On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:50:40 -0800, g...@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) wrote:
Kent:
>> that the substance will end up mattering in the long run.
>The community seems to share a disdain for more than just advocacy. Our >disdain extends to just about everything that isn't Lisp. This disdain is >evident in statements like "substance will end up mattering in the long >run", which implicit ly rejects the possibility that substance *has* >mattered, and that the world has rejected Lisp for substantial reasons and >not just superficial ones.
This seems to be typical of most marginal communities. I have seen variants of the argument "substance will eventually win " in the smalltalk, ada, eiffel, os2 and sgi communities. It seems improbable that every marginalised language is going to win.
Lisp, Ada , Eiffel and Smalltalk are all excellent languages, far superior to the Gang of Three ( Java, C++ , C ).
Yet, if Kent is right, they may have all been " rejected ... for substantial reasons and not just superficial ones."
Will we all end up like the Moonies , convinced that our faith is the One True Faith while the rest of the world moves on ?
israel r t wrote: > This seems to be typical of most marginal communities. > I have seen variants of the argument "substance will eventually win > " in the smalltalk, ada, eiffel, os2 and sgi communities. > It seems improbable that every marginalised language is going to win.
> Lisp, Ada , Eiffel and Smalltalk are all excellent languages, far > superior to the Gang of Three ( Java, C++ , C ).
> Yet, if Kent is right, they may have all been " rejected ... for > substantial reasons and not just superficial ones."
> Will we all end up like the Moonies , convinced that our faith is the > One True Faith while the rest of the world moves on ?
I have not done Ada or Eiffel, have done Smalltalk and Lisp, used to teach Smalltalk.
I think the reason is mindshare, which unfortunately looks pretty relevant to a hiring manager.
Not very many people can use these languages well. It's true that two or three people who can use them well can outproduce a whole roomful of very competent C/C++/Java guys. But a manager is highly influenced by the Truck Effect: if one of your exotic wonderboys goes away for any reason, he can be very hard to replace. Furthermore, the loss of one of these is equivalent to the loss of a whole team of C/C++/Java guys. Yes, I know the time/cost tradeoffs, but most managers don't want to hear the facts on this issue, they just want to know if they can hire someone off the street, and street people don't do Smalltalk.
I'm doing C++ right now, and I'm painfully aware of just how unproductive this thing is. But my client believes that I can be replaced if I go splat, and that belief helps them get through the day. Underneath it all, my work is informed by my Smalltalk and Lisp experience in ways that your average C/C++/Java guy just doesn't get, and my client understands that I know something they don't.
I would love to be able to do Smalltalk all day long. I would hate to go through life with the outlook of a C guy. It's hard, but I try to be content, and I go home and work on learning APL. For those of us who actually have to produce things, it's what you feed your brain that's relevant, and C and its children are not enough.
> Will we all end up like the Moonies , convinced that our faith is the > One True Faith while the rest of the world moves on ?
Depends.
If you can find the right group of folks who are all interested in improving their productivity with marginal languages, you can always try and work outside the "C Block" and do an end-run around slower-moving organizations.
It is Great Mistake to assume that, because a programming language has been overlooked by the majority, it is therefore not worth pursuing in a niche. Sure, there's a great draw to simply throwing up one's hands and saying "ah, what the heck, everyone else is using C++"... and that is a choice of safety over all else. Not a bad choice, but perhaps not the best choice.
> Lisp, Ada , Eiffel and Smalltalk are all excellent languages, far > superior to the Gang of Three ( Java, C++ , C ).
> Yet, if Kent is right, they may have all been " rejected ... for > substantial reasons and not just superficial ones."
For a second I thought by "they" you meant Java, C++ and C. They have indeed all been rejected, if you think about it.
Anybody want to do without GC and OO (besides Graham)? Goodbye C.
Anybody want to do without GC and worry about pointers and use templates to get past static typing and wait minutes for a single edit-compile-link-run iteration? Goodbye C++, witness the rejoicing over Java, Perl, Python, Ruby...
Anybody happy with Java? Why are people adding JIT compilation, GFs, MI (AspectJ) and macros?
Obviously the winner is any compiled (fast), GCed, GFing, MI dynamic language with macros. Mature, an ANSII standard and a free implementation would not hurt either. hang on...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 03:56:04 GMT, Kenny Tilton <ktil...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>Obviously the winner is any compiled (fast), GCed, GFing, MI dynamic >language with macros. Mature, an ANSII standard and a free >implementation would not hurt either. hang on...
