive headlong into the noise and add to it with a load of holier than
> thou crap bound to make more trouble. You are going to have him ignoring
> his own posts, which means he will have to be blindfolded while he types
> and if he is a touch typist he will have to be unconscious as well.
Hi Kenny, you referenced to myna birds and trinkets somewhere in this
thread. I must admit, sometimes i don't understand your allusions.
What's myna birds?
I looked at Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myna
It is a beautiful bird!
------------
btw, recently i had a curiosity of whether hosting Olympics can be
considered a good economic investment. I posted the qestion to
rec.sport.olympics, alt.fan.cecil-adams, misc.facts.straight-dope .
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.cecil-adams/browse_frm/thread/1c447037605cdf97
From your posts, i learned that you are a sports fan. I was never much
into sports watching (but i like for example, skating, jogging,
swimming, juggling ...) Anyway, i gather you know more about sports
stadiums than me (of which people are talking about in my olympics
question). What do you think of the Olympics questions?
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
······@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 18, 12:10 pm, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>George Neuner wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:27:14 -0700 (PDT), shiri <··········@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>I'm brand new to this group. Do you guys try to discuss lisp here at
>>>>all? If anyone wants to think they are 'most high IQ' don't you folks
>>>>think it is better to let it be. In the interest of keeping such
>>>>forums noise-free?
>>>>-shiri
>>
>>>We try ... but this group is not currently moderated so anyone is free
>>>to post on irrelevant topics. If you follow the group for a while,
>>>you'll learn whose posts you can ignore.
>>
>>I think you missed the fact that this clown's first post to a new NG was
>>to dive headlong into the noise and add to it with a load of holier than
>>thou crap bound to make more trouble. You are going to have him ignoring
>>his own posts, which means he will have to be blindfolded while he types
>>and if he is a touch typist he will have to be unconscious as well.
>
>
> Hi Kenny, you referenced to myna birds and trinkets somewhere in this
> thread. I must admit, sometimes i don't understand your allusions.
That is because this normally inestimably erudite group let me down and
did not correct me with s/myna/magpie/.
The magpie likes to gather shiny things for its nest, including coins
and stray jewelry. Folks laugh at them because such things could have no
value to a bird, I was just asking how superior to the magpie could we
be if we find value in those things.
Let us pray.
>
> What's myna birds?
>
> I looked at Wikipedia.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myna
>
> It is a beautiful bird!
I meant no denigration of the birds!
>
> ------------
>
> btw, recently i had a curiosity of whether hosting Olympics can be
> considered a good economic investment. I posted the qestion to
> rec.sport.olympics, alt.fan.cecil-adams, misc.facts.straight-dope .
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.cecil-adams/browse_frm/thread/1c447037605cdf97
>
> From your posts, i learned that you are a sports fan. I was never much
> into sports watching (but i like for example, skating, jogging,
> swimming, juggling ...)
I do prefer playing to watching, but as I have gotten older I have
learned not to take for granted the excellence of the professional
athlete and that makes it much more interesting to watch them,
especially as they approach the decisive moment and they are struggling
mostly to control their minds. Folks say "it's just a game", but that is
wrong: once one enters game, the game is the universe. Sport becomes the
lab bench for human endeavor.
> Anyway, i gather you know more about sports
> stadiums than me (of which people are talking about in my olympics
> question). What do you think of the Olympics questions?
I have not heard any analysis of the cost and benefit, but cities sure
do compete (and bribe) like crazy to get the games. The cost must be
hard to assess because stadia live on after the games so the cost must
be amortized over time. Same I think with housing and rail transport in
and around the games -- those are all planned to serve as permanent new
infrastructure.
Sometimes the Games are the debutante ball for a nation, ironic in this
case because of China's long history, but in the micro view there has
also been a long isolation and 2008 must be to them the coming out
party. In hindsight China might think, wow, look where we are now
economically, we did not need these games to win global mindshare. But
competition to host the games starts ten years earlier so it really is
hindsight and anyway there is more than money at stake here.
Listening to person/street interviews on TV and in the past to friends
from China, my sense is that the Chinese are a proud people and very
protective of their nation and very much concerned with how the world
sees them. They are a great economic power now and long have been a
great civilization but the West still looks at them as a bunch of
peasants ruled by Tianneman Square crushing Commies.
China wants a new passport photo.
If I remember my Cliff Notes correctly, this concern with how others see
them is a first for China, resonating nicely with the Mighty Xah's
affable new profile on Usenet: you both have embraced the world. I
remember reading that the Chinese were the first to build great sailing
ships and explore the world but after they got a good luck at the yobbos
they sailed back home, burned the ships, and built the wall. That is one
way to deal with the yobbos, put perhaps no more: the global economy and
Internet have dragged us all into the same public square.
kt
Fun Footnote: Don King sold the rulers of Zaire on financing the amazing
Foreman-Ali fight as a way of transforming Zaire's world image. Many may
remember it as "The Rumble In the Jungle", but the Zairans quickly
complained that that kinda defeated the image thing, and the tag line
was abandoned by the participants. Just too good a rhyme to really die.
k
Kenny <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> I have not heard any analysis of the cost and benefit, but cities sure
> do compete (and bribe) like crazy to get the games. The cost must be
> hard to assess because stadia live on after the games so the cost must
> be amortized over time. Same I think with housing and rail transport
> in and around the games -- those are all planned to serve as permanent
> new infrastructure.
What is the cost of bread and circus? Obviously, it's negative for
the politician, and positive for the people, in the long term.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the
consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to
exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.
Kenny wrote:
> ······@gmail.com wrote:
>> Anyway, i gather you know more about sports
>> stadiums than me (of which people are talking about in my olympics
>> question). What do you think of the Olympics questions?
>
>
> I have not heard any analysis of the cost and benefit, but cities sure
> do compete (and bribe) like crazy to get the games. The cost must be
> hard to assess because stadia live on after the games so the cost must
> be amortized over time. Same I think with housing and rail transport in
> and around the games -- those are all planned to serve as permanent new
> infrastructure.
>
> Sometimes the Games are the debutante ball for a nation, ironic in this
> case because of China's long history, but in the micro view there has
> also been a long isolation and 2008 must be to them the coming out
> party. In hindsight China might think, wow, look where we are now
> economically, we did not need these games to win global mindshare. But
> competition to host the games starts ten years earlier so it really is
> hindsight and anyway there is more than money at stake here.
>
> Listening to person/street interviews on TV and in the past to friends
> from China, my sense is that the Chinese are a proud people and very
> protective of their nation and very much concerned with how the world
> sees them. They are a great economic power now and long have been a
> great civilization but the West still looks at them as a bunch of
> peasants ruled by Tianneman Square crushing Commies.
>
> China wants a new passport photo.
Hmmm, this sounds more compelling, and is from someone who unlike me
seems actually to know what he is talking about:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/148997
kt
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> Hmmm, this sounds more compelling, and is from someone who unlike me
> seems actually to know what he is talking about:
>
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/148997
Kenny brought us this article:
“China’s Agony of Defeat”
(It's impossible to understand what the Games mean to the Chinese
without understanding their history of humiliation.)
By Orville Schell, NEWSWEEK, Updated: 2:38 PM ET Jul 26, 2008
http://www.newsweek.com/id/148997/output/print
-----------------------
I general, i guess that is a applaudable effort of a westerner writing
to write fair. At least, it's better than some of the propagada styled
news about 2008 beijing olympics i've seen recently.
Here's some comments.
For a satire artwork of cutting China as a pie in the early 1900s by
UK, Germany, Russia, France, Japan, see bottom of:
★ Misc Satirical Artwork
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/lacru/sat.html
For a commentary of a song that describes Chinese's war-time era
roughly early 1900 to mid 1900, see:
★ 花样的年华 (Age of Blossom)
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/sanga_pemci/hua3yang4nian2hua2.html
the article wrote:
«One official raged that the gentle Dalai Lama was "a monster with a
human face, but the heart of a beast."»
... See this Excerpt:
* The Nobel prize's reason for giving peace prize to Dalai Lama
contradict facts. The Dalai Lama used violence in part with USA
support, and also used torture to control serfs.
* US's CIA has supplied weapons and trained guerrilla fighters to
aid Tibet in rebelling the Chinese government.
* The Dalai Lama is religiously selected as a reincarnation of
previous Lama. When the 13th Dalai Lama died, he seems to look towards
North East, and that's how the 14th Dalai Lama was found in Qinghai↗
(province) by the high ranking monks.
* Tibet is a theocracy. 5% high-ranking monks and landowners rules
the rest and owns the majority of properties and resources. Some 90%
are serfs and slaves (lowest caste; farmer slaves).
* The Tibetan Buddhism is a deviant Buddhism. It started about 7th
century.
* Tibet is a one of the most dark place. A serf's birth are
registered, they are serf for life. Serfs have to pay “body redemption
fee” in order to get married. Serfs can borrow money or raw food from
landlords, but with exorbitant interest (20% to 30% annual), and gave
documented cases in which serf took a few generations to pay back.
* Under 14th Dalai Lama's rule, 98% of populace are illiterate
(and ignorant). They would fight to eat Lama's shit as medicine. (the
Potala Palace↗ has a hole (instead of a toilet) for the Lama to
defecate, for the purpose of devotees to catch the holy shit)
* Historically, until Chinese communist entered Tibet in mid
1990s, Tibet rulers for thousand years use hard core torture to
control the serfs, including flaying, maiming, gouging eyes, and death
by scorpion, dissolving hand... etc unusual torture methods that
either kills or cripple the victim. Example: Human's bone are made as
trumpets, and skulls as bowels. Also a example: landlord has a 12 or
13 years-old girl serve as a treat to house guests, used as rape
victim.
* It is Chiang Kai-shek↗ who is the starting culprit for the Tibet
Independence movement, as a strategy to overthrow the Communist Party.
He also betrayed Chinese in 1945 by singing agreement with Russian
that made Mongolia↗ independent.
* Many ignorant in Taiwan and Western countries, follows Tibet
movement or Dalai Lama (such as reincarnation), also including some US
entertainment celebrities including Richard Gere and Steven Segal.
* Only the Chinese Communist Party, was able and have solved the
Tibet problem. In 1951, and 1959, they abolished the serf system,
outlawed torture and dismantled torture cells. And notably in 2007 by
opening the railway that goes into Lhasa, the heart of Tibet. (the
Qingzang railway↗)
Following is a quote from Bertrand Russell↗ in Has Religion Made
Useful Contributions to Civilization?:
What is true of Christianity is equally true of Buddhism. The
Buddha was amiable and enlightened; on his deathbed he laughed at his
disciples for supposing that he was immortal. But the Buddhist
priesthood — as it exists, for example, in Tibet — has been
obscurantist, tyrannous, and cruel in the highest degree.
---------------------------------------------
above from:
★ Li Ao on Tibet and Dalai Lama
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/tibet.html
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
On Aug 17, 2:58 am, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe it is about time to actually learn the programming language you are writing so much about?
>
> I think, perhaps it is time, for you to open your eyes, and see that
> the world doesn't revolve around Common Lisp.
Note that I said Lisp, not Common Lisp. Pick one.
Learn Scheme. Use it. Write code with it. Stuff that's longer
than five lines. Currently you are on a beginner level
in any Lisp.
The 'technical talk' here is to help people to write Lisp software.
That's why it is comp.lang.lisp.
Btw., I don't do Mathematica programming - I also don't post
to Mathematica-related newsgroups or mailing lists and try
to 'educate' people there. I would only expose my lack of
knowledge about Mathematica - like you expose your
lack of knowledge of Lisp here. Even if I learn enough
Mathematica to argue with people, why and who would care?
It would be a waste of time, unless I really have some
interest in the topic. But I don't have it.
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <48a78239$0$29514$607ed4bc@cv.net>
······@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 16, 4:40 pm, ·······@corporate-world.lisp.de" <······@corporate-
> world.lisp.de> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 17, 1:20 am, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Aug 16, 3:03 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>>
>>>>>>>>·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>>
>>>>>Publish it. Post it here. Post whatever certificates or test you have, with
>>>>>a scan of the cert or test, date etc. When i see that you published yours
>>>>>and mean it, i'll post mine.
>>
>>>>Again, I'm not the one making any claims.
>>
>>>>I just note that, as usual, you make strong assertions in your posts, but
>>>>when challenged to back up your statements with actual evidence, you
>>>>completely crumble.
>>
>>>LOL.
>>
>>>Crumble my ass. It appears you, who completely crumbled.
>>
>>>My statement that IQ that lead to your challenge was:
>>>«If you have fairly above average IQ like me, then, my general advice
>>>for long-term career choices is that pursue what you like and the
>>>bosses will compete their heads off to employ you. While you are still
>>>in a shoehorning stage, you can meanwhile mop McDonald's toilets.»
>>
>>>The remark was made in the context of making fun about lisp jobs
>>>status inquiry. You want to dig theXah'sIQ part.
>>
>>>LOL. Don, I LOL.
>>
>>>It appears to me, anytime some Lisper want to challenge me head to
>>>head, then i follow up with explict terms, they put their tail between
>>>their ass and run off all politely. This happened to Rainer, Geuner,
>>>Tim, others, and now you.
>>
>>>I LOLz. Comp.lang.lisp makes me happy. As Roger Rabbit said in Who
>>>Framed Roger Rabbit as he makes a silhouette of a window:
>>
>>> H A P P Y
>>
>>> Xah
>>>∑http://xahlee.org/
>>
>>>☄
>>
>
>>Well, given that you seem to be unable to learn much Lisp beyond basic
>>Emacs scripting,
>
>
> Huh? Rainer, suppose you have a argument in a bar, then you reasonably
> proved that you are right. But the monkeys simply kept on about how
> you are stupid and wrong? What can you do?
>
> That seems to be my situation here in comp.lang.lisp, repeatedly. I
> can again, start to write elaborately, cite url to past threads,
> describe the situation, etc. But it's no use.
>
>
>>nobody here is impressed yet.
>
>
> You think?
>
>
>>Most of your posts show that you have a
>>confused understanding of Lisp.
>
>
> Yeah, keep saying that doesn't make you right. You know at least that
> right?
>
>
>
>>comp.lang.lisp seems to be your
>>favorite
>>newsgroup now, but you are on a beginner level.
>
>
> Yeah, keep saying that doesn't make you right. You know at least that
> right?
>
>
>>If somebody
>>shows you some basic Lisp code (like I showed you how to easily
>>implement your Mathematica function with a better interface) you
>>run away and can't find the post.
>
>
> Huh? And i gave you explanation on how you are just incorrect and just
> very silly.
>
> The thread is here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_frm/thread/ee9519b32b4ef5d5/
>
> You know, in science there's a priciple of falsifiable. That is, if a
> claim is made, one important aspect of science with regards to claims
> is whether it is falsifiable.
>
> So, in our debates or argument, whatever the topic, it is often
> possible, to make the claim, argument, or subject, in such as way,
> that can clearly show which party is wrong. I have tried to suggest
> this here and there. But you morons, simply ignores it. Then, just
> kept claiming that how i was wrong.
>
> I don't think i need to tress or repeat again, that i think you guys,
> although knows lisp technical details, but as far as the general
> argument here, especial on any argument against me, are completely
> idiotic.
>
> And again, this can be phrased into into a reasonable way so we can
> all see who's all just hot air. Again, i tried to do this many times,
> with end result that you morons simply become quite, or start to went
> off completely off topic drivel, or whatnot.
>
> As far as newsgroup goes, perhaps it is doomed to be stupid drivels
> when it comes to issues or argument that has some element of opinion.
> What can i do?
The trick is an energy-saving one-liner high on wit and low on anger.
That manifests by example your superiority. And saves a lot of energy.
And scores better with the judges (the lurkers).
You see clearly you have no more hope with the average Usenet denizen
did Alice with her brunchmates, yet you persist. Doh!*
Your countryman said it best, "Win without fighting." Toss off a mot and
get on with yoru coding. Even if I slip and write something long and
angry I delete it all and replace with a one-liner.
Unless I am looped. :)
hth, kenny
* Wouldn't it be cool to have not a moderated forum but a /judged/
forum? Lurkers could score without unlurking? Talk about an addictive NG. k
---
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
>
>
>>I haven't seen any significant amount of Lisp code (remember, this
>>is comp.lang.lisp) in all the years from you.
>
>
> LOL. I didn't claim to have write many lisp code. What's your problem?
>
> I have claimed, for example, that i know functional programing more
> than you morons, and i have claimed and claim now, the fundamental
> problems lisp as shown in my essay here:
> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html
>
> We can, itemize the essay, make it into precise statements, and we can
> argue in detail. The statements can be made so that each is verifiable
> and falsifiable, and most of us would agree that it is a reasonable
> rephrasing from my essay. Then, we can argue in detail about which. Do
> you want to do that??
>
> And also, perhaps you might consider the whole essay is rather ill
> conceived by some wrong perspective, or perhaps there are more
> important or practical perpective, etc. But you have to give detail
> ok? You can't just say your opponent is wrong and think that you won a
> argument, ok?
>
> I mean, before i thought most morons in newsgroup just tried to fuck
> around. I made this suggestion particular about you in some thread
> maybe 6 months back. I made it explicit, a suggestion that we can each
> put money in paypal, as some way to make sure at least we are sincere.
> But if i recall, you more or less chicken out with some friendly
> words.
>
> Let me be more positive on this... since we don't have nothing to do.
> Let me suggest, you pick some particular claim i made that you think
> i'm stupid or wrong. Then, we can go on, with above guidelines perhaps
> about precision of statement, verifiability, fasifiability, and any
> other things about argument that make it a better one. Then, we can
> argue in detail. So, in the end, we can see who's more right.
>
> I'm not actually sure i want to do this since i'm quite tired and my
> REPEATED tries to be reasonable are often met with fucking morons or
> no response, here in this year, as well as the large, hundred+ threads
> in gnu.emacs.help this month. (go ahead, you can read it in
> group.google.com or nicely summarized and linked here bottom:
> http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/chat_style_posts.html
> )
>
>
>>All I saw is
>>some basic code how to script Emacs.
>
>
> Don't be a moron. What's scripting emacs has to do with what??
>
> Well, i haven't see you post a single line of Mathematica. LOL.
> All i see you do is posting Common Lisp scripts.
>
> Is creditial you are after now?? hum?
>
> I mean, i wrote some 500 or 1000 words on this to you in some thread
> about maybe 6 months ago. You forgot it all? huuh?
>
> What is your exact argument? What you trying to say??
>
> Let me help you... are you trying to say, that because since i don't
> have Common Lisp experience, and haven't written a lot emacs lisp,
> therefore my lisp language criticism is wrong or incorrect?