And Ocaml wins again ! :-)
No macros though... Lots of currying and and higher order functions however.
And speeeeeeed ! ( As if it really matters with commodity 2 GHz processors... )
>>Obviously the winner is any compiled (fast), GCed, GFing, MI dynamic >>language with macros. Mature, an ANSII standard and a free >>implementation would not hurt either. hang on...
>And Ocaml wins again ! :-)
>No macros though... >Lots of currying and and higher order functions however.
>And speeeeeeed ! >( As if it really matters with commodity 2 GHz processors... )
Hmmm. Is there a version of ML that supports macros?
> >>Obviously the winner is any compiled (fast), GCed, GFing, MI dynamic > >>language with macros. Mature, an ANSII standard and a free > >>implementation would not hurt either. hang on...
> >Obviously the winner is any compiled (fast), GCed, GFing, MI dynamic > >language with macros. Mature, an ANSII standard and a free > >implementation would not hurt either. hang on... > And Ocaml wins again ! :-)
OCaml doesn't have generic functions, and it is statically typed.
On the other hand it comes with algebraic data types, which can be handy...
Andreas
-- "In my eyes it is never a crime to steal knowledge. It is a good theft. The pirate of knowledge is a good pirate." (Michel Serres)
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:46:36 +1100, israel r t wrote: > Yet, if Kent is right, they may have all been " rejected ... for > substantial reasons and not just superficial ones."
This implies that the marked is rational and logical. It has shown time and time again that it isn't. The marked won't choose a superior technical solution over an inferior yet better marketed or seemingly cheaper solution.
Capitalisme will need to adjust itself in the near future from the short-term gain view to a long-term view. This includes taking into account security and maintainability over time. In all sectors we see that the drive to cut costs leads to problems with the security; secure food, transport, utilities, software etc... There now seems to come articles that looks at the cost of software bugs for bussinesses.
It is just as frustrating every time I hear about some company that makes some kind of "secure" solution and when you ask them what language they use they say C or C++. When one then ask them why they use such an unsafe language they start arguing not that C/C++ is safe, they mostly agree that it isn't, but out of economical concerns or that they need people that can program and people know C/C++.
Preben -- () Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights. '||} {||' http://www.amnesty.org/
In article <slrna40nb0.7nn.randhol+ab...@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>, Preben Randhol wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:46:36 +1100, israel r t wrote: >> Yet, if Kent is right, they may have all been " rejected ... for >> substantial reasons and not just superficial ones."
> This implies that the marked is rational and logical. It has shown time > and time again that it isn't. The marked won't choose a superior > technical solution over an inferior yet better marketed or seemingly > cheaper solution.
It won't? Where do you know that? Who is ``the market''? Software companies decide for themselves which programming language they use. Your company is free to choose, too.
> Capitalisme will need to adjust itself in the near future from the > short-term gain view to a long-term view.
Funny; ``in the near future''. This claim is *very* old, but we are still waiting ;-)
> It is just as frustrating every time I hear about some company that > makes some kind of "secure" solution and when you ask them what language > they use they say C or C++. When one then ask them why they use such an > unsafe language they start arguing not that C/C++ is safe, they mostly > agree that it isn't, but out of economical concerns or that they need > people that can program and people know C/C++.
Well, that's the decision they made, then. If you think it's a wrong one, you could prove it by making a different decision in /your/ company. If you are right, your product should be more successful, right?
Blaming the market doesn't make sense at all here. You think the market is ``irrational and illogical''? Who is ``rational and logical'' then? Some communist party? There isn't much of an alternative here; either companies are free to choose, as they are now, or some communist party decides which programming language we all have to use. Just imagine which one would that be, considering the ``rational and logical'' decisions those parties have made in the past...
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
Nils Goesche <car...@t-online.de> writes: > In article <slrna40nb0.7nn.randhol+ab...@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>, Preben Randhol wrote:
> > Capitalisme will need to adjust itself in the near future from the > > short-term gain view to a long-term view.
> Funny; ``in the near future''. This claim is *very* old, but we are > still waiting ;-)
Even restricting one's view to economics alone, look at the United States. We're in the second economic recession in 10 years. And in the time in between, although unemployment was low, wages didn't grow. This isn't much of a refultation of the claim. Or are you just arguing that capitalism still exists? If so, that's not much of an argument.