>
> Is that what you are trying to say? C'mon, no problem. If it is, it's
> a valid statement. We can start to argue about that.
>
>
>>All I see is long
>>text with often little information for this newsgroup. It's
>>not that everybody needs to be a good programmer, but from
>>you we have seen mostly zero.
>
>
> See above.
>
>
>>Maybe it is about time to actually learn the programming language you are writing so much about?
>
>
> I think, perhaps it is time, for you to open your eyes, and see that
> the world doesn't revolve around Common Lisp.
>
> I don't think this will ever happen. As i have explicitly said in one
> of the criticisms on your posts, that whever other lang is mentioned
> in a argument in a relevant way, you always as far as i've seen,
> completely ignore it, then bury your head into Common Lisp.
>
> I tried to not waste my time and type as fast as i can in this reply
> because from my past experiences repsonding you to in any argument
> that is negative on CL is fruitless.
>
> Rainer, suppose you have a argument in a bar, then you reasonably
> proved that you are right. But the monkeys simply kept on about how
> you are stupid and wrong? What can i do?
>
> What to do with the monkeys, seriously? I say 1+1 is 2, they say no.
> Then i show them logic, then say logic is not all. Then i show
> history, social context, but then they say it's all made up. I mention
> science, they say science can be wrong. I mention philosophy about
> epismitology, they say argument is not philosophy. I mention about 2
> stones placed together makes it 2. They say that's obvious but 1+1 is
> still not 2. I mention how abstraction is used, but they say stones
> are not abstraction. Rainer, what to do with the monkeys? This happens
> repeatedly here. Should i now take 10 min to find the exact url in
> groups.google.com about these threads? hum? should i should i should
> i? Is it worth that effort? worth it worth it worth it?
>
> I mentioned, explicitly, in one of my post to you, that we could hire
> arbitors for our argument. For example, we can hire renowned computer
> scientists to judge their valuation of my criticism of lisp. The
> hiring we can share, or prhaps someone knows someone can we can get
> him in here. We can make sure, that the arbitor is fair, and his
> result will be published say in some reputable publication. The
> arbitor will be ones we both agree as qualified. Right? I suggested
> this line of thought in the past, remember? But Rainer, what to do
> with the monkeys?
>
> Monkeys! Really fucking stupid monkeys. Stupid, fucking stupid,
> moronic, sloppy, idiotic, dumb, lackluster, brainless. Very ignorant
> about almost all subject except some technical details of CL.
> Extremely stupid....
>
> ok, this is what you get for fast typing. Try to respond, and i'll
> respond appropriately. I don't fear of typing fast now. For the moment
> i take a break of elaborate construction and composition. Folks,
> respond! show me the degree of your moronicity, and i'll show you in
> detail how it is so. (gratis!)
>
> Xah
> ∑ http://xahlee.org/
>
> ☄
Clearly ridiculous. Since intelligence is more or less the ability to
solve new problems,
you would need that same intelligence to be musically intelligent
(solving problems in music).
Clearly proven by the fact that solving musical problems is a type of
solving new problems.
As far as I can skim-read, google doesn't want us to knol about
multiple intelligence either:
http://knol.google.com/k/boris-kazachenko/intelligence/27zxw65mxxlt7/2#
Although they also have articles on business intelligence [cries].
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:06:47 -0700 (PDT), Ali
<·············@gmail.com> wrote:
>Clearly ridiculous. Since intelligence is more or less the ability
>to solve new problems, you would need that same intelligence to be
>musically intelligent (solving problems in music).
There are no problems in music ... you could string random notes
together and be certain that some tone deaf segment of the population
would pay to listen to it.
"Popular" music today is barely more than that - throw in too much low
bass and some off-key incoherent yelling and there you go.
George
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <874p5kgxch.fsf@geddis.org>
Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
> * Wouldn't it be cool to have not a moderated forum but a /judged/ forum?
> Lurkers could score without unlurking? Talk about an addictive NG. k
I greatly prefer threaded newsreaders for Usenet.
But in some sense, web forums like Digg or Reddit or Slashdot are much like
you suggest, aren't they? A place to post messages, with the audience voting
on how interesting those posts are. And the most interesting ones bubble up
to the top.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
It's true that every time you hear a bell, an angel gets his wings. But what
they don't tell you is, every time you hear a mousetrap snap, an angel gets set
on fire. -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
Xah Lee wrote:
«As far as newsgroup goes, perhaps it is doomed to be stupid drivels
when it comes to issues or argument that has some element of opinion.
What can i do?»
Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> The trick is an energy-saving one-liner high on wit and low on anger.
> That manifests by example your superiority. And saves a lot of energy.
> And scores better with the judges (the lurkers).
i can see that's the style you are inclined. LOL.
the problem with that is, there are already too many tech geekers who
like to do one-liner smart-ass comments. Forum are filled with so many
smart-ass one-liner slipslops. Other than amusement, there's not much
in depth opinion to be seen.
> You see clearly you have no more hope with the average Usenet denizen
> did Alice with her brunchmates, yet you persist. Doh!*
well, it's not like i dived into drivels to realize its the wrong
pool.
Writing, is kinda therapeutic to me, and is so to perhaps most
professional writers. In the past 10+ years, most of my newsgroup
posts are carefully crafted to sting the tech geeking morons and
illustrate their moronicity. I had a plan, that these writings not
only serve temporal purpose of venting and as etudes of creative
writing, but also contained content. These careful compositions, are
later archived and edited, so that i can eventually form a coherent
thesis. See for example, i've expressed this line of thougth in a post
in 2002 to Kent Pitman in comp.lang.lisp:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/tailrecursion.html
Excerpt:
«
The second important reason for me reading comp.lang.lisp, is that i
use it as on outlet of my meticulous crafted rants when opportune. I
could pick other newsgroups, but in general it is not fun if the
community does not welcome it. Trolling per se is not something that
interest me. As it so happens, that i started to read lisp newsgroups
around 1998 because i was learning Scheme, and i find the lispers in
general much more educated than, say, comp.lang.perl.* in which i use
to discuss on-topic perl related stuff now and then. So have i used
comp.emacs or xemacs often, and some ohter mailing lists as well. In
any case, my lavish rants tends to go to comp.lang.lisp.
The harmony of authorship and readership takes a matching. Imagine
Einstein ranting his physics theories to 17th century physicists, he'd
probably be kill-filed to death. Likewise, Larry Wall's drivel fits
the unix moron's minds to a tee; and that i find comp.lang.lisp has
the best readership for my rants among the few online discussions
groups i use.
My vague motivation, is for me in the future to collect my rants and
form a book. May it be a coherent account of unix & perl's damage to
society, with technical criticisms, or similar attacks to the slew of
fantastic fucking stupid imperative languages or the SQL language and
other software “technologies”, or cogent commentaries on the idiocies
of software industry such as the Design Patterns... i don't know. In
the last few years as i write more and more, i find myself enjoy
writing. I consider my act of writing soothing to my anger caused by
unthinkers in society. When my rants are offensive to unhtinkers, i
consider it a form of sweet revenge.
The other motivation is to educate people, but let's not talk about
that. Once you tell people that, all sorts of things come flying
against you, from hats of hypocrisy to spontaneous resistance. I find
that the best way to educate, is by means of covert brain washing. I
try to go in unassuming and rant my rants and get myself attacked and
kill-file announced, but behind the scene i stab people's brain with
sharp thoughts, jam their wires and screw their programs, totally
shattering the world of their minds. And when they try to recuperate,
to think ways of counter-attack, bang! I have succeeded in my goal.
»
* * *
You see, so i had some kinda master plan, that my posting in
newsgroups serves partly as a writing exercise, a soothing activity,
as well as basis for formulating a thesis. Most of my writings are
today edited and collected on my web site. For example, some entry
points are:
Computing And Its People
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/skami_prosa.html
Emacs and Lisp Related Essays
http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_essays_index.html
The Unix Pestilence (A gander into unix info tech industry & a logo
tour)
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/freebooks.html
Pathetically Elational Regex Language
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/perlr.html
Python Documentation Problems
http://xahlee.org/perl-python/python_doc_index.html
Netiquette Anthropology
http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/troll.html
Essays on logos (needs a index page)
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/logo_design.html
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/lambda_logo.html
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/logo_lisp.html
Almost all the essays in the above index pages are originally online
forum posts accumulated in the past 10+ years.
These essays on my site, are partly responsible for my site's high
popularity, as well the periodic “great thinker” email praises from
professors and all sort of unexpected walks of life i receive.
It is true that sometimes that these tech geeking moron's behavior
caused me some grief. Such happens more often, for example, in places
like Wikipedia or in places where these morons can ban you, censor you
etc, such as in irc, some online sites.
Once, in newsgroup, the spatting with morons escalated to legally
definable harassment. As you know, this happened during 2006 with a
guy who lives in comp.lang.perl.misc, which resulted in my web hosting
service provider kicking me off. I have a written record of it on my
site:
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/harassment.html
So yeah, spatting with these morons are not always a pleasurable
activity, but you can't enjoy gardening without getting pricked
sometimes.
> Your countryman said it best, "Win without fighting." Toss off a mot and
> get on with yoru coding. Even if I slip and write something long and
> angry I delete it all and replace with a one-liner.
>
> Unless I am looped. :)
>
> hth, kenny
>
> * Wouldn't it be cool to have not a moderated forum but a /judged/
> forum? Lurkers could score without unlurking? Talk about an addictive NG. k
that won't work. That is effectively done in slashdot and lots other
tech geeking forums, including for example, reddit.com . What happens
in such a system is that the tech geeking morons trash articles just
because they feels like it, then starting some mod wars among
themselves. The score of articles by popular vote has little
correspondence to the quality of the articles. At best, the articles
that floats to the top are just those that these tech geeking morons
like. For example, how OpenSource should rule the world, how Microsoft
is evil, how lisp is great, but how Perl gets the job done, how emacs
vs vi, how one should format his code, how scheme is most beautiful,
what's the latest fashion in coding (patterns, eXtreme Programing) ...
etc type of stupidities. You read these type of trite stupidities in
newsgroup at all times.
The problem at heart, is something like the cost of giving a opinion.
In conferences or meetings in a day job, people are more responsible,
because it effects their daily bread. Similarly, in more important
conferences or meetings, where people have to pay to join or give
opinion, such as voting in stocks, people are quite considerate about
what opinion or vote they give. I wrote elements of this in this
essay, see:
“Microsoft Hatred, FAQ”
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/mshatredfaq.html
excerpt:
Q: US Judges are not morons, and quite a few others are not morons.
They find MS guilty, so it must be true.
so did the German population thought Jews are morons by heritage, to
the point that Jews should be exterminated from earth. Apparently, the
entire German population cannot be morons, they must be right.
Judge for yourself, is a principle i abide by. And when you judge, it
is better to put some effort into it.
How much you invest in this endearvor depends on how important the
issue is to you. If you are like most people, for which the issue of
Microsoft have remote effect on your personal well-being, then you can
go out and buy a case of beer on one hand and pizza on the other, and
rap with your online confabulation buddies about how evil is MS. If
you are a author writing a book on this, then obviously its different
because your reputation and ultimately daily bread depend on what you
put down. If you are a MS competitor such as Apple or Sun, then
obviously you will see to it with as much money as you can cough out
that MS is guilty by all measures and gets put out of business. If you
are a government employee such as a judge, of course it is your
interest to please your boss, with your best accessment of the air.
When i judge things, i like to imagine things being serious, as if my
wife is a wager, my daughter is at stake, that any small factual error
or mis-judgement or misleading perspective will cause unimaginable
things to happen. Then, my opinions become better ones.
----------------------
Dear Kenny, this important letter is to inform you that you are a
winner of a free beer and pizza in bay area!
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
On Aug 17, 1:23 am, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the past 10+ years, most of my newsgroup
> posts are carefully crafted to sting the tech geeking morons and
> illustrate their moronicity.
What is more moronic: a moron or a guy arguing with a moron? They
look the same to me. And indeed here I am looking downright stupid...
> I had a plan, that these writings not
> only serve temporal purpose of venting and as etudes of creative
> writing, but also contained content. These careful compositions, are
> later archived and edited, so that i can eventually form a coherent
> thesis.
Not that anyone will ever read them any more than old Erik Naggum
posts...
> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/tailrecursion.html
"Dear Kent, like you, i also am curious about lots of things. For
example, i'm curious about why courtesans sell their pussies, and why
pussies have profound attraction to me."
LOL. At least you're a funny guy.
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <48a7ba69$0$20933$607ed4bc@cv.net>
namekuseijin wrote:
> On Aug 17, 1:23 am, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In the past 10+ years, most of my newsgroup
>>posts are carefully crafted to sting the tech geeking morons and
>>illustrate their moronicity.
>
>
> What is more moronic: a moron or a guy arguing with a moron? They
> look the same to me. And indeed here I am looking downright stupid...
>
>
>>I had a plan, that these writings not
>>only serve temporal purpose of venting and as etudes of creative
>>writing, but also contained content. These careful compositions, are
>>later archived and edited, so that i can eventually form a coherent
>>thesis.
>
>
> Not that anyone will ever read them any more than old Erik Naggum
> posts...
The good news being that Xah like Erik before him are Usenet Hall of
Fame shoe-ins, no matter what people read or do not read.
>
>
>>http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/tailrecursion.html
>
>
> "Dear Kent, like you, i also am curious about lots of things. For
> example, i'm curious about why courtesans sell their pussies, and why
> pussies have profound attraction to me."
>
> LOL. At least you're a funny guy.
There is some other criterion?
:)
kt
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <48a7b679$0$20941$607ed4bc@cv.net>
······@gmail.com wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
> «As far as newsgroup goes, perhaps it is doomed to be stupid drivels
> when it comes to issues or argument that has some element of opinion.
> What can i do?»
>
> Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The trick is an energy-saving one-liner high on wit and low on anger.
>>That manifests by example your superiority. And saves a lot of energy.
>>And scores better with the judges (the lurkers).
>
>
> i can see that's the style you are inclined. LOL.
>
> the problem with that is, there are already too many tech geekers who
> like to do one-liner smart-ass comments. Forum are filled with so many
> smart-ass one-liner slipslops.
Ah, but not all quips are created equal. It becomes like a shoot-out
instead of a 90-min football match. And the goal is not even to win the
shoot-out rather to disengage. The obtuse interlocutor is a blackhole
for us quixotics.
> Other than amusement, there's not much
> in depth opinion to be seen.
Once we have identified an unsatisfying correspondent we must break off,
using killfiles where their idiocy is irresistible to respond. Speaking
of which, do we have a name for the trick Harrop and before him Garret
mastered of saying things deliberately easy to knock down and then
ignoring the knockdowns and simply tossing out more fat pitches? Does
"Venus fly-trap" work?
>
>
>>You see clearly you have no more hope with the average Usenet denizen
>>did Alice with her brunchmates, yet you persist. Doh!*
>
>
> well, it's not like i dived into drivels to realize its the wrong
> pool.
>
> Writing, is kinda therapeutic to me, and is so to perhaps most
> professional writers. In the past 10+ years, most of my newsgroup
> posts are carefully crafted to sting the tech geeking morons and
> illustrate their moronicity. I had a plan, that these writings not
> only serve temporal purpose of venting and as etudes of creative
> writing, but also contained content.
Why you old idealist you! Actually, that is fine. Remember, we address
the lurkers, not those with whom we cross swords.
> Once, in newsgroup, the spatting with morons escalated to legally
> definable harassment. As you know, this happened during 2006 with a
> guy who lives in comp.lang.perl.misc, which resulted in my web hosting
> service provider kicking me off. I have a written record of it on my
> site:
> http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/harassment.html
Yes, your stock went up, the provider's went down on that one.
> that won't work. That is effectively done in slashdot and lots other
> tech geeking forums, including for example, reddit.com . What happens
> in such a system is that the tech geeking morons trash articles just
> because they feels like it, then starting some mod wars among
> themselves.
It is funny what happens when one creates rules. We fancy ourselves more
sophisticated than the myna bird and laugh at its gathering trinkets for
no reason (is it the myna?) and then dash off to these groups to pile up
points that mean nothing.
[Pascal, close your eyes, I am going to mention a commercial product.}
I am trying to tap that primitive aggrandizing instinct in my software
(http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/) by awarding points and virtual medals I
am sure Bear Stearns would eventually try to create a market in if they
were still around.
Are you a mathematician? I'll create a Xah Lee medal, confuse the hell
out of the kids. Might only be a bronze, though.
> When i judge things, i like to imagine things being serious, as if my
> wife is a wager, my daughter is at stake, that any small factual error
> or mis-judgement or misleading perspective will cause unimaginable
> things to happen. Then, my opinions become better ones.
Ouch. I like to say things I am only 51% sure of and see if some yobbo
puts a full-metal jacket correction between my eyes. Cheap thrills,
that's me.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Dear Kenny, this important letter is to inform you that you are a
> winner of a free beer and pizza in bay area!
>
woo-hoo! Thx, Xah.
kenny
On Aug 16, 9:23 pm, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
>
> Writing, is kinda therapeutic to me, and is so to perhaps most
> professional writers. In the past 10+ years, most of my newsgroup
> posts are carefully crafted to sting the tech geeking morons and
> illustrate their moronicity.
So you admit you are a total ass with a nasty attitude and agenda.
Great. Thanks for clearing that up. You have removed any doubt
whatsoever that you are being misjudged or judged too harshly. I
shall henceforth now waste one precious moment reading anything you
write or its repercussions on others. Good bye ugly life wasting
troll.
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <48b0ba17$0$20900$607ed4bc@cv.net>
samantha wrote:
> On Aug 16, 9:23 pm, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Xah Lee wrote:
>
>
>>Writing, is kinda therapeutic to me, and is so to perhaps most
>>professional writers. In the past 10+ years, most of my newsgroup
>>posts are carefully crafted to sting the tech geeking morons and
>>illustrate their moronicity.
>
>
> So you admit you are a total ass with a nasty attitude and agenda.
You make that sound like a bad thing.
Meanwhile, Xah just enunciated the same policy as Jesus of Nazareth,
Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Lenny Bruce, and George Carlin. Your
interpretation may be a tad subcharitable.
kt
On 23 ago, 22:32, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> samantha wrote:
> > On Aug 16, 9:23 pm, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>Writing, is kinda therapeutic to me, and is so to perhaps most
> >>professional writers. In the past 10+ years, most of my newsgroup
> >>posts are carefully crafted to sting the tech geeking morons and
> >>illustrate their moronicity.
>
> > So you admit you are a total ass with a nasty attitude and agenda.