-- /|_ .-----------------------. ,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war | ,--' _,' | Wage class war! | / / `-----------------------' ( -. | | ) | (`-. '--.) `. )----'
> > In article <slrna40nb0.7nn.randhol+ab...@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>, Preben Randhol wrote: > > > Capitalism will need to adjust itself in the near future from > > > the short-term gain view to a long-term view. > > Funny; ``in the near future''. This claim is *very* old, but we > > are still waiting ;-) > Even restricting one's view to economics alone, look at the United > States. We're in the second economic recession in 10 years. And in > the time in between, although unemployment was low, wages didn't > grow. This isn't much of a refultation of the claim. Or are you > just arguing that capitalism still exists? If so, that's not much > of an argument.
And "wages" and "unemployment" are forcibly supposed to be related to the manner of ownership of the results of production _how_?
[You're probably _not_ amongst the clueless on this, but I find it tremendously irritating when people get spectacularly worshipful about "capitalism" when they're clearly thinking about things that aren't forcibly related, such as when concepts of "private property" and "free markets" could apply equally well under arrangements such as "mercantilism."]
The notion that it makes sense for "capitalism to adjust itself" to something when capitalism is an _economic concept_ seems just spectacularly silly. It's a _definition_, and definitions don't adjust themselves. -- (concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@acm.org") http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/ "We're all a little weird. And life is a little weird. And when we find someone whose weirdness is compatible with ours, we join up with them and fall into mutually satisfying weirdness - and call it love..." -- R. Fulghum
> Obviously the winner is any compiled (fast), GCed, GFing, MI dynamic > language with macros. Mature, an ANSII standard and a free > implementation would not hurt either. hang on...
> > Obviously the winner is any compiled (fast), GCed, GFing, MI dynamic > > language with macros. Mature, an ANSII standard and a free > > implementation would not hurt either. hang on...
> Like Dylan?
Is Dylan mature, stable, ANSII standard?
Anyway, not enough parentheses. And I like unhygienic macros.
Dylan to me adds no value over Lisp, so why bother?
All that said, yup, Dylan is something I would consider if Lisp did not exist.
Oh, damnit, I forgot. How about a MOP. Does Dylan expose the MOP so I can metaclass?
Anyway, the big quetsion is: what is the added value over Lisp to make me give up Lisp.
One more thing: I love editing with parentheses-aware editors. Infix won't cut it.
Christopher Browne <cbbro...@acm.org> writes: > t...@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes: > > Nils Goesche <car...@t-online.de> writes:
> > > In article <slrna40nb0.7nn.randhol+ab...@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>, Preben Randhol wrote:
> > > > Capitalism will need to adjust itself in the near future from > > > > the short-term gain view to a long-term view.
> > > Funny; ``in the near future''. This claim is *very* old, but we > > > are still waiting ;-)
> > Even restricting one's view to economics alone, look at the United > > States. We're in the second economic recession in 10 years. And in > > the time in between, although unemployment was low, wages didn't > > grow. This isn't much of a refultation of the claim. Or are you > > just arguing that capitalism still exists? If so, that's not much > > of an argument.
> And "wages" and "unemployment" are forcibly supposed to be related to > the manner of ownership of the results of production _how_?
I was responding to a claim that seemed to be implying that there wasn't anything wrong with capitalism's optimizing for short-term gain. In fact, I think imperialism has just about reached a point of equilibrium, where it's no longer beneficial (for the capitalist class) to increase productivity. The United States is now a society where the average amount of labor is increasing, but the net production isn't (if things are produced but subsequently exploded or thrown out, there was no net production). Increased work and declining wages during the period *between* cyclical recessions is a symptom of this.
> [You're probably _not_ amongst the clueless on this, but I find it > tremendously irritating when people get spectacularly worshipful about > "capitalism" when they're clearly thinking about things that aren't > forcibly related, such as when concepts of "private property" and > "free markets" could apply equally well under arrangements such as > "mercantilism."]
> The notion that it makes sense for "capitalism to adjust itself" to > something when capitalism is an _economic concept_ seems just > spectacularly silly. It's a _definition_, and definitions don't > adjust themselves.
But capitalism has certainly evolved over time. Property and class relations have changed since the mid 19th century. Who knows, maybe it will evolve some more and find a way to increase production. Or maybe it won't, and we'll have a social crisis and a change in property relations :)
-- /|_ .-----------------------. ,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war | ,--' _,' | Wage class war! | / / `-----------------------' ( -. | | ) | (`-. '--.) `. )----'
> > > Obviously the winner is any compiled (fast), GCed, GFing, MI dynamic > > > language with macros. Mature, an ANSII standard and a free > > > implementation would not hurt either. hang on...
> > Like Dylan?
> Is Dylan mature, stable, ANSII standard?
I thought those were just niceties, not necessary for the language to "win", according to you just above.
> Anyway, not enough parentheses. And I like unhygienic macros.
> Dylan to me adds no value over Lisp, so why bother?
Well, sure, right now. Since Dylan seems to have what you think it would take for a non-mainstream language to make it into the mainstream, if it did, that's the value it *would* offer. I'd be *thrilled* to be a Dylaner if there were a ton of Dylan jobs.
You seem to have changed from talking about what "the winner" needs, to talking about what language you'd rather use. I don't think it's a good idea to change the definition of "win" so radically, at least mid-thread :)
> All that said, yup, Dylan is something I would consider if Lisp did not > exist.
> Oh, damnit, I forgot. How about a MOP. Does Dylan expose the MOP so I > can metaclass?
Yeah, it might have just fallen out of the winning category. I agree, a MOP is vital.
> Anyway, the big quetsion is: what is the added value over Lisp to make > me give up Lisp.
> One more thing: I love editing with parentheses-aware editors. Infix > won't cut it.
If you had an infix language that could be turned into a sexp form, you could probably make an editor that actually worked on its structure in the image. Not that I'm advocating this, I'm just sayin...
-- /|_ .-----------------------. ,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war | ,--' _,' | Wage class war! | / / `-----------------------' ( -. | | ) | (`-. '--.) `. )----'
<dhoc...@staffware-spokane.com> wrote: >> Obviously the winner is any compiled (fast), GCed, GFing, MI dynamic >> language with macros. Mature, an ANSII standard and a free >> implementation would not hurt either. hang on...
> [> > > is Kenny Tilton] > > > > Obviously the winner is any compiled (fast), GCed, GFing, MI dynamic > > > > language with macros. Mature, an ANSII standard and a free > > > > implementation would not hurt either. hang on...
> > > Like Dylan?
> > Is Dylan mature, stable, ANSII standard?
> I thought those were just niceties, not necessary for the language to > "win", according to you just above.
was doug making that distinction? anyway, that was just a point of information. i do not follow dylan, for all i know it's spec is stable--i wasn't arguing, i was asking.
> > Dylan to me adds no value over Lisp, so why bother?
> Well, sure, right now. Since Dylan seems to have what you think it > would take for a non-mainstream language to make it into the > mainstream, if it did, that's the value it *would* offer. I'd be > *thrilled* to be a Dylaner if there were a ton of Dylan jobs.
well, my whole point was, look past current popularity to how developers are reacting to the status quo with new languages or new features for java to get at True Popularity. so might-make-it-mainstream is subtly OT.
I anyway like to separate the question of how great is a language regardless of its popularity from considerations deriving from popularity, such as the number of available jobs, programmers and libraries. The latter effects of popularity do not in the long run wag the popularity dog; there was a day when COBOL, VSAM and CICS ruled the world. Pascal was so big the original Mac OS team used it. And the Romans really kicked the Christians' asses. Hang on...
Note that I am not saying popularity does not add value in the practical ways we all grok, just that I like to control for popularity when assessing long-term prospects of languages.
> israel r t wrote: > > This seems to be typical of most marginal communities. > > I have seen variants of the argument "substance will eventually win > > " in the smalltalk, ada, eiffel, os2 and sgi communities. > > It seems improbable that every marginalised language is going to win.
> > Lisp, Ada , Eiffel and Smalltalk are all excellent languages, far > > superior to the Gang of Three ( Java, C++ , C ).
> > Yet, if Kent is right, they may have all been " rejected ... for > > substantial reasons and not just superficial ones."
> > Will we all end up like the Moonies , convinced that our faith is the > > One True Faith while the rest of the world moves on ?
> I have not done Ada or Eiffel, > have done Smalltalk and Lisp, > used to teach Smalltalk.
> I think the reason is mindshare, > which unfortunately looks pretty relevant to a hiring manager.
> Not very many people can use these languages well. > It's true that two or three people who can use them well > can outproduce a whole roomful of very competent C/C++/Java guys. > But a manager is highly influenced by the Truck Effect: > if one of your exotic wonderboys goes away for any reason, > he can be very hard to replace. > Furthermore, the loss of one of these > is equivalent to the loss of a whole team of C/C++/Java guys. > Yes, I know the time/cost tradeoffs, > but most managers don't want to hear the facts on this issue, > they just want to know if they can hire someone off the street, > and street people don't do Smalltalk.