>
> You make that sound like a bad thing.
>
> Meanwhile, Xah just enunciated the same policy as Jesus of Nazareth,
> Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Lenny Bruce, and George Carlin. Your
> interpretation may be a tad subcharitable.
They had noble goals, Xah doesn't. (well, in the case of Carlin,
making people laugh is a noble goal)
What are his goals? To get emacs to behave like notepad and to get
rid of Lisp's comments and syntatic sugar in badly written, pointless
and incoherent "essays". That's laughable, in a bad sense. It could
be funny, except for all the insults.
And it only gets worse when he seems unaware he's not as bright as he
portrays himself: he looks like the only "tech geeker moron" around.
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <48b10f44$0$20908$607ed4bc@cv.net>
namekuseijin wrote:
> On 23 ago, 22:32, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>samantha wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 16, 9:23 pm, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Writing, is kinda therapeutic to me, and is so to perhaps most
>>>>professional writers. In the past 10+ years, most of my newsgroup
>>>>posts are carefully crafted to sting the tech geeking morons and
>>>>illustrate their moronicity.
>>
>>>So you admit you are a total ass with a nasty attitude and agenda.
>>
>>You make that sound like a bad thing.
>>
>>Meanwhile, Xah just enunciated the same policy as Jesus of Nazareth,
>>Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Lenny Bruce, and George Carlin. Your
>>interpretation may be a tad subcharitable.
>
>
> They had noble goals...
So f*cking what? I was comparing policies of getting through to people
by bearding the lion, not content. I feel a naggum coming on. Please do
not respond to my articles if you cannot keep up.
, Xah doesn't.
Xah is sincere in his convictions. That is all that matters.
> (well, in the case of Carlin,
> making people laugh is a noble goal)
You think Carlin was just making people laugh? Oh, I see, you never
heard one of his routines.... either that or you are thinking about
Jerry Seinfeld. Seinfeld, Carlin, and Bruce were all comedic craftsmen,
but Carlin and Bruce went further. Bruce got his ass arrested and
convicted for the language Xah uses and every comic on the stage uses
every time they go out there (except Seinfeld) these days in a country
that runs around screaming about how wonderful it is with its Bill of
Rights which does mention somewhere freedom of speech while commiting
atrocities personal and institutional in war and Gitmo. I digress.
>
> What are his goals? To get emacs to behave like notepad and to get
> rid of Lisp's comments and syntatic sugar in badly written, pointless
> and incoherent "essays". That's laughable, in a bad sense. It could
> be funny, except for all the insults.
>
> And it only gets worse when he seems unaware he's not as bright as he
> portrays himself: he looks like the only "tech geeker moron" around.
The tongue clucking finger wagging judgment making Greek chorus stands
safely on the sidelines while the tragic hero climbs out on a limb and
risks all. The good news is that you are both happy in your roles.
kt
Kenny <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Xah is sincere in his convictions. That is all that matters.
That means that probably the best way to make him progress is to ignore him.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Nobody can fix the economy. Nobody can be trusted with their finger
on the button. Nobody's perfect. VOTE FOR NOBODY.
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <48b12ec5$0$29503$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> Kenny <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Xah is sincere in his convictions. That is all that matters.
>
>
> That means that probably the best way to make him progress is to ignore him.
>
At least the immediate content. The message of a good rant is carried by
a higher-order signal.
kt
From: Tamas K Papp
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <6hch0pFjv3ivU2@mid.individual.net>
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:38:55 -0700, namekuseijin wrote:
> On 23 ago, 22:32, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> samantha wrote:
>> > On Aug 16, 9:23 pm, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>Writing, is kinda therapeutic to me, and is so to perhaps most
>> >>professional writers. In the past 10+ years, most of my newsgroup
>> >>posts are carefully crafted to sting the tech geeking morons and
>> >>illustrate their moronicity.
>>
>> > So you admit you are a total ass with a nasty attitude and agenda.
>>
>> You make that sound like a bad thing.
>>
>> Meanwhile, Xah just enunciated the same policy as Jesus of Nazareth,
>> Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Lenny Bruce, and George Carlin. Your
>> interpretation may be a tad subcharitable.
>
> They had noble goals, Xah doesn't. (well, in the case of Carlin, making
> people laugh is a noble goal)
>
> What are his goals? To get emacs to behave like notepad and to get rid
> of Lisp's comments and syntatic sugar in badly written, pointless and
> incoherent "essays". That's laughable, in a bad sense. It could be
> funny, except for all the insults.
>
> And it only gets worse when he seems unaware he's not as bright as he
> portrays himself: he looks like the only "tech geeker moron" around.
I don't care what goals Xah has with trolling, but apparently quite a few
people reading this newsgroup have become the means to whatever he is
trying to achieve. Yes, he is trolling. But then some of you help him
by responding endlessly, inflating the threads he started far beyond what
their importance would justify.
I just don't understand what benefit otherwise intelligent people would
derive from becoming conversation partners to a disturbed individual.
Best,
Tamas
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <48b11080$0$20923$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Tamas K Papp wrote:
> I don't care what goals Xah has with trolling, but apparently quite a few
> people reading this newsgroup have become the means to whatever he is
> trying to achieve. Yes, he is trolling.
No, Harrop is trolling. Xah is sincere. If you cannot see his sincerity,
stop worrying abouyt Xah and start worrying about your ability to read
people.
> I just don't understand what benefit otherwise intelligent people would
> derive from becoming conversation partners to a disturbed individual.
Without fail, the best conversation partners are so disturbed they are
under treatment with psychotropic drugs. Or should be. :)
hth, kt
From: Tamas K Papp
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <6hckfnFjv3ivU4@mid.individual.net>
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:41:14 -0400, Kenny wrote:
> Tamas K Papp wrote:
>
>> I don't care what goals Xah has with trolling, but apparently quite a
>> few people reading this newsgroup have become the means to whatever he
>> is trying to achieve. Yes, he is trolling.
>
> No, Harrop is trolling. Xah is sincere. If you cannot see his sincerity,
> stop worrying abouyt Xah and start worrying about your ability to read
> people.
If he was sincerely looking for something, he would at least pay some
attention to the responses he gets, and would try to follow the advice of
others and write a bit of Lisp code. He does none of that: he has been
around for quite a while, and all the posts we get from him are the
regurgitations of his previous quasi-philosophical rants.
Whenever people take the time and make an honest effort to argue with his
points and correct his notions, they are ignored and he flies off on some
tangent. That kind of behavior doesn't strike me as particularly sincere
either.
I agree that he is not a malicious troll like the frog. But what is he
doing on c.l.l? He is neither willing to learn Lisp, nor is he capable
of helping others. All he does is raise obscure objections without
devoting at least a minimal amount of effort (eg googleing for 5 minutes)
to understanding what he is talking about.
> Without fail, the best conversation partners are so disturbed they are
> under treatment with psychotropic drugs. Or should be. :)
That is a romantic notion, and if you honestly believe that, I am sure
that you can easily find ideal conversation partners. I just don't see
why those conversations have to take place on c.l.l.
Tamas
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <48b12dbb$0$29525$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Tamas K Papp wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:41:14 -0400, Kenny wrote:
>
>
>>Tamas K Papp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't care what goals Xah has with trolling, but apparently quite a
>>>few people reading this newsgroup have become the means to whatever he
>>>is trying to achieve. Yes, he is trolling.
>>
>>No, Harrop is trolling. Xah is sincere. If you cannot see his sincerity,
>>stop worrying abouyt Xah and start worrying about your ability to read
>>people.
>
>
> If he was sincerely looking for something, he would at least pay some
> attention to the responses he gets, and would try to follow the advice of
> others and write a bit of Lisp code.
The witch doctor of a village is rarely also its CPA>
> He does none of that: he has been
> around for quite a while, and all the posts we get from him are the
> regurgitations of his previous quasi-philosophical rants.
It is what he does best.
>
> Whenever people take the time and make an honest effort to argue with his
> points and correct his notions, they are ignored and he flies off on some
> tangent. That kind of behavior doesn't strike me as particularly sincere
> either.
We need a good stallion-plow analogy here.
>
> I agree that he is not a malicious troll like the frog. But what is he
> doing on c.l.l?
The Statue of Liberty is closed for business, homeland security unable
to think of anything more subtle than drawing down the shutters and
throwing the deadbolts. c.l.l is the last refuge for the Jons and Xahs
chased out of every NG before, so cool we can absorb the witch doctors
and snake oil salesmen other NGs cannot handle. They love us, we
actually argue with them. They do not get that in other groups.
> He is neither willing to learn Lisp, nor is he capable
> of helping others. All he does is raise obscure objections without
> devoting at least a minimal amount of effort (eg googleing for 5 minutes)
> to understanding what he is talking about.
We need a good witch doctor-CPA analogy here.
>>Without fail, the best conversation partners are so disturbed they are
>>under treatment with psychotropic drugs. Or should be. :)
>
> That is a romantic notion, and if you honestly believe that
If you honestly believe that is romantic, you honestly know not of what
you speak. I feel sorry for you, you are missing out on some great
people. They are also the kindest, most decent, and most unjudgmental of
people for they have been through a lot (and done a lot they know was
not up to par).
Perhaps you cut and run at the first sign of madness. Maybe listen a
little, join in on the madness, see if you can keep up with their tea
party, but for the love of God do /not/ try to /reason/ with... anybody
got a link to "In Broken Images" by Robert Graves?
> , I am sure
> that you can easily find ideal conversation partners. I just don't see
> why those conversations have to take place on c.l.l.
Hello? Usenet?
kt
From: Tamas K Papp
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <6hcr67Fk8ffiU1@mid.individual.net>
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 05:46:16 -0400, Kenny wrote:
> The witch doctor of a village is rarely also its CPA
So what? Witch doctors do not have any track record of giving any
benefit to communities organized around programming languages.
>> He does none of that: he has been
>> around for quite a while, and all the posts we get from him are the
>> regurgitations of his previous quasi-philosophical rants.
>
> It is what he does best.
That may be true, but that still does not imply that he is the best at
what he does best, nor do we have to listen to him. It can very well
happen that juggling is what I do best, but that does not mean that I am
a good juggler, or that people will enjoy watching me juggle - I can
still be a lousy juggler.
> and snake oil salesmen other NGs cannot handle. They love us, we
> actually argue with them. They do not get that in other groups.
You may be right, but that does not mean that this state of affairs is a
desirable one.
>>>Without fail, the best conversation partners are so disturbed they are
>>>under treatment with psychotropic drugs. Or should be. :)
>>
>> That is a romantic notion, and if you honestly believe that
>
> If you honestly believe that is romantic, you honestly know not of what
> you speak. I feel sorry for you, you are missing out on some great
> people. They are also the kindest, most decent, and most unjudgmental of
> people for they have been through a lot (and done a lot they know was
> not up to par).
Perhaps I am spoiled, but I meet a lot of kind, decent and unjudgmental
people anyhow, so I don't have to look for disturbed people on purpose.
If you do, I also feel sorry for you.
But that is beside the point, as Xah does not strike me as kind or
unjudgmental in particular. Maybe he is decent, deep down, but I just
don't know enough about him to say either way.
Best,
Tamas
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <48b14d75$0$29517$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Tamas K Papp wrote:
> Perhaps I am spoiled, but I meet a lot of kind, decent and unjudgmental
> people anyhow,
Sure, salt of the earth, utterly dull. Recall the question was, what
purpose do some people serve in an NG.
> so I don't have to look for disturbed people on purpose.
Move to NYC, you won't have to look.
> If you do, I also feel sorry for you.
If one's heart is open one does not have to look. They are all around
us. Simply adjust the gain on your antenna and the ravings become poetry.
Now I have to go refill my sactimony tank...
kt
From: Frank GOENNINGER
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <lzy72m5jog.fsf@goenninger.net>
Kenny <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Tamas K Papp wrote:
>
>> I don't care what goals Xah has with trolling, but apparently quite
>> a few people reading this newsgroup have become the means to
>> whatever he is trying to achieve. Yes, he is trolling.
>
> No, Harrop is trolling. Xah is sincere.
That exactly is what should worry all readers of Xah's posts. I have
had enough of these postings here, so I do what I normally try to
avoid: Post a non-Lisp related article here in c.l.l. as I am just too
upset (and yes, I *do* know that this is very goal our dear Xah has).
We have seen many postings of his "essays". For me, the classification
of these texts are like propaganda:
They
1. have a message,
2. are repeated over and over,
3. are sent without having asked for,
4. do not intend to sincerely ask for interactive exchange of
information,
5. are written to leave room for interpretation,
6. are aiming to polarize the audience.
Again, I want to emphasize that this is *my* classification, not meant
to be disiputed or questioned or to be made into an objective observation
in any scientific sense.
> If you cannot see his
> sincerity, stop worrying abouyt Xah and start worrying about your
> ability to read people.
2 comments to this:
For one, a person trying to distribute propaganda sincerely is case
for observing closely what is happening. I am German. I do know what
propaganda can lead to.
On a second point I still do have the feeling
that, by either intently or by sheer inability, Xah is writing in a
vague English wording and this leads to a difficulty in reading his
texts, let alone read him.
>
>> I just don't understand what benefit otherwise intelligent people
>> would derive from becoming conversation partners to a disturbed
>> individual.
>
> Without fail, the best conversation partners are so disturbed they are
> under treatment with psychotropic drugs. Or should be. :)
>
> hth, kt
Ok, non-native English speaker here. I do not get the real meaning
of that last paragraph, Kenny, I fear. Could you elaborate? Thx!
Frank
--
Frank Goenninger
frgo(at)me(dot)com
"Don't ask me! I haven't been reading comp.lang.lisp long enough to
really know ..."
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <48b1f4e3$0$29499$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Frank GOENNINGER wrote:
> Kenny <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Tamas K Papp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't care what goals Xah has with trolling, but apparently quite
>>>a few people reading this newsgroup have become the means to
>>>whatever he is trying to achieve. Yes, he is trolling.
>>
>>No, Harrop is trolling. Xah is sincere.
>
>
> That exactly is what should worry all readers of Xah's posts. I have
> had enough of these postings here, so I do what I normally try to
> avoid: Post a non-Lisp related article here in c.l.l. as I am just too
> upset (and yes, I *do* know that this is very goal our dear Xah has).
>
> We have seen many postings of his "essays". For me, the classification
> of these texts are like propaganda:
>
> They
>
> 1. have a message,
> 2. are repeated over and over,
> 3. are sent without having asked for,
> 4. do not intend to sincerely ask for interactive exchange of
> information,
> 5. are written to leave room for interpretation,
> 6. are aiming to polarize the audience.
>
> Again, I want to emphasize that this is *my* classification, not meant
> to be disiputed or questioned or to be made into an objective observation
> in any scientific sense.
>
>
>>If you cannot see his
>>sincerity, stop worrying abouyt Xah and start worrying about your
>>ability to read people.
>
>
> 2 comments to this:
>
> For one, a person trying to distribute propaganda sincerely is case
> for observing closely what is happening. I am German. I do know what
> propaganda can lead to.
"sincere propaganda"? :)
Come on, Xah used to make about one (clearly) heartfelt post a month. I
see no guile in the man.
>
> On a second point I still do have the feeling
> that, by either intently or by sheer inability, Xah is writing in a
> vague English wording and this leads to a difficulty in reading his
> texts, let alone read him.
Perhaps Xah began posting more copiously at just the right time for me,
when I am too busy Writing Applications to read anything longer than a
few lines.
>
>
>>>I just don't understand what benefit otherwise intelligent people
>>>would derive from becoming conversation partners to a disturbed
>>>individual.
>>
>>Without fail, the best conversation partners are so disturbed they are
>>under treatment with psychotropic drugs. Or should be. :)
>>
>>hth, kt
>
>
> Ok, non-native English speaker here. I do not get the real meaning
> of that last paragraph, Kenny, I fear. Could you elaborate? Thx!
haha, this is a rara case where literal translation would work -- I do
not see anything to clarify. Of course there is some hyperbole in there,
but I am sure you have adjusted the gain on your antenna for me.
I'll try again: round about the fourth instance I decided it was no
accident that the most intelligent, engaged, interested, interesting,
and decent people I had ever met were bonkers enough to be on meds.
Literally.
kt
In article <··············@goenninger.net>,
Frank GOENNINGER <·············@nomail.org> wrote:
> Kenny <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Tamas K Papp wrote:
> >
> >> I don't care what goals Xah has with trolling, but apparently quite
> >> a few people reading this newsgroup have become the means to
> >> whatever he is trying to achieve. Yes, he is trolling.
> >
> > No, Harrop is trolling. Xah is sincere.
>
> That exactly is what should worry all readers of Xah's posts. I have
> had enough of these postings here, so I do what I normally try to
> avoid: Post a non-Lisp related article here in c.l.l. as I am just too
> upset (and yes, I *do* know that this is very goal our dear Xah has).
>
> We have seen many postings of his "essays". For me, the classification
> of these texts are like propaganda:
>
> They
>
> 1. have a message,
> 2. are repeated over and over,
> 3. are sent without having asked for,
> 4. do not intend to sincerely ask for interactive exchange of
> information,
> 5. are written to leave room for interpretation,
> 6. are aiming to polarize the audience.
>
> Again, I want to emphasize that this is *my* classification, not meant
> to be disiputed or questioned or to be made into an objective observation
> in any scientific sense.
>
> > If you cannot see his
> > sincerity, stop worrying abouyt Xah and start worrying about your
> > ability to read people.
>
> 2 comments to this:
>
> For one, a person trying to distribute propaganda sincerely is case
> for observing closely what is happening. I am German. I do know what
> propaganda can lead to.
When I was in University attending some maths lecture,
we had some older guy giving small
pages with text and formulas away - to the young students,
after the lecture.
I read one of those. The guy was arguing that PI was
a rational number. He explained that there was some
conspiracy going on so that this truth is not revealed
to the public. He spend lots of time to create fancy
drawings - probably the paper was typeset with something
like TeX - which at that time was not that widely available.
Xah's stuff about Lisp is on that level. He spends lots
of time to argue about something he don't understands,
has no experience with and which is basically flawed.
Since he is trapped in his small world, there is little hope
that he finds a way out. Some other of his stuff (non-Lisp)
can be semi-interesting. But his personal style attacking
people and religious anti-lisp stuff let's me have
enough of him. Even if one would find some time
discussing things with him - in the end it leads to nothing.
There is no progress and little to be learned from it -
so it is a time waste.
>
> On a second point I still do have the feeling
> that, by either intently or by sheer inability, Xah is writing in a
> vague English wording and this leads to a difficulty in reading his
> texts, let alone read him.
>
> >
> >> I just don't understand what benefit otherwise intelligent people
> >> would derive from becoming conversation partners to a disturbed
> >> individual.
> >
> > Without fail, the best conversation partners are so disturbed they are
> > under treatment with psychotropic drugs. Or should be. :)
> >
> > hth, kt
>
> Ok, non-native English speaker here. I do not get the real meaning
> of that last paragraph, Kenny, I fear. Could you elaborate? Thx!
>
> Frank
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
From: Tamas K Papp
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <6hdr2tFkdhveU3@mid.individual.net>
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:20:34 +0200, Rainer Joswig wrote:
> I read one of those. The guy was arguing that PI was a rational number.
> He explained that there was some conspiracy going on so that this truth
> is not revealed to the public. He spend lots of time to create fancy
> drawings - probably the paper was typeset with something like TeX -
> which at that time was not that widely available.
I have a friend who is a mathematician at a major US university.
Apparently their Math department gets quite a bit of mail from crackpots
who claim similar things. Some even come to the building and put up
fliers (!).
Tamas
In article <··············@mid.individual.net>,
Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:20:34 +0200, Rainer Joswig wrote:
>
> > I read one of those. The guy was arguing that PI was a rational number.
> > He explained that there was some conspiracy going on so that this truth
> > is not revealed to the public. He spend lots of time to create fancy
> > drawings - probably the paper was typeset with something like TeX -
> > which at that time was not that widely available.
>
> I have a friend who is a mathematician at a major US university.
> Apparently their Math department gets quite a bit of mail from crackpots
> who claim similar things. Some even come to the building and put up
> fliers (!).
Same here with Xah and c.l.l.
>
> Tamas
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
A moron Tamas K Papp wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:20:34 +0200, Rainer Joswig wrote:
> > I read one of those. The guy was arguing that PI was a rational number.
> > He explained that there was some conspiracy going on so that this truth
> > is not revealed to the public. He spend lots of time to create fancy
> > drawings - probably the paper was typeset with something like TeX -
> > which at that time was not that widely available.
>
> I have a friend who is a mathematician at a major US university.
> Apparently their Math department gets quite a bit of mail from crackpots
> who claim similar things. Some even come to the building and put up
> fliers (!).
For you ignorant lisp morons out there, on the issues of math
crackpots , see:
Printed References On Plane Curves
http://xahlee.org/SpecialPlaneCurves_dir/Intro_dir/references.html
Quote:
«
Title:The Trisectors (amazon.com↗)
Author: Underwood Dudley↗
Publisher: Mathematical Association of America
Date: 1994-12
Comment: Exposition of the many angle-trisectors in history. This is a
very well written fascinating book. The author takes us thru the many
trisetors that he personally had been contacted or visited. He tells
us who they are, what they do, and what kind of ilk are they, if any.
One'd be surprised the numerousness of them besiege unisersities's
math department, even today.
It is interesting to note, that I myself have actually been contacted
by a angle-trisector in 2001, and asked by him to do some illustration
for him. The person actually hoped that I could help him broadcast his
“great discovery”. I tried to convince him that it is not possible,
and during the first meeting, realized that this persuasion is
impossible. It is with this incident when I found this book by
Underwood, and in fact, this trisector in particular is accounted in
the book. I contacted Underwood and confirmed the identity. (I did, in
fact, actually agreed to do drawing for the trisector and got paid for
it)
»
See also:
The Condition of Industrial Programers
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/it_programers.html
plain text version follows:
-------------------------------
Xah Lee, 2006-05
Before i stepped into the computing industry, my first industrial
programing experience was at Wolfram Research Inc as a intern in 1995.
(Wolfram Research is famously known for their highly successful
flagship product Mathematica) I thought, that the programers at
Wolfram are the world's top mathematicians, gathered together to
research and decide and write a extremely advanced technology. But i
realized it is not so. Not at all. In fact, we might say it's just a
bunch of Ph Ds (or equivalent experience). The people there, are not
unlike average white-collar Joes. Each working individually. And,
fights and bouts of arguments between co-workers are not uncommon.
Sometimes downright ugly in emails. Almost nothing is as i naively
imagined, as if some world's top mathematicians are gathered together
there, daily to confer and solve the world's top problems as in some
top secret government agency depicted in movies.
Well, that was my introduction to the industry. The bulk of my
surprise is due to my naiveness and inexperience of the industry, of
any industry, as i was just a intern and this is my first experience
seeing how the real world works.
After Wolfram, after a couple of years i went into the web programing
industry in 1998, using unix, Perl, Apache, Java, database
technologies, in the center of world's software technology the Silicon
Valley. My evaluation of industrial programers and how software are
written is a precipitous fall from my observations at Wolfram. In the
so-called Info Tech industry, the vast majority of programers are
poorly qualified. I learned this from my colleagues, and in dealing
with programers from other companies, service providers, data centers,
sys admins, API gateways, and duties of field tutoring. I didn't think
i have very qualified expertise in what i do, but the reality i
realized is that most are far lesser than me, and that is the common
situation. That they have no understanding of basic mathematics such
as trigonometry or calculus. Most have no interest in math whatsoever,
and would be hard pressed for them to explain what is a “algorithm”.
I have always thought, that programing X software of field Y usually
means that the programers are thoroughly fluent in languages,
protocols, tools of X, and also being a top expert in field of Y. But
to my great surprise, the fact is that that is almost never the case.
In fact, most of the time the programers simply just had to learn a
language, protocol, software tool, right at the moment as he is trying
to implement a software for a field he never had experience in. I
myself had to do jobs half of the time i've never done before.
Constantly I'm learning new languages, protocols, systems, tools,
APIs, other rising practices and technologies, reading semi-written or
delve into non-existent docs. It is the norm in the IT industry, that
most products are really produces of learning experiences. Extremely
hurried grasping of new technologies in competition with deadlines.
There is in fact little actual learning going on, as there are immense
pressure to simply “get it to (demonstrably) work” and ship it.
Thinking back, in fact the Wolfram people are the most knowledgeable
and inquisitive people i've met as colleagues, by far.
What prompted me to write this essay is after reading the essay Teach
Yourself Programming in Ten Years by Peter Norvig, 2001, at
http://www.norvig.com/21-days.html. In which, the LISP dignitary Peter
Norvig derides the widely popular computing books in the name of
Teaching Yourself X In (Fast) Days. Although i agree with his
sentiment that a language or technology takes time to master and use
well, that these books form somewhat of a damaging fad and subtly
multiply ignorance, but he fails to address the main point, that is:
the cause of the popularity of such books, and how to remedy the
situation.
When you work in the industry, and are given a responsibility of
coding in some new language the company decided to use, or emerging
protocol (such as voice-chat protocols or cellphone internet), or your
engineering group adopted a new team coding/reviewing process, you are
not going to tell you boss “nah, i want to do a good job so i'll study
the issue a few months before i contribute”. Chances are, you are
going to run out and buy a copy of “XYZ in 7 days”, and complete the
job in a way satisfactorily to your company, as well feeling proud of
your abilities in acquiring new material.
To see this in a different context, suppose you need to pass a
important Math XYZ exam or review in your career or get a certificate,
but you don't remember your Math XYZ. You will likely, run out and get
a “Math XYZ for Dummies”. Chances are, the book will indeed help you,
and you will pass your exam or interview, and actually have learned
something about XYZ, but never looked at Math XYZ squarely again.
These books are the bedrock of the industry. It is not because people
are impatient, or that they wish to hurry, but rather, it is the
condition of the IT industry, in the same way modern society drives
people to live certain life styles. No amount of patience or
proselytization can right this, except that we change the industry's
practice of quickly churning out bug-ridden software products to beat
competitors. Companies do that due to market forces, and the market
forces is a result of how people and organizations actually choose to
purchase software. In my opinion, a solution to this is by installing
the concept of responsible licenses. Please see this essay Responsible
Software Licensing and spread the word, at
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html .
-----------------------------------
The reason, that many of the lispers here, are quite opaque to lisp's
problems despite repeated complaints from users for decades and
detailed expositions, can be compared to the numerous fanatics in
various sectors in society, from Mac fanatics to Christian fanatics to
flat earthers. It is interesting, that often the psychology of
behavior of human animals override rationality. This i think has
evolution psychology basis, i.e. such behavior are actually beneficial
to such people under the circumstances for at least short duration.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 03:41:54 -0700 (PDT), ·······@gmail.com"
<······@gmail.com> wrote:
>Extremely
>hurried grasping of new technologies in competition with deadlines.
Actually, I've been personally acquainted with this problem and what
it entails, having worked for a short time as a liaison ("Project
Manager") between Japanese marketing personnel in Japan who didn't
speak English and Bangladesh PHP programmers in Bangladesh who spoke
very poor English.
One Bangladesh programmer who happened to be working locally in that
same office in Japan, when hearing of the problem of lack of learning
of new technologies, said that he thought that one solution was to
have programmers work in pairs, with one senior, experienced
programmer acting as a mentor to a junior programmer.
The problem with this approach is that it doesn't help much in
learning pioneer technologies; it only helps with technologies in
which the senior programmer already has some experience/knowledge.
To my astonishment, I once read somewhere that the average number of
programming language theory research papers that the average
programmer reads in a month is zero. At first, I couldn't believe
this. But having worked as a liaison between programmers and
marketing staff, I think it is quite true.
Most of the programmers whom I worked with were not interested in
programming theory, or even in programming per se, and spent most of
their free time in the office watching giant centipedes eating mice on
YouTube, chatting in Yahoo! Messenger, or sending e-mail. Once, I
tried discussing the Towers of Hanoi problem with one of them, and he
replied that it was "a very hard problem" in programming. I couldn't
believe this. Towers of Hanoi is a first-year student problem for
computer science students!
The problem seems to be one of lack of time and lack of interest. Most
programmers seem to be force-fed programming technologies that they
are not interested in, in a manner in which they are not allowed to
explore what is interesting about the topic. Therefore, they learn to
hate the topic, and proceed to spend all their free time trying to
forget about programming.
Curiosity is essential to learning, yet the environment does
everything it can to quash any potential curiosity. No wonder there
is no learning!
-- Benjamin L. Russell
On 3 set, 04:30, Benjamin L. Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> Most of the programmers whom I worked with were not interested in
> programming theory, or even in programming per se, and spent most of
> their free time in the office watching giant centipedes eating mice on
> YouTube, chatting in Yahoo! Messenger, or sending e-mail.
Or reading newsgroups, if they are old-timers... ;)
> Once, I
> tried discussing the Towers of Hanoi problem with one of them, and he
> replied that it was "a very hard problem" in programming. I couldn't
> believe this. Towers of Hanoi is a first-year student problem for
> computer science students!
That's the typical everyday joe. Most people I know from IT only
really know SQL as a programming language. And that is just to fetch
their precious user data in order to feed them to business rules
processors. Why should they give any thought to interesting new
problems so far fetched from their everyday domain? They just let
others write creative tools for them and are happy to just be the
middlemen between tools and users.
> Therefore, they learn to
> hate the topic, and proceed to spend all their free time trying to
> forget about programming.
Yes, but lack of curiosity and no desire to learn is all their fault
really. Most people are cattle and just enjoy eating grass, if there
is any. If there isn't any, they just die.
On Sep 4, 12:25 am, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> define-symbol-macro?
>
> What the hell is that?
>
> s/b defsymmacro, I smell a Schemer. :(
>
> kenny
Brought to you by the Lispers who don't want to remove the fun from
their functions, the letter Qute, and the number 2.
P� Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:25:06 +0200, skrev Kenny <·········@gmail.com>:
> define-symbol-macro?
>
> What the hell is that?
>
> s/b defsymmacro, I smell a Schemer. :(
>
Same as define-condition, a Pitman name ;) (He prefers whole words
remember)
It associates a symbol with a form which is verbatimly substituted in for
the symbol.
It was introduced to Lisp to support with-slots and with-accessors.
As such it is rarely called directly, but sometimes used in macros.
--------------
John Thingstad
On Sep 4, 12:25 am, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> define-symbol-macro?
>
> What the hell is that?
>
> s/b defsymmacro, I smell a Schemer. :(
(def symbol-macro kenny ...)
if you sue DEFINER :)
Cheers
--
Marco
Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| define-symbol-macro?
| What the hell is that?
| s/b defsymmacro, I smell a Schemer. :(
+---------------
Indeed! See <http://rpw3.org/hacks/lisp/deflex.lisp>
for how a *former* Schemer uses DEFINE-SYMBOL-MACRO
to make life in a CL REPL a little more comfortable
(or a little more like Scheme, your choice). ;-} ;-}
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
namekuseijin wrote:
> On 3 set, 04:30, Benjamin L. Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Most of the programmers whom I worked with were not interested in
> > programming theory, or even in programming per se, and spent most of
> > their free time in the office watching giant centipedes eating mice on
> > YouTube, chatting in Yahoo! Messenger, or sending e-mail.
>
> Or reading newsgroups, if they are old-timers... ;)
>
> > Once, I
> > tried discussing the Towers of Hanoi problem with one of them, and he
> > replied that it was "a very hard problem" in programming. I couldn't
> > believe this. Towers of Hanoi is a first-year student problem for
> > computer science students!
>
> That's the typical everyday joe. Most people I know from IT only
> really know SQL as a programming language. And that is just to fetch
> their precious user data in order to feed them to business rules
> processors. Why should they give any thought to interesting new
> problems so far fetched from their everyday domain? They just let
> others write creative tools for them and are happy to just be the
> middlemen between tools and users.
>
> > Therefore, they learn to
> > hate the topic, and proceed to spend all their free time trying to
> > forget about programming.
>
> Yes, but lack of curiosity and no desire to learn is all their fault
> really. Most people are cattle and just enjoy eating grass, if there
> is any. If there isn't any, they just die.
Most coders took programming as a job, something you do for money so
could spend them on things that you need and things that interests
you. If there was another job requring same effort and payed more they
would be doing that instead. Why would somebody be reading about tower
of hanoi when there is a good game on TV? If they need something to
advance their career so they could make more money so they could buy
bigger tv they will learn, it doesn't matter to them. It's the people
who see programming as more than work who are complaining.
Just imagine there is enormous demand for violin players, it pays good
and you can find a job easily. So if you aren't 100% tone deaf you
might say : I can't find programming job at least not one that pays
well, so here's a good career choice for me,in the end everybody has
to earn their bread somehow. So you go to learn violin playing in 24
lessons course, buy violin for dummies book and got a job. You're
doing your job and got payed, than somebody comes asking you do play
Nicolo Paganini Fifth Caprice. Shit man we only do pop music, what the
hell do you need those kind of crup? So continue playing vanilla pop
at work and program at home why the bozo practices Fifth Caprice.
bobi
On 4 set, 06:10, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Shit man we only do pop music, what the
> hell do you need those kind of crup? So continue playing vanilla pop
> at work and program at home why the bozo practices Fifth Caprice.
Yep. Shame there's an audience for well-crafted, ingenious music even
outside musicians themselves but not an audience for well-crafted,
ingenious code outside a few literate programmers, let alone users of
software made out of such code. Programmers work at the
backstage... :P
namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> writes:
> On 4 set, 06:10, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Shit man we only do pop music, what the
>> hell do you need those kind of crup? So continue playing vanilla pop
>> at work and program at home why the bozo practices Fifth Caprice.
>
> Yep. Shame there's an audience for well-crafted, ingenious music even
> outside musicians themselves but not an audience for well-crafted,
> ingenious code outside a few literate programmers, let alone users of
> software made out of such code. Programmers work at the
> backstage... :P
But when the front stage is occupied by a star such as Steve Jobs,
it's ok. Could be better, there could be a market for luxe computer
programs sold a price if you need to ask you don't have the means to
buy them, but I'm not sure we would be able to write them yet.
Perhaps some AI programmer could.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
P� Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:56:44 +0200, skrev Pascal J. Bourguignon
<···@informatimago.com>:
> namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 4 set, 06:10, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Shit man we only do pop music, what the
>>> hell do you need those kind of crup? So continue playing vanilla pop
>>> at work and program at home why the bozo practices Fifth Caprice.
>>
>> Yep. Shame there's an audience for well-crafted, ingenious music even
>> outside musicians themselves but not an audience for well-crafted,
>> ingenious code outside a few literate programmers, let alone users of
>> software made out of such code. Programmers work at the
>> backstage... :P
>
> But when the front stage is occupied by a star such as Steve Jobs,
> it's ok. Could be better, there could be a market for luxe computer
> programs sold a price if you need to ask you don't have the means to
> buy them, but I'm not sure we would be able to write them yet.
> Perhaps some AI programmer could.
>
Naw, I think Jobs has perfected the art of charging something for nothing.
Charging for making a copy of individual tunes.
Clearly making programs takes effort so there is better profit in just
copying other peoples work ;)
(Admittably the whole industry is in on it and wants a piece of the cake.)
He in a inspiration to all gangsters out there.
Jobs motto should be "It's so dirty it must be legal!".
--------------
John Thingstad
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <6if67tFqa0jgU1@mid.individual.net>
John Thingstad wrote:
> P� Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:56:44 +0200, skrev Pascal J. Bourguignon
> <···@informatimago.com>:
>
>> namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4 set, 06:10, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Shit man we only do pop music, what the
>>>> hell do you need those kind of crup? So continue playing vanilla pop
>>>> at work and program at home why the bozo practices Fifth Caprice.
>>>
>>> Yep. Shame there's an audience for well-crafted, ingenious music even
>>> outside musicians themselves but not an audience for well-crafted,
>>> ingenious code outside a few literate programmers, let alone users of
>>> software made out of such code. Programmers work at the
>>> backstage... :P
>>
>> But when the front stage is occupied by a star such as Steve Jobs,
>> it's ok. Could be better, there could be a market for luxe computer
>> programs sold a price if you need to ask you don't have the means to
>> buy them, but I'm not sure we would be able to write them yet.
>> Perhaps some AI programmer could.
>>
>
> Naw, I think Jobs has perfected the art of charging something for nothing.
> Charging for making a copy of individual tunes.
> Clearly making programs takes effort so there is better profit in just
> copying other peoples work ;)
Making music also takes effort.
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/
P� Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:01:17 +0200, skrev Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net>:
>
> Making music also takes effort.
>
But making a copy of it one it is recorded doesn't and Jobs is not
involved in the making of the music merely the distribution.
--------------
John Thingstad
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <g9u33b$qgl$1@aioe.org>
On 2008-09-06 07:09:19 -0400, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> said:
> But making a copy of it one it is recorded doesn't and Jobs is not
> involved in the making of the music merely the distribution.