> I'm doing C++ right now, > and I'm painfully aware of just how unproductive this thing is. > But my client believes that I can be replaced if I go splat, > and that belief helps them get through the day. > Underneath it all, > my work is informed by my Smalltalk and Lisp experience > in ways that your average C/C++/Java guy just doesn't get, > and my client understands that I know something they don't.
> I would love to be able to do Smalltalk all day long. > I would hate to go through life with the outlook of a C guy. > It's hard, but I try to be content, > and I go home and work on learning APL. > For those of us who actually have to produce things, > it's what you feed your brain that's relevant, > and C and its children are not enough.
> In software, nothing is more concrete than a good abstraction.
I think Steve is right. I too am primarily a C++ developer but would like to be using langages such as Eiffel, which I've read a lot about but not used. However, I'm constrained by learning what I have to learn to make a living and what can be leveraged off of C++. So things like C# and ASP are worth my while investing in and Eiffel isn't - for now, at any rate.
I think that it is good for programmers to be familiar with more than one language, even if only cursorily. My C++ has improved and is improving (hopefully) by being informed by important concepts from Eiffel and from more general reading on software engineering.
It's always going to be hard for something new to get a look in. There is, of course, the economic reason that, for example, C/C++ guys are two a penny but Eiffel and Smalltalk guys aren't. That's why you often need some kind of killer application or killer technology area to leverage off of. Eiffel, for example, may get a boost from .Net, especially as its offering a few things that the other languages don't. But I fear it's not being marketed very well at the moment.
Another barrier to overcome is programmers themselves. It's difficult enough to get C programmers to buy into OO and to get C++ programmers to use the techniques that exist to write safer, more maintainable code. This may partly be due to the complexity of C++ but I also think it's just boneheadedness (e.g., the attitude "I've always used sprintf why try anything different?")
In my last job, a difficult-to-fine damaged memory problem was caused by an incorrectly coded sprintf. This would not have been caused by using the more modern C++ alternatives. But a dyed-in-the-wool C programmer would probably just say that programmers should be competent enough not to make mistakes.
However, having said this, the minority languages would probably help their case better by not dogmatically dismissing everything else but by being more constructive. Not everything in C/C++ is bad.
In article <xcvu1tr5ay6....@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>, Thomas F. Burdick wrote: > Christopher Browne <cbbro...@acm.org> writes:
>> t...@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes: >> > Nils Goesche <car...@t-online.de> writes:
>> > > In article <slrna40nb0.7nn.randhol+ab...@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>, Preben Randhol wrote:
>> > > > Capitalism will need to adjust itself in the near future from >> > > > the short-term gain view to a long-term view.
>> > > Funny; ``in the near future''. This claim is *very* old, but we >> > > are still waiting ;-)
>> > Even restricting one's view to economics alone, look at the United >> > States. We're in the second economic recession in 10 years. And in >> > the time in between, although unemployment was low, wages didn't >> > grow. This isn't much of a refultation of the claim. Or are you >> > just arguing that capitalism still exists? If so, that's not much >> > of an argument.
>> And "wages" and "unemployment" are forcibly supposed to be related to >> the manner of ownership of the results of production _how_?
> I was responding to a claim that seemed to be implying that there > wasn't anything wrong with capitalism's optimizing for short-term > gain.
There /is/ something wrong with your idea of `capitalism' being `optimizing' for anything like `short-term gains'. /People/ are `optimizing'. Maybe some managers and politicians are `optimizing for short-term gains'. But that is nothing to worry about: If you think you know better how to win in the long run, by any means, do it! Those stupid short-term-thinkers that apparently worry you so much will lose and you'll take them over when they're broke ;-)
But yes, I know what you're up to. You are, like everybody else on the `leftist' side, convinced that you can do better than the market; that you know what people /really/ want, or at least should want to do or to buy because you are, because of your superior intelligence, able to predict the future and are the only one who can tell what has to be done instead in order to save us all. So, we need a strong government, ownership of companies and anything else has to be transferred to the government which must be led by yourself, of course, not by some ordinary, mortal short-term-thinker. Then, elections are no longer necessary and in fact dangerous, because the stupid public might not recognize, because of their lack of intelligence, how everything the government does will be good for them, in the long run, of course, and some `right-wing' evildoers might convince them to elect somebody else and we can't have that, can we?