Making a copy of any software would take as little effort. By this
argument programmers shouldn't get paid either; nor actors, nor
writers, nor graphic artists, nor biochemists developing new drugs,
etc., etc.
Just in case it's not completely obvious at this point, in a society
with knowledge workers, we don't count the value of their work as the
cost of merely copying it.
Internet culture has legitimized theft as long as the victims are
musicians or hollywood. Sad how cheap people have elevated their
unwillingness to part with money to some sort of faux natural law of
information technology.
P� Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:11:55 +0200, skrev Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com>:
> On 2008-09-06 07:09:19 -0400, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> said:
>
>> But making a copy of it one it is recorded doesn't and Jobs is not
>> involved in the making of the music merely the distribution.
>
> Making a copy of any software would take as little effort. By this
> argument programmers shouldn't get paid either; nor actors, nor writers,
> nor graphic artists, nor biochemists developing new drugs, etc., etc.
>
> Just in case it's not completely obvious at this point, in a society
> with knowledge workers, we don't count the value of their work as the
> cost of merely copying it.
>
> Internet culture has legitimized theft as long as the victims are
> musicians or hollywood. Sad how cheap people have elevated their
> unwillingness to part with money to some sort of faux natural law of
> information technology.
>
These people become billionares from copying things. Most of the artist's
don't.
No other industry execept entertaiment and programs have these profit
margins.
You have thousand that barely get by but a popular few make millions.
Seems to me sellers of a popular ice cream experience nothing like this.
Most of the income goes into manefacture.
But since copying cost next to nothing sucess can lead to ridicolus
earnings.
The people who speculate on the 'winners' just go along for the ride.
--------------
John Thingstad
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <g9urdr$rps$1@aioe.org>
On 2008-09-06 10:36:58 -0400, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> said:
> These people become billionares from copying things. Most of the
> artist's don't.
Most knowledge workers of any kind don't become billionaires. This is
no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
> No other industry execept entertaiment and programs have these profit margins.
Profit margins are high in industries which are not commoditized. This
is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
> You have thousand that barely get by but a popular few make millions.
This is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
> Seems to me sellers of a popular ice cream experience nothing like this.
Ben and Jerry of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream are both billionaires.
> Most of the income goes into manefacture.
> But since copying cost next to nothing sucess can lead to ridicolus earnings.
Again, just because *some* knowledge workers have "ridiculous earnings"
is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
> The people who speculate on the 'winners' just go along for the ride.
Apple is providing a useful service to both cosumers and
artists/labels, namely, making available, legal and authorized copies
of these artists' works in a convenient form. Apple can make money by
doing this only because legal download options are not yet a commodity
item (thanks to the record labels holding out against legal downloads
for years). Once there are a number of players in this market it will
become less profitable. Mind you, Apple makes more money from the iPods
sold than from the iTunes store purchases anyway.
P� Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:07:07 +0200, skrev Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com>:
> On 2008-09-06 10:36:58 -0400, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> said:
>
>> These people become billionares from copying things. Most of the
>> artist's don't.
>
> Most knowledge workers of any kind don't become billionaires. This is no
> reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
>
>> No other industry execept entertaiment and programs have these profit
>> margins.
>
> Profit margins are high in industries which are not commoditized. This
> is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
>
>> You have thousand that barely get by but a popular few make millions.
>
> This is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
>
>> Seems to me sellers of a popular ice cream experience nothing like this.
>
> Ben and Jerry of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream are both billionaires.
>
>> Most of the income goes into manefacture.
>> But since copying cost next to nothing sucess can lead to ridicolus
>> earnings.
>
> Again, just because *some* knowledge workers have "ridiculous earnings"
> is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
>
>> The people who speculate on the 'winners' just go along for the ride.
>
> Apple is providing a useful service to both cosumers and artists/labels,
> namely, making available, legal and authorized copies of these artists'
> works in a convenient form. Apple can make money by doing this only
> because legal download options are not yet a commodity item (thanks to
> the record labels holding out against legal downloads for years). Once
> there are a number of players in this market it will become less
> profitable. Mind you, Apple makes more money from the iPods sold than
> from the iTunes store purchases anyway.
>
>
Who said anything about stealing?
I was thinking more along the line of Ritchard Stallmans GNU incentive.
To provide a more relaistic pricing of services.
--------------
John Thingstad
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <g9vo7m$asl$2@aioe.org>
On 2008-09-06 17:14:25 -0400, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> said:
> To provide a more relaistic pricing of services.
Taking something that belongs to someone else is not "a more realistic
pricing of services," it is what we call stealing.
On Sep 6, 10:18 pm, Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-
s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> On 2008-09-06 17:14:25 -0400, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> said:
>
> > To provide a more relaistic pricing of services.
>
> Taking something that belongs to someone else is not "a more realistic
> pricing of services," it is what we call stealing.
well whos takign anything?
If I buy an album its MINE
if I then giev to friend so be it
thats not stealing :)
On Sep 6, 11:14 pm, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
> På Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:07:07 +0200, skrev Raffael Cavallaro
> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2008-09-06 10:36:58 -0400, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> said:
>
> >> These people become billionares from copying things. Most of the
> >> artist's don't.
>
> > Most knowledge workers of any kind don't become billionaires. This is no
> > reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
>
> >> No other industry execept entertaiment and programs have these profit
> >> margins.
>
> > Profit margins are high in industries which are not commoditized. This
> > is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
>
> >> You have thousand that barely get by but a popular few make millions.
>
> > This is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
>
> >> Seems to me sellers of a popular ice cream experience nothing like this.
>
> > Ben and Jerry of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream are both billionaires.
>
> >> Most of the income goes into manefacture.
> >> But since copying cost next to nothing sucess can lead to ridicolus
> >> earnings.
>
> > Again, just because *some* knowledge workers have "ridiculous earnings"
> > is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
>
> >> The people who speculate on the 'winners' just go along for the ride.
>
> > Apple is providing a useful service to both cosumers and artists/labels,
> > namely, making available, legal and authorized copies of these artists'
> > works in a convenient form. Apple can make money by doing this only
> > because legal download options are not yet a commodity item (thanks to
> > the record labels holding out against legal downloads for years). Once
> > there are a number of players in this market it will become less
> > profitable. Mind you, Apple makes more money from the iPods sold than
> > from the iTunes store purchases anyway.
>
> Who said anything about stealing?
> I was thinking more along the line of Ritchard Stallmans GNU incentive.
> To provide a more relaistic pricing of services.
There's nobody who could decide the pricing of something except the
market, even the goverment can't do that. Remeber what happened in
former socialist countries, the pair of quality shoes costs $1 but
they are nowhere to find. If you want those shoes you have to offer
something else to buy them.
>
> --------------
> John Thingstad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2008-09-06 10:36:58 -0400, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> said:
>
>> These people become billionares from copying things. Most of the
>> artist's don't.
>
> Most knowledge workers of any kind don't become billionaires. This is
> no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
John refered to the people who make copies, not to the knowledge
workers.
If programmers earned so much money with their art, they wouldn't be
giving their work for free on the Internet. Some musical artists also
start to do the same.
Those who earn a lot of money are the editors, the production
companies.
>> No other industry execept entertaiment and programs have these profit margins.
>
> Profit margins are high in industries which are not commoditized. This
> is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
Go tell them, go tell to the "industries" with these high profit margins.
If they sell knowledge products for such a high price, why don't they
give back more to the knowledge workers?
>> You have thousand that barely get by but a popular few make millions.
>
> This is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
Who steals?
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
ADVISORY: There is an extremely small but nonzero chance that,
through a process known as "tunneling," this product may
spontaneously disappear from its present location and reappear at
any random place in the universe, including your neighbor's
domicile. The manufacturer will not be responsible for any damages
or inconveniences that may result.
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <g9vo5t$asl$1@aioe.org>
On 2008-09-06 17:31:58 -0400, ···@informatimago.com (Pascal J.
Bourguignon) said:
> Who steals?
People who make unauthorized copies of other peoples property (as if
you didn't already know this).
On Sep 7, 7:17 am, Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-
s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> On 2008-09-06 17:31:58 -0400, ····@informatimago.com (Pascal J.
> Bourguignon) said:
>
> > Who steals?
>
> People who make unauthorized copies of other peoples property (as if
> you didn't already know this).
The situation with current shrink wrap software reminds me of the
stand up comedians, they were going place to place performing the same
show. And before the youtube and cheap high quality cameras in your
phone you had to actually pay to see the show, now you only need
internet connection. Some people will still come to see the comedy
show but most won't. Both of us could cry for the good ol' days but
those times are gone( seen Bob Saget asking fans to not put his shows
on yotube?). We could either make only on demand software or accepts
the free riders as cost of doing business. It's ugly but that's the
way it is. And keep the ethics outside of the picture, humans are just
humans, you can't change us, why paying for something they could get
for free. The law of the jungle.
bobi
bobi
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <ga1d72$f9v$1@aioe.org>
On 2008-09-07 12:20:47 -0400, Slobodan Blazeski
<·················@gmail.com> said:
> And keep the ethics outside of the picture, humans are just
> humans, you can't change us, why paying for something they could get
> for free. The law of the jungle.
This is simply false. Most people will in fact *not* simply take
something they know is not theirs without paying for it. This explains
the "mystery" of the success of the iTunes store. After all, the
overwhelming majority of Apple's paid music downloads could be had for
free.
Again, what is human nature is the various contorted rationalizations
of cheap people who attempt to justify their unwillingness to part with
money as if being cheapskates were some sort of natural law.
This isn't in any way confined to electonic downloads. There are many
economic contexts in which people could get away with cheating/not
paying but routinely do not cheat. This is because people know that if
everyone routinely cheated the whole economic fabric of society would
be torn to shreds. Economies, like the societies that underly them, run
on trust.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2008-09-07 12:20:47 -0400, Slobodan Blazeski
> <·················@gmail.com> said:
>
> > And keep the ethics outside of the picture, humans are just
> > humans, you can't change us, why paying for something they could get
> > for free. The law of the jungle.
>
> This is simply false. Most people will in fact *not* simply take
> something they know is not theirs without paying for it.
Why do I find that hard to believe?
> This explains
> the "mystery" of the success of the iTunes store. After all, the
> overwhelming majority of Apple's paid music downloads could be had for
> free.
Yes some people pay for some music sometimes, yesterday I bought a CD
(I'm little oldfashioned) with a *songs* that are all in the youtube
for free, quality sometimes sucks but many are good enough for me.Why
did I bought it? I don't know probably because I've become a fan of
Isaac Albeniz Asturias and the piece was in it.
So here's my humble opinion. Get use to free riders, there will
always be people who will support what they found close to their
harts. If it wasn't for youtube I would never buy classic guitar
pieces. Never. Now I'm starting to make a collection of them, some
free, some youtubed, some bought.
>
> Again, what is human nature is the various contorted rationalizations
> of cheap people who attempt to justify their unwillingness to part with
> money as if being cheapskates were some sort of natural law.
>
> This isn't in any way confined to electonic downloads. There are many
> economic contexts in which people could get away with cheating/not
> paying but routinely do not cheat.
Crysis got something like 10:1 with torrented : payed for. Hmm..
> This is because people know that if
> everyone routinely cheated the whole economic fabric of society would
> be torn to shreds.
Of course. But people want free rides too. Wasn't Tony Blair cought
avoiding to pay the train fare? The former prime minister of the old
established democracy. Come on. Society imposed the peopel to pay
their rides, taxes, etc etc. Because most of the people are thinking :
city services won't suffer very much if I don't pay 200 bucks in
taxes.
> Economies, like the societies that underly them, run
> on trust.
They run on interests. If we could live better in the forest buy
ourselves we'll gonna send the socity to hell and vote with out feets.
bobi
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <ga6sfb$95e$1@aioe.org>
On 2008-09-09 07:37:16 -0400, Slobodan Blazeski
<·················@gmail.com> said:
> So here's my humble opinion. Get use to free riders,
I'm used to freeloaders (I think this is the slang term you're looking
for here). I just want them to stop passing off their rationalizations
for their freeloading as if it were some sort of logical corollary of
Shannon's information theory.
IOW, it has nothing to do with "the nature of cyberspace" or the
anthropomorphizing of information[1]; they're just selfish.
[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free>
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2008-09-09 07:37:16 -0400, Slobodan Blazeski
> <·················@gmail.com> said:
>
> > So here's my humble opinion. Get use to free riders,
>
> I'm used to freeloaders (I think this is the slang term you're looking
> for here). I just want them to stop passing off their rationalizations
> for their freeloading as if it were some sort of logical corollary of
> Shannon's information theory.
I make some desktop software, how much should I invest in copy
protection. If it's popular thieves are going to crack it anyway, so
probably adding some online registration is enough to remind honest
people to pay me something for my effort. Thieves won't do it anyway.
If multibillion companies can't protect their software from piracy,
small fish like me can't do a shit about.Why?
Because people are selfish. Some people in some situation aren't but
that's just exception, else there would be no need for the law and
society to enforce the rules.
I wouldn't steal someones code or design but most people and
companies don't see a problem with that, that's why there are licenses
and laws. I bought my dvd rip software but for many emuled will do
just fine. For the music I use youtube and buy some pieces that I
especially like. And don't present yourself as a saint. Because
you're not. You're human. And there's one kind of people I hate more
than cheats , the hypocrites.
cheers
bobi
P� Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:14:03 +0200, skrev Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com>:
> On 2008-09-09 07:37:16 -0400, Slobodan Blazeski
> <·················@gmail.com> said:
>
>> So here's my humble opinion. Get use to free riders,
>
> I'm used to freeloaders (I think this is the slang term you're looking
> for here). I just want them to stop passing off their rationalizations
> for their freeloading as if it were some sort of logical corollary of
> Shannon's information theory.
>
> IOW, it has nothing to do with "the nature of cyberspace" or the
> anthropomorphizing of information[1]; they're just selfish.
>
>
> [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free>
>
And I am sick of people putting ulterior motives to what I am saying.
For the record I have never copied music off the web legally or illegally.
The closest I get is Internet radio.
Actually I am genuinely irritated by the way software of record industries
work.
It would be nice if you could stay with that without some sort of 'ad
hominem' attack.
--------------
John Thingstad
From: Stanisław Halik
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <ga8shi$ujm$1@opal.icpnet.pl>
In comp.lang.lisp Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
>> So here's my humble opinion. Get use to free riders,
> I'm used to freeloaders (I think this is the slang term you're looking
> for here). I just want them to stop passing off their rationalizations
> for their freeloading as if it were some sort of logical corollary of
> Shannon's information theory.
It seems strange that certain data of type (vector (unsigned-byte 8))
are illegal to possess. Worse yet, ASH and LOGIOR it together, then it
makes an illegal number.
--
The great peril of our existence lies in the fact that our diet consists
entirely of souls. -- Inuit saying
On Sep 10, 5:27 pm, Stanis³aw Halik <··············@tehran.lain.pl>
wrote:
> It seems strange that certain data of type (vector (unsigned-byte 8))
> are illegal to possess.
I don't see that as strange. If someone has copyright ownership over a
certain arrangement of bits, then surely its no different from other
forms of ownership.
Of course it would be silly if someone owned the rights to a very
small arrangement of bits, which other people might naturally want to
use in their own arrangements, but for storing any reasonable amount
of code, the arrangement of bits will be large enough that it can be
assumed unique.
At certain times there really isn't any substitute for common sense in
law. If something is clearly a manifestation of copyright material,
then it's copyrighted, regardless of its representation.
From: Matthias Blume
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <m1prna7lbk.fsf@hana.uchicago.edu>
Stanisław Halik <··············@tehran.lain.pl> writes:
> It seems strange that certain data of type (vector (unsigned-byte 8))
> are illegal to possess.
Probably not any stranger than that certain arrangements of atoms or
molecules are illegal to possess...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:27:30 +0000 (UTC), Stanis?aw Halik
<··············@tehran.lain.pl> wrote:
>In comp.lang.lisp Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
>
>>> So here's my humble opinion. Get use to free riders,
>> I'm used to freeloaders (I think this is the slang term you're looking
>> for here). I just want them to stop passing off their rationalizations
>> for their freeloading as if it were some sort of logical corollary of
>> Shannon's information theory.
>
>It seems strange that certain data of type (vector (unsigned-byte 8))
>are illegal to possess. Worse yet, ASH and LOGIOR it together, then it
>makes an illegal number.
Technically "possession" is not illegal. It is illegal to copy
without license, to seek an unlawful copy, and to profit from an
unlawful copy. But should you simply find an unlawful copy or one be
gifted to you without solicitation, then you've done nothing wrong.
FWIW, prior to internet radio, I had occasions to download free music.
I could rationalize it because there are far more one-hit-wonders than
consistently good musicians, radio would only play the one track the
label paid them to play and I was (still am) unwilling to buy an album
with many tracks of noise to get one good song.
If I found I liked an album or an artist generally, I always purchased
the CD(s) and created my own MP3s tailored to the music. I've tried
several of the internet music services and have been pretty uniformly
dissatisfied even when paying extra for supposed "high quality"
versions. I play with the MP3 settings and frequently make several
attempts before I get a version I think is close enough to the track
on the CD - there's always some difference to be heard but I can't
always figure out what setting(s) to tweak.
If a song is a one-hit and there is no CD single to be had, I try to
find the best MP3 version to purchase individually. This happens more
often than I would like - upon hearing more from a new artist I
frequently find I prefer some track other than the one being hyped.
But there is such wide variation in fidelity among the various service
that I've concluded that most everyone using internet music services
is tone deaf and the people making the MP3s for them don't care how
anything sounds.
George
From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <20080911094525.456@gmail.com>
On 2008-09-10, Stanis?aw Halik <··············@tehran.lain.pl> wrote:
> In comp.lang.lisp Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
>
>>> So here's my humble opinion. Get use to free riders,
>> I'm used to freeloaders (I think this is the slang term you're looking
>> for here). I just want them to stop passing off their rationalizations
>> for their freeloading as if it were some sort of logical corollary of
>> Shannon's information theory.
>
> It seems strange that certain data of type (vector (unsigned-byte 8))
> are illegal to possess.
Wonderful; when are you available for free labor?
From: Stanisław Halik
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <gae6pa$2gm0$1@opal.icpnet.pl>
In comp.lang.lisp Kaz Kylheku <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> So here's my humble opinion. Get use to free riders,
>>> I'm used to freeloaders (I think this is the slang term you're looking
>>> for here). I just want them to stop passing off their rationalizations
>>> for their freeloading as if it were some sort of logical corollary of
>>> Shannon's information theory.
>> It seems strange that certain data of type (vector (unsigned-byte 8))
>> are illegal to possess.
> Wonderful; when are you available for free labor?
You mean my BSD-licensed software? Infringing on that would tantamount
to plagiarism. Anything else follows the license agreement.
--
The great peril of our existence lies in the fact that our diet consists
entirely of souls. -- Inuit saying
On Sep 6, 11:31 pm, ····@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
> Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> > On 2008-09-06 10:36:58 -0400, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> said:
>
> >> These people become billionares from copying things. Most of the
> >> artist's don't.
>
> > Most knowledge workers of any kind don't become billionaires. This is
> > no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
>
> John refered to the people who make copies, not to the knowledge
> workers.
>
> If programmers earned so much money with their art, they wouldn't be
> giving their work for free on the Internet. Some musical artists also
> start to do the same.
Sounds famigliar. The market values the goods and services offered.
When you are nobody, and you can't sell your product offering it for
free might make you something good. Your fan base will grow. More the
people like your product better chance to monetize it. Maybe some club
owner will like your music and you'll get a gig.
Friend of mine used to be fan of Metallica when they were nobody,
their fans were copying their music and spreading to their friends.
Later they got a label contract.
>
> Those who earn a lot of money are the editors, the production
> companies.
>
> >> No other industry execept entertaiment and programs have these profit margins.
>
> > Profit margins are high in industries which are not commoditized. This
> > is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
>
> Go tell them, go tell to the "industries" with these high profit margins.
>
> If they sell knowledge products for such a high price, why don't they
> give back more to the knowledge workers?
Because they can.
Why don't companies let you choose do you want to work overtime?
Because they can.
Why don't more and more companies pay for overtime that overtime?
Because they can.
Have you seen the movie about Henry Ford? After the production line
was installed in the factory, the managers were always speeding it up
more and more every day until the people couldn't keep it up anymore.
In the eyes of the bean counters line was only a number and speeding
it up for 2% seemed nothing and would make profits up for 4.37%, but
in the eyes of the workers those 2% were stress terror, broken
marriage and maybe losing an arm. It's the law of the homo economicus.
If something makes your situation better, and you can get away with
it homo economus will do it. It doesn't matter who else will suffer.
bobi
>
> >> You have thousand that barely get by but a popular few make millions.
>
> > This is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
>
> Who steals?
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
>
> ADVISORY: There is an extremely small but nonzero chance that,
> through a process known as "tunneling," this product may
> spontaneously disappear from its present location and reappear at
> any random place in the universe, including your neighbor's
> domicile. The manufacturer will not be responsible for any damages
> or inconveniences that may result.
On Sep 6, 7:36 am, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
> På Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:11:55 +0200, skrev Raffael Cavallaro
> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com>:
>
>
>
> > On 2008-09-06 07:09:19 -0400, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> said:
>
> >> But making a copy of it one it is recorded doesn't and Jobs is not
> >> involved in the making of the music merely the distribution.
>
> > Making a copy of any software would take as little effort. By this
> > argument programmers shouldn't get paid either; nor actors, nor writers,
> > nor graphic artists, nor biochemists developing new drugs, etc., etc.
>
> > Just in case it's not completely obvious at this point, in a society
> > with knowledge workers, we don't count the value of their work as the
> > cost of merely copying it.
>
> > Internet culture has legitimized theft as long as the victims are
> > musicians or hollywood. Sad how cheap people have elevated their
> > unwillingness to part with money to some sort of faux natural law of
> > information technology.
>
> These people become billionares from copying things. Most of the artist's
> don't.
> No other industry execept entertaiment and programs have these profit
> margins.
> You have thousand that barely get by but a popular few make millions.
> Seems to me sellers of a popular ice cream experience nothing like this.
> Most of the income goes into manefacture.
> But since copying cost next to nothing sucess can lead to ridicolus
> earnings.
> The people who speculate on the 'winners' just go along for the ride.
>
> --------------
> John Thingstad
art should be free
On Sep 7, 3:01 am, namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 set, 08:01, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
>
> > Making music also takes effort.
>
> That used to be true before the 20th century.
Making music will always take effort and a lot of talent. Making noise
is as easy as ever.
bobi
From: Didier Verna
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <mux7i9nxetg.fsf@uzeb.lrde.epita.fr>
Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 7, 3:01�am, namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6 set, 08:01, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Making music also takes effort.
>>
>> That used to be true before the 20th century.
>
> Making music will always take effort and a lot of talent.
Not necessarily. See Band in a Box for instance.
Another thing to consider is what you actually call "music". With the
use of samplers, loopers, and computers in general, you get new forms of
music: you're able to grab pieces here and there, stick them together
and produce something that sounds nice, without having ever touched an
instrument, and all that with minimal effort.
I personally don't call that music, because to me, music is or should be
alive. This is closer to a painting, but is actually worse, for instance
because people you samples which are from music actually played by real
musicians. So this is more like a so-called painter who actually would
scan real paintings from master painters and glue pieces together (and
sell the result for big bucks).
> Making noise is as easy as ever.
Yes :-)
--
Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.
Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com
EPITA/LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France
Tel. +33 (0)1 44 08 01 85 Fax. +33 (0)1 53 14 59 22
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <6iks1jFqlihtU1@mid.individual.net>
Didier Verna wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 7, 3:01 am, namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6 set, 08:01, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Making music also takes effort.
>>> That used to be true before the 20th century.
>> Making music will always take effort and a lot of talent.
>
> Not necessarily. See Band in a Box for instance.
>
> Another thing to consider is what you actually call "music". With the
> use of samplers, loopers, and computers in general, you get new forms of
> music: you're able to grab pieces here and there, stick them together
> and produce something that sounds nice, without having ever touched an
> instrument, and all that with minimal effort.
>
> I personally don't call that music, because to me, music is or should be
> alive. This is closer to a painting, but is actually worse, for instance
> because people you samples which are from music actually played by real
> musicians. So this is more like a so-called painter who actually would
> scan real paintings from master painters and glue pieces together (and
> sell the result for big bucks).
That sounds very interesting. I'd like to see such paintings. ;)
Pascal
P.S.: If you put effort into such collages and mash-ups, the results can
also be very interesting and exciting. It really depends on the musician
/ artist, not the tools they use.
For example, check out The Tape-Beatles, John Oswald, and similar artists.
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
From: Didier Verna
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <mux1vztqz7g.fsf@uzeb.lrde.epita.fr>
Pascal Costanza wrote:
>> I personally don't call that music, because to me, music is or should
>> be alive. This is closer to a painting, but is actually worse, for
>> instance because people you samples which are from music actually
>> played by real musicians. So this is more like a so-called painter
>> who actually would scan real paintings from master painters and glue
>> pieces together (and sell the result for big bucks).
>
> That sounds very interesting. I'd like to see such paintings. ;)
It took you longer that I expected to react ;-)
> P.S.: If you put effort into such collages and mash-ups, the results
> can also be very interesting and exciting. It really depends on the
> musician / artist, not the tools they use.
Yup.
--
Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.
Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com
EPITA/LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France
Tel. +33 (0)1 44 08 01 85 Fax. +33 (0)1 53 14 59 22
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <6ine2lFrj0ouU1@mid.individual.net>
Didier Verna wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>
>>> I personally don't call that music, because to me, music is or should
>>> be alive. This is closer to a painting, but is actually worse, for
>>> instance because people you samples which are from music actually
>>> played by real musicians. So this is more like a so-called painter
>>> who actually would scan real paintings from master painters and glue
>>> pieces together (and sell the result for big bucks).
>> That sounds very interesting. I'd like to see such paintings. ;)
>
> It took you longer that I expected to react ;-)
LOL. :)
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Didier Verna wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 7, 3:01�am, namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 6 set, 08:01, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Making music also takes effort.
> >>
> >> That used to be true before the 20th century.
> >
> > Making music will always take effort and a lot of talent.
>
> Not necessarily. See Band in a Box for instance.
>
> Another thing to consider is what you actually call "music". With the
> use of samplers, loopers, and computers in general, you get new forms of
> music: you're able to grab pieces here and there, stick them together
> and produce something that sounds nice, without having ever touched an
> instrument, and all that with minimal effort.
>
> I personally don't call that music, because to me, music is or should be
> alive. This is closer to a painting, but is actually worse, for instance
> because people you samples which are from music actually played by real
> musicians. So this is more like a so-called painter who actually would
> scan real paintings from master painters and glue pieces together (and
> sell the result for big bucks).
It takes work and talent to do that too, because you have to learn how
all those samplers and looopers thingies work. It might be easier than
learning to play instrument but on the other side making a symphony is
probably harder than making a summer pop song. That doesn't make it
less music. So if the market is buying it I don't see what's the
problem. You want to be a star go mainstream. If that includes
mumbling while standing on your head with female wrestlers in the
background get use to it. Else stop whining, you choosed to play
something that's music for you but the masses aren't accepting it.
They might be sheeps, but they're sheeps with money and you won't get
any of their money playing jazz, classic or whatever the chosen few
listen. Aren't people surprised when they found out that Armstrong was
actually a jazz icon. They only heard of him because of what a
wondeful world? And I doubt you're better jazzer than Satchmo.
bobi
>
>
> > Making noise is as easy as ever.
>
> Yes :-)
>
> --
> Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.
>
> Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
> Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com
>
> EPITA/LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France
> Tel. +33 (0)1 44 08 01 85 Fax. +33 (0)1 53 14 59 22
On Sep 9, 8:50 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> making a symphony is
> probably harder than making a summer pop song. That doesn't make it
> less music.
Yes, it does. :)
> So if the market is buying it I don't see what's the
> problem. You want to be a star go mainstream. If that includes
> mumbling while standing on your head with female wrestlers in the
> background get use to it.
That's not music, call it "a performance".
> Else stop whining,
We stop whining when you stop calling it music. Deal? ;)
> They might be sheeps, but they're sheeps with money and you won't get
> any of their money playing jazz, classic or whatever the chosen few
> listen.
You can make decent money by playing/making music to a select few.
Why should everyone aim to be a falling star and reach the
barbarians? Let them suffocate in their own sh!t.
namekuseijin wrote:
> On Sep 9, 8:50�am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > making a symphony is
> > probably harder than making a summer pop song. That doesn't make it
> > less music.
>
> Yes, it does. :)
>
> > So if the market is buying it I don't see what's the
> > problem. You want to be a star go mainstream. If that includes
> > mumbling while standing on your head with female wrestlers in the
> > background get use to it.
>
> That's not music, call it "a performance".
>
> > Else stop whining,
>
> We stop whining when you stop calling it music. Deal? ;)
ROTFL Deal.
From: Didier Verna
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <muxwshlphoj.fsf@uzeb.lrde.epita.fr>
Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
> So if the market is buying it I don't see what's the problem.
I don't see a problem either.
> You want to be a star go mainstream.
No thanks.
> If that includes mumbling while standing on your head with female
> wrestlers in the background
Well, on second thought... :-)
> Else stop whining, you choosed to play something that's music for you
> but the masses aren't accepting it.
No I'm not gonna stop whining. I'm only human and I have the right to
be sensitive on some subjects. Who's not ?[1] You know, it's actually a
good thing to be really /involved/ in one or two things in your life.
But you seem to misunderstand the things I'm ranting about. Although I'm
forced to admit that seeing under-talented teenagers playing crap and
people actually enjoying it is a bit upsetting, I don't really care
about that. What I do care about is the industry misleading people.
Like:
Oh, you're a Jazz musician... cool. I like Jazz /too/. What do you think
of Norah Jones ?[2]
What I do care about is when important Jazz festivals start to feature
Manu Dibango or Cesaria Evora because it brings more audience. What I do
care about, is the radio playing 99% crap because it's safer on the
economic level, whereas studies have shown that if you push something
else, less mainstream, just a bit, people actually start to enjoy it as
well (not talking about Jazz in particular).
But then again, that's just my sensitive point because I'm a musician
investing a lot of effort in my art and I know better on that subject.
On the other hand, I like a good crappy mainstream Hollywood thriller
from time to time. Only I'm well aware that it's crap. And I leave the
burden of getting upset and trying to educate people to somebody else.
I've got enough on my hands already :-)
> Aren't people surprised when they found out that Armstrong was
> actually a jazz icon.
In fact, no. But they're really puzzled to discover the real Bobby
McFerrin (see The Voice and Spontaneous Inventions) after having only
heard of him through "Don't worry, be crappy" on the radio.
> They only heard of him because of what a wondeful world? And I doubt
> you're better jazzer than Satchmo.
Sure. What was the point of this last sentence? Oh, I know!
Funny, when people try to show off and pretend they know something about
Jazz, they inevitably cite Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong and then
refer to him by his nickname. The next step is to know Charlie Parker
and refer to him as "Bird", but that takes another university degree...
Footnotes:
[1] Hint: you're a lisper right? Suppose somebody tries to show you
how cool C++ is and all the things you can do with it and
that-s-really-the-best-language-ever. Doesn't that upsets you just
a wee bit?
[2] The answer is here:
http://didierverna.com/jazzblog/index.php?entry=entry070122-154257
--
Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.
Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com
EPITA/LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France
Tel. +33 (0)1 44 08 01 85 Fax. +33 (0)1 53 14 59 22
Didier Verna wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Else stop whining, you choosed to play something that's music for you
> > but the masses aren't accepting it.
>
> No I'm not gonna stop whining. I'm only human and I have the right to
> be sensitive on some subjects. Who's not ?[1] You know, it's actually a
> good thing to be really /involved/ in one or two things in your life.
Ok sorry for telling to stop whining.
>
> But you seem to misunderstand the things I'm ranting about. Although I'm
> forced to admit that seeing under-talented teenagers playing crap and
> people actually enjoying it is a bit upsetting, I don't really care
> about that. What I do care about is the industry misleading people.
> Like:
>
> Oh, you're a Jazz musician... cool. I like Jazz /too/. What do you think
> of Norah Jones ?[2]
Norah Jones who?
>
>
> What I do care about is when important Jazz festivals start to feature
> Manu Dibango or Cesaria Evora because it brings more audience.
She was on Skopje Jazz Festival
>What I do
> care about, is the radio playing 99% crap because it's safer on the
> economic level, whereas studies have shown that if you push something
> else, less mainstream, just a bit, people actually start to enjoy it as
> well (not talking about Jazz in particular).
Radios are economic entities, meaning they're there for the money. And
where they could get more money from commercials. From 92% who enjoy
Rihanna or from 8% who listen various non mainstream music.
>
> But then again, that's just my sensitive point because I'm a musician
> investing a lot of effort in my art and I know better on that subject.
Good I'm just an ex-musician.
> On the other hand, I like a good crappy mainstream Hollywood thriller
> from time to time. Only I'm well aware that it's crap. And I leave the
> burden of getting upset and trying to educate people to somebody else.
> I've got enough on my hands already :-)
>
>
> > Aren't people surprised when they found out that Armstrong was
> > actually a jazz icon.
>
> In fact, no. But they're really puzzled to discover the real Bobby
> McFerrin (see The Voice and Spontaneous Inventions) after having only
> heard of him through "Don't worry, be crappy" on the radio.
Cool, if there wasn't don't worry be happy they won't hear his other
works at all.
>
>
> > They only heard of him because of what a wondeful world? And I doubt
> > you're better jazzer than Satchmo.
>
> Sure. What was the point of this last sentence? Oh, I know!
No you don't. The point was no matter how good you are you can't be
famous unless you play mainstream. Armstrong was jazz titan, but
people only heard his lesser works.
>
> Funny, when people try to show off and pretend they know something about
> Jazz, they inevitably cite Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong and then
> refer to him by his nickname. The next step is to know Charlie Parker
> and refer to him as "Bird", but that takes another university degree...
Bird and Chet live at trade winds is the only album I had from Parker.
I don't know much about it. I ahev some albums by Duke Ellington,
Armstrong, Miles Davis, and some bulgarian accordeon jazz (Petar
Ralchev) . That's it. I don't even know why they say that smooth jazz
isn't a real jazz. So I take your words for it.
>
>
>
>
> Footnotes:
> [1] Hint: you're a lisper right? Suppose somebody tries to show you
> how cool C++ is and all the things you can do with it and
> that-s-really-the-best-language-ever. Doesn't that upsets you just
> a wee bit?
Not anymore. Different people have different best languages ever. If
likes to wait for 30 minutes compile times wee.. he could do some push
ups, that's what was I doing , and I was in top shape, now with that
damn repl I'm 20kgs overweight.
>
> [2] The answer is here:
> http://didierverna.com/jazzblog/index.php?entry=entry070122-154257
I don't know anything about Norah Jones. So according to your post I
assume it's something like people saying that Ruby is acceptable lisp.
Ruby is not lisp, damn it. But try to explain this to people who only
do c-ish languages , you can't. I had conversati0on like this.
Me: I was doing some lisping?
X: You mean programming?
Me: Not lisping.
X: What's the difference?
Me: Programming is like driving good for nothing family caravan into a
hot day at the rush hour peak while you're already 20minutes late for
work.
Lisping is like driving brand new Maseratti convertible on a highway
without a speed limit.
>
> --
> Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.
>
> Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
> Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com
>
> EPITA/LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France
> Tel. +33 (0)1 44 08 01 85 Fax. +33 (0)1 53 14 59 22
Slobodan Blazeski skrev:
>
> So if the market is buying it I don't see what's the
> problem. You want to be a star go mainstream. If that includes
> mumbling while standing on your head with female wrestlers in the
> background get use to it. Else stop whining, you choosed to play
> something that's music for you but the masses aren't accepting it.
> They might be sheeps, but they're sheeps with money and you won't get
> any of their money playing jazz, classic or whatever the chosen few
> listen. Aren't people surprised when they found out that Armstrong was
> actually a jazz icon. They only heard of him because of what a
> wondeful world? And I doubt you're better jazzer than Satchmo.
In most art forms, the relationship between quality and
profit is weak to say the least. Indeed, singing teachers
for example have even identified a new type of singer,
"the 'untrained professional singer', who is among the
highest paid of all performers, but lacks the most rudimentary
skills of the singing craft"*. Actual skill in the art is
neither a necessary nor sufficient criterion for success.
It used to at least be a necessary condition...
But isn't this getting a bit O.T. for these newsgroups?
BR,
Ulf W
* Richard Miller, National Schools of Singing, 1997
On Sep 9, 12:42 pm, Ulf Wiger <·········@e-r-i-c-s-s-o-n.com> wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski skrev:
>
>
>
> > So if the market is buying it I don't see what's the
> > problem. You want to be a star go mainstream. If that includes
> > mumbling while standing on your head with female wrestlers in the
> > background get use to it. Else stop whining, you choosed to play
> > something that's music for you but the masses aren't accepting it.