Pretty close? I hope you are not offended by this too much, but I wanted to show you how all this `leftist' talk sounds to people not sharing your views. Now you probably think that I am a `right-wing' evil-doer, that would be a typical reflex at least, but there are other views of the world than the leftist, and not all of them are right-wing.
If you find this interesting, however, you might be also interested in
``The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy''
by Thomas Sowell,
or
``Free to Choose: A Personal Statement''
by Milton and Rose D. Friedman,
both available at Amazon.
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
* "Kevin McFarlane" <ke...@atech.globalnet.co.uk> | It's always going to be hard for something new to get a look in. There | is, of course, the economic reason that, for example, C/C++ guys are two | a penny but Eiffel and Smalltalk guys aren't.
This is one of the most misleading abuses of statistics around. Just because the probability that you hit a C++ programmer if you throw a rock into a crowd is very high, does not mean that the probability that he can replace _your_ C++ programmer is any higher than finding a replacement Eiffel or Smalltalk programmer. Because you have to weed through tons of idiots who only _claim_ they know C++, the effort required to find a real replacement may be significantly lower for Eiffel or Smalltalk. Besides, if you can find a good programmer, chances are very good that he will be able to learn any programming language you use reasonably well in the time it would take to find a good C++ programmer. And learning from the sources of the previous programmer is a lot easier than learning the language from scratch in a general, application-independent way.
I have actually witnessed this. A company I worked for got a new manager level that was completely superfluous, so the new manager had to prove to herself that she had a real job, and spent a lot of time arguing against using languages that were not mainstream, and basically made it hard to use anything but Java, and many good people quit. Then a Java man got seriously ill. She was unable to replace him in the 5 months he was away. The other Java men could not do his work. To her amazement, choice of language mattered less than the other skills the programmers had. The conclusion from this story that this manager actually arrived at was that it was bad to have skilled programmers -- she alone should make the design decisions and programmers would simply implement them. She could now return to her policy of using only mainstream languages and hire only unskilled programmers who lied about knowing a language. As far as I know, nothing interesting has happened at that company for a long time.
Nils Goesche <car...@t-online.de> writes: > There /is/ something wrong with your idea of `capitalism' being > `optimizing' for anything like `short-term gains'. /People/ are > `optimizing'. Maybe some managers and politicians are `optimizing > for short-term gains'. But that is nothing to worry about: If you > think you know better how to win in the long run, by any means, do it! > Those stupid short-term-thinkers that apparently worry you so much > will lose and you'll take them over when they're broke ;-)
To say the above you need to completely ignore property relations.
> But yes, I know what you're up to.
No, you don't. Just because you've met a whole lot of Stalinists and holier-than-thou Social Democrats doesn't mean you understand the views of everyone in the class struggle. In particular, even if it were reasonable to have that attitude with Europeans, projecting your political understanding across the Atlantic is a recipe for disaster.
> on the `leftist' side, > convinced that you can do better than the market; that you know what > people /really/ want, or at least should want to do or to buy because > you are, because of your superior intelligence, able to predict > the future and are the only one who can tell what has to be done instead > in order to save us all. So, we need a strong government, ownership > of companies and anything else has to be transferred to the government > which must be led by yourself, of course, not by some ordinary, > mortal short-term-thinker. Then, elections are no longer necessary > and in fact dangerous, because the stupid public might not recognize, > because of their lack of intelligence, how everything the government > does will be good for them, in the long run, of course, and some > `right-wing' evildoers might convince them to elect somebody else and > we can't have that, can we?
> Pretty close? I hope you are not offended by this too much, but I > wanted to show you how all this `leftist' talk sounds to people not > sharing your views.
Oh, I know how I sound to others. I can't do much about the fact that some people listen to one thing and hear another. The only way to get past that is to have a real conversation with someone. On that note, if you want to continue this over e-mail, I'm down. But I'd rather not continue this in comp.*, for reasons I hope are obvious :)
> by Milton and Rose D. Friedman,
Oh dear god, Milton Friedman??? I don't know about your politicl views, but this man's are frighteningly right-wing. If you want to know what his politics means for the 2nd and 3rd world, look at what he helped do in Latin America. BTW, this is a very mainstream view to be frightened of / hateful towards him.
-- /|_ .-----------------------. ,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war | ,--' _,' | Wage class war! | / / `-----------------------' ( -. | | ) | (`-. '--.) `. )----'
^This is a sabot cat, a big clue I'm not a communist