> > They might be sheeps, but they're sheeps with money and you won't get
> > any of their money playing jazz, classic or whatever the chosen few
> > listen. Aren't people surprised when they found out that Armstrong was
> > actually a jazz icon. They only heard of him because of what a
> > wondeful world? And I doubt you're better jazzer than Satchmo.
>
> In most art forms, the relationship between quality and
> profit is weak to say the least. Indeed, singing teachers
> for example have even identified a new type of singer,
> "the 'untrained professional singer', who is among the
> highest paid of all performers, but lacks the most rudimentary
> skills of the singing craft"*. Actual skill in the art is
> neither a necessary nor sufficient criterion for success.
> It used to at least be a necessary condition...
>
> But isn't this getting a bit O.T. for these newsgroups?
I think it's pretty on-topic! You realize we're using music as a
metaphor for programming and jazz and classical musicians for Lispers
and rockers and untrained singers for C++/Perl/Java/PHP programmers,
right? ;)
From: Didier Verna
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <muxzlmhnvnq.fsf@uzeb.lrde.epita.fr>
namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's pretty on-topic! You realize we're using music as a
> metaphor for programming and jazz and classical musicians for Lispers
> and rockers and untrained singers for C++/Perl/Java/PHP programmers,
> right? ;)
Almost. Classical musicians are a metaphor for programmers using dead
languages :-P
--
Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.
Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com
EPITA/LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France
Tel. +33 (0)1 44 08 01 85 Fax. +33 (0)1 53 14 59 22
From: Didier Verna
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <muxzlmkxsfl.fsf@uzeb.lrde.epita.fr>
namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 set, 08:01, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
>> Making music also takes effort.
>
> That used to be true before the 20th century.
This is still true. Making crap doesn't take effort anymore.
--
Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.
Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com
EPITA/LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France
Tel. +33 (0)1 44 08 01 85 Fax. +33 (0)1 53 14 59 22
On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:37:34 +0200, Didier Verna
<······@lrde.epita.fr> wrote:
>namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6 set, 08:01, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
>>> Making music also takes effort.
>>
>> That used to be true before the 20th century.
>
> This is still true. Making crap doesn't take effort anymore.
Making crap never took much effort - the difference now is lots of
idiots will pay big bucks for it.
George
From: Didier Verna
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <muxfxobxfcz.fsf@uzeb.lrde.epita.fr>
George Neuner <········@comcast.net> wrote:
> Making crap never took much effort - the difference now is lots of
> idiots will pay big bucks for it.
Well, at least before the CAM era[1], you had to make minimal effort
to make crap music (learning 4 guitar chords {three's ok if you put
enough saturation in the sound}, taking a 10 hours drum lesson, 10
minutes bass lesson, spend some time rehearsing and there you go).
Now, the computer can generate music for you, and what's more, music
that will sound even better than what some people would ever manage to
play, With no effort on your part. *That* is a new form of crap. And
yes, people pay big bucks for it ;-)
Footnotes:
[1] eh, eh, that was not intentional, but I'm quite proud of that one ;-)
--
Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.
Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com
EPITA/LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France
Tel. +33 (0)1 44 08 01 85 Fax. +33 (0)1 53 14 59 22
From: Cor Gest
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <87vdx8du19.fsf@atthis.clsnet.nl>
Some entity, AKA namekuseijin <············@gmail.com>,
wrote this mindboggling stuff:
(selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
> On 6 set, 08:01, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
>> Making music also takes effort.
>
> That used to be true before the 20th century.
Wow, now I can be the Gershwin of the 20st century, without the need
to learn all these crazy blots on these stupid lines with all those
irritating #'s, b's [1] ?
The learning of the basics of the musical alphabet must have been
a monumental waste of time, just like all these irritating parenteses.
But, lisp is like making a symphony.
Not cobbling togetheter some muzak from the obligatory max of "loaned"
bars of canned stuff others composed and have a computer fill in the
blanks.
That is knowing howto play pianola: (insert coin, choose roll, push
play, move fingers & look smug)
[1] sharps and flats
Cor
--
Mijn Tools zijn zo modern dat ze allemaal eindigen op 'saurus'
(defvar My-Computer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
SPAM DELENDA EST http://www.clsnet.nl/mail.php
1st Law of surviving a gunfight : Have a gun !
On 7 set, 09:23, Cor Gest <····@clsnet.nl> wrote:
> Some entity, AKA namekuseijin <············@gmail.com>,
I'm flattered. :)
> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
>
> > On 6 set, 08:01, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
> >> Making music also takes effort.
>
> > That used to be true before the 20th century.
>
> Wow, now I can be the Gershwin of the 20st century, without the need
> to learn all these crazy blots on these stupid lines with all those
> irritating #'s, b's [1] ?
I was referring to the music itself, not to it's recorded notation.
Surely going for more than 4 chords, simplistic sugared melody
(probably taken from somewhere else), and bass&drums took a lot more
effort to be developed?
> The learning of the basics of the musical alphabet must have been
> a monumental waste of time, just like all these irritating parenteses.
Indeed.
On Sep 7, 9:35 pm, namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6 set, 08:01, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
> > >> Making music also takes effort.
>
> > > That used to be true before the 20th century.
A lot of things are easier now, and music is no exception.
Find music on the internet, find quick tutorials on the internet, buy
a relatively cheap instrument, listen to other people's work for
inspiration etc.
Yes it takes less effort whether you are creating something worthwhile
or something rubbish.
But if anyone things this is a bad thing, I'd be very surprised.
Beyond that, I'd also state that making good music does still take
considerable effort and as with other professions, many top musicians
will put all of their effort into their work.
erm... erm... so lisp is similar in many ways...
maybe these posts could go on music newsgroup post aswell :)
From: Didier Verna
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <muxbpyzxf75.fsf@uzeb.lrde.epita.fr>
Ali <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> Beyond that, I'd also state that making good music does still take
> considerable effort and as with other professions, many top musicians
> will put all of their effort into their work.
>
> erm... erm... so lisp is similar in many ways... maybe these posts
> could go on music newsgroup post aswell :)
See http://www.didierverna.com/jazzblog/index.php?entry=entry070403-163007
--
Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.
Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com
EPITA/LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France
Tel. +33 (0)1 44 08 01 85 Fax. +33 (0)1 53 14 59 22
From: Arved Sandstrom
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <N8Rwk.733$1x6.155@edtnps82>
"Benjamin L. Russell" <············@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
·······································@4ax.com...
[ SNIP ]
> To my astonishment, I once read somewhere that the average number of
> programming language theory research papers that the average
> programmer reads in a month is zero. At first, I couldn't believe
> this. But having worked as a liaison between programmers and
> marketing staff, I think it is quite true.
If by programming language theory research papers you mean something like
http://cs.ioc.ee/~tarmo/papers/essence.pdf (The Essence of Dataflow
Programming) or
http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/pcmkf-cont-from-gen-stack-insp/paper.pdf
(Continuations from Generalized Stack Inspection), then no, you won't see
anyone except enthusiasts, computer scientists and some very few affected
implementers actually reading stuff like that, no.
I'm guessing (just from assorted conversations over the years) that good
programmers do read a greater or lesser amount of technical articles at an
application level...IOW, how do you actually apply a new technology. As you
know yourself, these can be quite involved (certainly not twinky
material)...for example, one of the better Haskell monad tutorials. Or if
you follow the J programming language programmers' mailing list that's a
good example of fairly technical but useful stuff.
You wouldn't really expect average (that includes good and very good)
programmers to read programming language theory research papers. They don't
exactly have much use for the working programmer. Is that the same thing as
saying that those academic papers are useless? No. But only a very small
group of people translate those academic papers into useful concepts for
developers.
It's besically the same as the difference between scientists, engineering
academics, working engineers, and engineering technologists. All of them
operate at their own levels of abstraction, and each group has people who
are capable of translating stuff from domain A into domain B. But most
working engineers won't be reading pure science research papers.
> Most of the programmers whom I worked with were not interested in
> programming theory, or even in programming per se, and spent most of
> their free time in the office watching giant centipedes eating mice on
> YouTube, chatting in Yahoo! Messenger, or sending e-mail. Once, I
> tried discussing the Towers of Hanoi problem with one of them, and he
> replied that it was "a very hard problem" in programming. I couldn't
> believe this. Towers of Hanoi is a first-year student problem for
> computer science students!
Again from assorted conversations over the years I'm guessing that good
programmers _are_ interested in programming, to the extent that they think
ahead, explore new languages and new ways of doing things, and look for ways
to improve what they do. In a decent shop where the developers are fully
engaged in their work (and I've been lucky enough to mostly work in those) I
have seen very few people watch YouTube!, use a chat program, or send
non-work email. Usually in your free time at the office you have your lunch
or coffee. Most people I know who do personal development don't do any of it
at the office.
As for the Towers of Hanoi example, well, I'm not that surprised. Bear in
mind, most programmers out there don't have a CS degree. The US Department
of Labor has for 2006 that almost 8 out of 10 programmers had an associate
degree, almost half had a bachelor's, and nearly 2 in 10 had an advanced
degree. The NSF found that the most common majors for graduates working as
software developers were engineering (35 percent) and CS (31 percent)...10
percent have a non-science/engineering degree. Very roughly speaking, then,
maybe 15 percent of software developers actually have a full degree in CS.
That's not to discount the value of the non-CS degrees, nor to over-inflate
the value of one, or even to denigrate the value of a person with no degree.
All of us have worked with CS grads that don't know shit, and conversely
worked with someone who has a 2-year diploma, or a degree in English, who
really knows their stuff. But the numbers do show that as a rule you can't
expect typical programmers to be deeply conversant with algorithms or data
structures or...well, lots of things.
> The problem seems to be one of lack of time and lack of interest. Most
> programmers seem to be force-fed programming technologies that they
> are not interested in, in a manner in which they are not allowed to
> explore what is interesting about the topic. Therefore, they learn to
> hate the topic, and proceed to spend all their free time trying to
> forget about programming.
Well, imagine working in a Web shop where you do nothing but PHP and CSS and
Javascript, with an occasional foray into trivial SQL. For a few years as a
junior developer you could probably stay interested, but eventually you'd
have to consider suicide, or do as you said - spend all your free time
forgetting about what you do at work.
[ SNIP]
AHS
From: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <m1bpziyxnh.fsf@gazonk.vestre.net>
Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
> When I was in University attending some maths lecture,
> we had some older guy giving small
> pages with text and formulas away - to the young students,
> after the lecture.
> I read one of those. The guy was arguing that PI was
> a rational number. He explained that there was some
> conspiracy going on so that this truth is not revealed
> to the public. He spend lots of time to create fancy
> drawings - probably the paper was typeset with something
> like TeX - which at that time was not that widely available.
We had one like that, too, but he was far more advanced, he was
arguing against G�del.
--
(espen)
On 24 ago, 17:18, Espen Vestre <·····@vestre.net> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
> > When I was in University attending some maths lecture,
> > we had some older guy giving small
> > pages with text and formulas away - to the young students,
> > after the lecture.
> > I read one of those. The guy was arguing that PI was
> > a rational number. He explained that there was some
> > conspiracy going on so that this truth is not revealed
> > to the public. He spend lots of time to create fancy
> > drawings - probably the paper was typeset with something
> > like TeX - which at that time was not that widely available.
>
> We had one like that, too, but he was far more advanced, he was
> arguing against Gödel.
>
> --
> (espen)
Yes, I was googling for the man, but forgot the exact wording that
truly defined him, until the pp spell it: "crackpot"! Louis Savain
is the name of the game. Xah should join him, but a word of advise:
Louis is far more of a true internet celebrity. :D
He knows he's a crackpot:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/who-am-i-what-are-my-credentials.html
Here's him insulting the likes of Einstein, Godel, Feynman etc:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Here's his long winding, going-nowhere, drastically "innovative" and
ingenious new paradigm for parallel programming:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/COSA.htm
A true nutjob.
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:33:04 -0700 (PDT), namekuseijin
<············@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 24 ago, 17:18, Espen Vestre <·····@vestre.net> wrote:
>> Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
>> > When I was in University attending some maths lecture,
>> > we had some older guy giving small
>> > pages with text and formulas away - to the young students,
>> > after the lecture.
>> > I read one of those. The guy was arguing that PI was
>> > a rational number. He explained that there was some
>> > conspiracy going on so that this truth is not revealed
>> > to the public. He spend lots of time to create fancy
>> > drawings - probably the paper was typeset with something
>> > like TeX - which at that time was not that widely available.
>>
>> We had one like that, too, but he was far more advanced, he was
>> arguing against G�del.
>>
>> --
>> � (espen)
>
>Yes, I was googling for the man, but forgot the exact wording that
>truly defined him, until the pp spell it: "crackpot"! Louis Savain
>is the name of the game. Xah should join him, but a word of advise:
>Louis is far more of a true internet celebrity. :D
>
>He knows he's a crackpot:
>http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/who-am-i-what-are-my-credentials.html
>
>Here's him insulting the likes of Einstein, Godel, Feynman etc:
>http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
>
>Here's his long winding, going-nowhere, drastically "innovative" and
>ingenious new paradigm for parallel programming:
>http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/COSA.htm
>
>A true nutjob.
Yo, Seijin meistah-san. I must have cranked you real hard, didn't I,
Nameku-san? ahahaha... You should at least have the gonads to identify
yourself when you're badmouthing your betters, eh? I know you
functional programming nerds get all twisted out of shape when
somebody writes that functional programming is crap. ahahaha... You
should check out my latest articles (see links below) on Erlang.
Enough to give you function heads an apoplectic fit and hit the dirt.
ahahaha... ahahaha...
Erlang Is Not the Solution:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/erlang-is-not-solution.html
Tilera�s TILE64: The Good, the Bad and the Possible, Part II
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/tileras-tile64-good-bad-and-possible_15.html
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
On 25 ago, 00:15, Traveler <············@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:33:04 -0700 (PDT), namekuseijin
> <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Yes, I was googling for the man, but forgot the exact wording that
> >truly defined him, until the pp spell it: "crackpot"! Louis Savain
> >is the name of the game. Xah should join him, but a word of advise:
> >Louis is far more of a true internet celebrity. :D
>
> >He knows he's a crackpot:
> >http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/who-am-i-what-are-my-credent...
>
> >Here's him insulting the likes of Einstein, Godel, Feynman etc:
> >http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
>
> >Here's his long winding, going-nowhere, drastically "innovative" and
> >ingenious new paradigm for parallel programming:
> >http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/COSA.htm
>
> >A true nutjob.
>
> Yo, Seijin meistah-san. I must have cranked you real hard, didn't I,
> Nameku-san? ahahaha... You should at least have the gonads to identify
> yourself when you're badmouthing your betters, eh? I know you
> functional programming nerds get all twisted out of shape when
> somebody writes that functional programming is crap. ahahaha... You
> should check out my latest articles (see links below) on Erlang.
> Enough to give you function heads an apoplectic fit and hit the dirt.
> ahahaha... ahahaha...
>
> Erlang Is Not the Solution:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/erlang-is-not-solution.html
>
> Tilera’s TILE64: The Good, the Bad and the Possible, Part IIhttp://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/tileras-tile64-good-bad-and-...
>
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Rebel Science News:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
See what I mean? So much of an internet celebrity that he quickly
found out a miserable usenet post mentioning him.
Well, now that you're here anyway, I'd like to introduce you to Xah.
Xah, Louis. Louis, Xah. I hope you have fun together. Or are you 2
the same?
Kenny may joing occasionaly...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:52:20 -0700 (PDT), namekuseijin
<············@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 25 ago, 00:15, Traveler <············@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:33:04 -0700 (PDT), namekuseijin
>> <············@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Yes, I was googling for the man, but forgot the exact wording that
>> >truly defined him, until the pp spell it: �"crackpot"! �Louis Savain
>> >is the name of the game. �Xah should join him, but a word of advise:
>> >Louis is far more of a true internet celebrity. :D
>>
>> >He knows he's a crackpot:
>> >http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/who-am-i-what-are-my-credent...
>>
>> >Here's him insulting the likes of Einstein, Godel, Feynman etc:
>> >http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
>>
>> >Here's his long winding, going-nowhere, drastically "innovative" and
>> >ingenious new paradigm for parallel programming:
>> >http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/COSA.htm
>>
>> >A true nutjob.
>>
>> Yo, Seijin meistah-san. I must have cranked you real hard, didn't I,
>> Nameku-san? ahahaha... You should at least have the gonads to identify
>> yourself when you're badmouthing your betters, eh? I know you
>> functional programming nerds get all twisted out of shape when
>> somebody writes that functional programming is crap. ahahaha... You
>> should check out my latest articles (see links below) on Erlang.
>> Enough to give you function heads an apoplectic fit and hit the dirt.
>> ahahaha... ahahaha...
>>
>> Erlang Is Not the Solution:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/erlang-is-not-solution.html
>>
>> Tilera�s TILE64: The Good, the Bad and the Possible, Part IIhttp://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/tileras-tile64-good-bad-and-...
>>
>> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>>
>> Louis Savain
>>
>> Rebel Science News:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
>
>See what I mean? So much of an internet celebrity that he quickly
>found out a miserable usenet post mentioning him.
Yo, Name-san. ahahaha� It may come as a disappointment to you but I
have readers who write to me and tell me things. Come to think of it,
I think I may have had a close encounter with your kind about a year
or so ago. Are you the dumbass function head from Brazil who thinks
everything is a function? ahahaha... Who knows? Maybe the whole
universe is a freaking function with a huge stack and no states. Or
maybe every particle is a function with its own little stack.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... Thanks for the laughs.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
On 25 ago, 03:34, Traveler <············@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Yo, Name-san. ahahaha… It may come as a disappointment to you but I
> have readers who write to me and tell me things.
Amazing. Then again, Xah is also a very successful bozo.
> Come to think of it,
> I think I may have had a close encounter with your kind about a year
> or so ago. Are you the dumbass function head from Brazil who thinks
> everything is a function?
Yes, I'm brazilian. I vaguely remember getting into an argument with
you about lambda calculus.
> Who knows? Maybe the whole
> universe is a freaking function with a huge stack and no states. Or
> maybe every particle is a function with its own little stack.
Perhaps it's just tail-call optimized.
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... Thanks for the laughs.
>
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Time for the medicine, Louis.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:18:38 -0700 (PDT), namekuseijin
<············@gmail.com> wrote:
[nameku-san's crap]
>> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... Thanks for the laughs.
>>
>> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
>Time for the medicine, Louis.
ahahaha... The problem with computer nerds is that your sense of humor
is either deficient or non-existent. What's the matter? Don't they
grow good pot in Brazil? ahahaha... And there I was hoping that Brazil
would lead the next computer revolution. With function heads like you
calling the shots, I now think Paraguay or Bolivia has a better
chance. ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs and keep bashing those nasty
state variables as soon as they pop up. ahahaha...
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <48b2760c$0$7319$607ed4bc@cv.net>
namekuseijin wrote:
> On 25 ago, 00:15, Traveler <············@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:33:04 -0700 (PDT), namekuseijin
>><············@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, I was googling for the man, but forgot the exact wording that
>>>truly defined him, until the pp spell it: "crackpot"! Louis Savain
>>>is the name of the game. Xah should join him, but a word of advise:
>>>Louis is far more of a true internet celebrity. :D
>>
>>>He knows he's a crackpot:
>>>http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/who-am-i-what-are-my-credent...
>>
>>>Here's him insulting the likes of Einstein, Godel, Feynman etc:
>>>http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
>>
>>>Here's his long winding, going-nowhere, drastically "innovative" and
>>>ingenious new paradigm for parallel programming:
>>>http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/COSA.htm
>>
>>>A true nutjob.
>>
>>Yo, Seijin meistah-san. I must have cranked you real hard, didn't I,
>>Nameku-san? ahahaha... You should at least have the gonads to identify
>>yourself when you're badmouthing your betters, eh? I know you
>>functional programming nerds get all twisted out of shape when
>>somebody writes that functional programming is crap. ahahaha... You
>>should check out my latest articles (see links below) on Erlang.
>>Enough to give you function heads an apoplectic fit and hit the dirt.
>>ahahaha... ahahaha...
>>
>>Erlang Is Not the Solution:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/erlang-is-not-solution.html
>>
>>Tilera�s TILE64: The Good, the Bad and the Possible, Part IIhttp://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/tileras-tile64-good-bad-and-...
>>
>>ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>>
>>Louis Savain
>>
>>Rebel Science News:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
>
>
> See what I mean? So much of an internet celebrity that he quickly
> found out a miserable usenet post mentioning him.
>
> Well, now that you're here anyway, I'd like to introduce you to Xah.
> Xah, Louis. Louis, Xah. I hope you have fun together. Or are you 2
> the same?
>
> Kenny may joing occasionaly...
Oh, I am here, just waiting for the name-calling to die down so I can
ask Louis what he thinks of the growing interest in reactive
programming: OpenLaszlo, Adobe Adam, FrTime...
kt
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 05:04:01 -0400, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>namekuseijin wrote:
>> On 25 ago, 00:15, Traveler <············@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:33:04 -0700 (PDT), namekuseijin
>>><············@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yes, I was googling for the man, but forgot the exact wording that
>>>>truly defined him, until the pp spell it: "crackpot"! Louis Savain
>>>>is the name of the game. Xah should join him, but a word of advise:
>>>>Louis is far more of a true internet celebrity. :D
>>>
>>>>He knows he's a crackpot:
>>>>http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/who-am-i-what-are-my-credent...
>>>
>>>>Here's him insulting the likes of Einstein, Godel, Feynman etc:
>>>>http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
>>>
>>>>Here's his long winding, going-nowhere, drastically "innovative" and
>>>>ingenious new paradigm for parallel programming:
>>>>http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/COSA.htm
>>>
>>>>A true nutjob.
>>>
>>>Yo, Seijin meistah-san. I must have cranked you real hard, didn't I,
>>>Nameku-san? ahahaha... You should at least have the gonads to identify
>>>yourself when you're badmouthing your betters, eh? I know you
>>>functional programming nerds get all twisted out of shape when
>>>somebody writes that functional programming is crap. ahahaha... You
>>>should check out my latest articles (see links below) on Erlang.
>>>Enough to give you function heads an apoplectic fit and hit the dirt.
>>>ahahaha... ahahaha...
>>>
>>>Erlang Is Not the Solution:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/erlang-is-not-solution.html
>>>
>>>Tilera�s TILE64: The Good, the Bad and the Possible, Part IIhttp://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/tileras-tile64-good-bad-and-...
>>>
>>>ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>>>
>>>Louis Savain
>>>
>>>Rebel Science News:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>> See what I mean? So much of an internet celebrity that he quickly
>> found out a miserable usenet post mentioning him.
>>
>> Well, now that you're here anyway, I'd like to introduce you to Xah.
>> Xah, Louis. Louis, Xah. I hope you have fun together. Or are you 2
>> the same?
>>
>> Kenny may joing occasionaly...
>
>
>Oh, I am here, just waiting for the name-calling to die down
ahahaha... Man, it's all in fun. I just enjoy pissing off computer
nerds. They're not only full of themsleves, they're full of shit as
well. ahahaha...
> so I can
>ask Louis what he thinks of the growing interest in reactive
>programming: OpenLaszlo, Adobe Adam, FrTime...
I only like synchronous reactive systems that are based on fine-grain
deterministic parallelism. There is nothing out there that qualifies.
Not even a reactive language like Esterel will do. This is the reason
that I started Project COSA and that I am pushing for a new type of
processor core, a pure MIMD vector core in which every instruction is
a parallel vector.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
I don't like textual languages. They are ancient relics from the last
century. The only text-based languages that are permissible in my view
are descriptive languages for documents, graphics, web pages, etc.
HTML, XML, and PDF fall in that category. Even then, I believe that
they should be hidden behind a graphical user interface. I just hate
crappy, nerdy stuff (like Erlang, LISP, etc. ahahaha...) that excludes
the rest of the world from the joy of application development.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
Kenny wrote:
> Meanwhile, Xah just enunciated the same policy as Jesus of Nazareth,
> Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Lenny Bruce, and George Carlin. Your
> interpretation may be a tad subcharitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Bruce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin
interesting guys. Didn't know about them before.
speaking of interesting guys, recently i was reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Leary
and a while back i read about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon
at least today fucking in the ass and cock sucking is not a crime most
states.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <g914m9$3um$1@aioe.org>
On 2008-08-23 21:32:06 -0400, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> said:
> Meanwhile, Xah just enunciated the same policy as Jesus of Nazareth,
> Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Lenny Bruce, and George Carlin.
And most buddhist masters. Nevertheless:
When a teacher of merit does this we call it "skillful means" (i.e., upaya).
When a misguided fool does it we call it "trolling."
From: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <m1bpzf96b2.fsf@gazonk.vestre.net>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> When a misguided fool does it we call it "trolling."
Whether it's trolling or not, I wish all the good contributors to this
newsgroup could put a "[xah]" tag in the subject when they're just
replying to his messages, makes killing those sub-threads easier. It's
gotten very noisy here lately. (Not that I don't think Xah has a few
valid points, but I don't care, I think I stopped worrying about
fundamental syntax questions of lisp almost 20 years ago).
--
(espen)
From: Tamas K Papp
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <6hke9kFmhsr0U1@mid.individual.net>
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:53:05 +0200, Espen Vestre wrote:
> Whether it's trolling or not, I wish all the good contributors to this
> newsgroup could put a "[xah]" tag in the subject when they're just
> replying to his messages, makes killing those sub-threads easier. It's
very good idea.
Tamas
On 2008-08-17 02:45:22 +0100, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> said:
> * Wouldn't it be cool to have not a moderated forum but a /judged/
> forum? Lurkers could score without unlurking? Talk about an addictive
> NG. k
... Err ... Reddit?
:-)
--
JFB
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <48aa6da9$0$29500$607ed4bc@cv.net>
verec wrote:
> On 2008-08-17 02:45:22 +0100, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
>> * Wouldn't it be cool to have not a moderated forum but a /judged/
>> forum? Lurkers could score without unlurking? Talk about an addictive
>> NG. k
>
>
> ... Err ... Reddit?
>
> :-)
Yes, I forgot about that. Mebbe cuz I am not a denizen. But I would be
looking for something more prominent, not just message-ranking. There
would have to be a running total on the thread, and a way to flag
someone for ducking an argument, even ... hey, why am I giving the
product away? If Andy would just finish OpenAIR I could expand my Cells
Inside(tm) empire.
:)
kt
What he's trying to say is that you seem to be an egomaniac with a
probably justified inferiority complex.
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <48a946ef$0$20932$607ed4bc@cv.net>
mayson wrote:
> What he's trying to say is that you seem to be an egomaniac with a
> probably justified inferiority complex.
Gotta get a threaded newsreader...I am trying to figure out if you
addressed that to me or Jon. Toss-up, really.
kt
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 05:54:08 -0400, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>mayson wrote:
>> What he's trying to say is that you seem to be an egomaniac with a
>> probably justified inferiority complex.
>
>Gotta get a threaded newsreader...I am trying to figure out if you
>addressed that to me or Jon. Toss-up, really.
>
>kt
Nope. Mayson needs to learn to attribute.
George.
From: Raymond Wiker
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <m2r68n1qwc.fsf@RAWMBP.local>
·······@corporate-world.lisp.de" <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> writes:
> Well, given that you seem to be unable to learn much Lisp beyond basic
> Emacs scripting,
> nobody here is impressed yet. Most of your posts show that you have a
> confused understanding of Lisp. comp.lang.lisp seems to be your
> favorite
> newsgroup now, but you are on a beginner level. If somebody
> shows you some basic Lisp code (like I showed you how to easily
> implement your Mathematica function with a better interface) you
> run away and can't find the post.
>
> I haven't seen any significant amount of Lisp code (remember, this
> is comp.lang.lisp) in all the years from you. All I saw is
> some basic code how to script Emacs. All I see is long
> text with often little information for this newsgroup. It's
> not that everybody needs to be a good programmer, but from
> you we have seen mostly zero.
>
> Maybe it is about time to actually learn the programming language you
> are
> writing so much about?
I think I know what lies behind the disconnect between the
outward manifestations pf Xah's intellect (code and "tutorials" posted
to c.l.l.), and his claim that his IQ is "fairly above average".
Xah has assumed that "average IQ" is about 50.
Raymond Wiker <···@RawMBP.local> writes:
> I think I know what lies behind the disconnect between the
> outward manifestations pf Xah's intellect (code and "tutorials" posted
> to c.l.l.), and his claim that his IQ is "fairly above average".
>
> Xah has assumed that "average IQ" is about 50.
That would explain a lot, and not only about Xah! :-)
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
The mighty hunter
Returns with gifts of plump birds,
Your foot just squashed one.
On Aug 16, 8:41 am, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>
> > On Aug 15, 4:55 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
> >> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
> >> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> >> Really? What's your IQ, then? I'm curious what number corresponds to
> >> "fairly above average".
>
> > So, if i disclose my IQ, you disclose yours?
>
> I've been making no claims about my IQ.
>
> You're the one who seemed to have no problem discussing your own IQ.
> So I was curious what the number was. After all, you brought it up.
>
> As for me: I will admit this: my IQ, as measured by clinical professionals,
> is within a few standard deviations of normal. At most 4-5 deviations from
> average, surely not more than that.
>
> -- Don
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ····@geddis.org
> If you want to sue somebody, just get a little plastic skeleton and lay it in
> their yard. Then tell them their ants ate your baby.
> -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
my iq is 890
gavino wrote:
> my iq is 890
You are a very clever person, because you manage to post like someone with
1/10 of your stated IQ.
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <48a70f2e$0$20900$607ed4bc@cv.net>
······@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 15, 4:55 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
>
>>·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
>>
>>
>>>If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>>
>>Really? What's your IQ, then? I'm curious what number corresponds to
>>"fairly above average".
>
>
> So, if i disclose my IQ, you disclose yours?
You will need an a-list: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial,
bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic,
and existential.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
kt
Kenny wrote:
> > So, if i disclose my IQ, you disclose yours?
>
> You will need an a-list: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial,
> bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic,
> and existential.
> --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
They missed sexual intelligence.
I'm a classist. I'm not interested in this motherfucking post-
modernist fuckface's views. When it comes to intelligence, there is
just one, what these motherfuckers would call logical-mathematical.
When you broaden it to other areas, intelligence as a concept ceases
to be meaningful.
For example, there's SETI (Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). Now, are
we assuming that aliens don't have musical intelligence? intraprsonal
intelligence? Naturalistic intelligence? and these mothefucker's
existential intelligence?
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <48a728fd$0$7333$607ed4bc@cv.net>
······@gmail.com wrote:
> Kenny wrote:
>
>
>>>So, if i disclose my IQ, you disclose yours?
>>
>>You will need an a-list: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial,
>>bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic,
>>and existential.
>> --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
>
>
> They missed sexual intelligence.
Probably just good manners.
>
> I'm a classist. I'm not interested in this motherfucking post-
> modernist fuckface's views.
> When it comes to intelligence, there is
> just one, what these motherfuckers would call logical-mathematical.
That does not make you a classicist, that makes you a
reactionaryhighscoringonlogicalmathematicalsoletsrestrictintelligencetothatist.
But your interpersonal is soaring, you oughta let that one in, too.
Meanwhile, I have to google some more, have no clue what naturalistic
and existential intelligence would be....
Ah, existential: "Existential intelligence can be defined as the ability
to be sensitive to, or have the capacity for, conceptualizing or
tackling deeper or larger questions about human existence, such as the
meaning of life, why are we born, why do we die, what is consciousness,
or how did we get here."
OK, where can I sign up for Xah's Reactionary IQ Army? That is not
intelligence, that is howbuddhistareyou?ence.
Naturalist IQ: ".. people possessing enhanced levels of [naturalist]
intelligence may also be very interested in other species, or in the
environment and the earth. "
Oh my. It may be too late to stop Them.
kt
On Aug 16, 3:41 pm, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kenny wrote:
> > > So, if i disclose my IQ, you disclose yours?
>
> > You will need an a-list: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial,
> > bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic,
> > and existential.
> > --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
>
> They missed sexual intelligence.
Hey, I keep making the wrong choice for girlfriends. Am I a complete
sexual moron?
OTOH, the Dick always wins the Brains out in some tough dilemma. This
gotta mean something...
> I'm a classist. I'm not interested in this motherfucking post-
> modernist fuckface's views. When it comes to intelligence, there is
> just one, what these motherfuckers would call logical-mathematical.
I'd have to agree with that. BTW, the best music is always inherently
produced by logical-math minds...
From: Tamas K Papp
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <6gng26Fga01pU1@mid.individual.net>
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:55:11 -0700, Don Geddis wrote:
> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
>> If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> Really? What's your IQ, then? I'm curious what number corresponds to
> "fairly above average".
To quote the Hungarian poet Sándor Weöres (my translation):
Pete is stoopid
Kate is stoopid
I am the only smart one
I even have brains up my ass
On Aug 15, 4:55 pm, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> wrote:
> ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
>
> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> Really? What's your IQ, then? I'm curious what number corresponds to
> "fairly above average".
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ····@geddis.org
> Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
> -- John Kenneth Galbraith
lol
-20
On Aug 15, 7:42 pm, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you have fairly above average IQ like me
With an above average IQ, you should be able to put an intelligent
guess at Robert's IQ from his writing.
Personally, I thought he seemed to also have an above average IQ and
could safely ignore telling him which trends and technologies to go
learn.
Anyway, this page might help and also gives a good indication as to
the job market, practically nil.
Luckily, there are practically nil fellow lispers to compete with you!
http://lispjobs.wordpress.com/
On Aug 15, 11:42 am, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 11:00 am, Robert <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually it was a serious question. I don't know why all 4 responses
> > were flippant.
>
> > Subject matter expertise obviously matters as much as choice of
> > programming language. And if you're creating , say , your own web
> > server , then you get to choose the language. But in most jobs, the
> > choice is already made for you.
>
> Serious, eh?
>
> What is it, specifically, you want to know or discuss??
>
> > I can see certain areas where Lisp is likely the best choice, with
> > Python close behind ( both are much better at tree manipulation than C/
> > C++ ). Haskell is newer and more restrictive.
>
> you wanted to know the job market of lisp in game programing? in web
> programing? in sys admin? They are practically nil.
>
> If you have fairly above average IQ like me, then, my general advice
> for long-term career choices is that pursue what you like and the
> bosses will compete their heads off to employ you. While you are still
> in a shoehorning stage, you can meanwhile mop McDonald's toilets.
>
> If you are average IQ and need bread and butter soon, just learn Java,
> HTML and Javascript and sql and PHP, VisualBasic, perl.
>
> > But my question is about todays job market in large American cities.
>
> To get a general sense of job market for lisp or haskell in a
> geographic area, you can just do a search in job sites. Dice.com and
> monster.com are classics.
>
> > Also, many programming jobs are flooded with immigrants, so the effect
> > of globalisation on salaries is a relevant question, since American
> > society is much more open than Europe to asian immigrants.
>
> Hum? what is the question you have in mind exactly?
>
> You want to know what's lisper's average of salary in comparison to,
> say, the average of java programer's salary, in say, Kenny's town? You
> want the arithemetic mean or medium?
>
> I'm interested to know too. I don't mean to be off putting, but you'll
> have more chances of knowing these answers by asking a librarian in a
> library, or join a moderated forum on social science related studies.
>
> For general resources, you can start with:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_outsourcing
>
> and follow its articles and references.
>
> Xah
> ∑http://xahlee.org/
>
> ☄
high IQ lol! ha!!!
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.
Date:
Message-ID: <48a5f46e$0$20899$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Robert wrote:
> Actually it was a serious question. I don't know why all 4 responses
> were flippant.
We have a choice. Laugh or cry.
>
> Subject matter expertise obviously matters as much as choice of
> programming language. And if you're creating , say , your own web
> server , then you get to choose the language. But in most jobs, the
> choice is already made for you.
>
> I can see certain areas where Lisp is likely the best choice, with
> Python close behind ( both are much better at tree manipulation than C/
> C++ ). Haskell is newer and more restrictive.
>
> But my question is about todays job market in large American cities.
I cannot even find a COBOL job, and I looked. And I am so broke I cannot
even afford bartender's school. It's Algebra or bust!
>
> Also, many programming jobs are flooded with immigrants, so the effect
> of globalisation on salaries is a relevant question, since American
> society is much more open than Europe to asian immigrants.
>
True. And it does not matter, if the colored people can't come to your
jobs, the jobs will travel to them.
kt
--
$$$$$: http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
BSlog: http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
Robert <···········@gmail.com> wrote in news:503379a4-032c-471c-a9d6-
············@v57g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> Actually it was a serious question. I don't know why all 4 responses
> were flippant.
It's because "Lisp Programmer" and "Haskell Programmer" don't really make
sense as job titles. Lisp and Haskell programming is not low level grunt
work. You don't find many professional Lisp managers whose careers are to
manage groups of Lisp programmers. It would be far more common that one
person would do all the work of the whole project. The job title might be
vice president or something like that.