You would probably disagree.  But you could take it as another
example that different people find different things unacceptable,
one just has to learn to live with that.

Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."

Make no mistake, all else being equal I would still be using Lisp.  But
all else is not equal, at least not for me.  I wish it were otherwise.

Major objection: If you really respect someone, don't second-guess the
way they handle situations. You might even emulate them and learn
something.

KP's cowardly (not!) article deleted interpersonal stuff, showing you
the way out of your addiction to feuding: suppress emotional,
interpersonal stuff when dealing with others. Do not try to settle every
score. Do not react to each affront. Let sh*t slide. Don't make
unimportant people important to you by engaging them. The c.l.l. chorus
(I wager) admires the cooler head, the one who walks away.

FWIW.

--

  Scheme/lisp -> Kawa/Jscheme -> java j2sdk compiler -> JVM bytecodes
  Scheme/lisp -> Kawa/Jscheme -> gcj compiler        -> native executable

  http://www.gnu.org/software/kawa
  http://www.sf.net/projects/silk

  When you understand that _exactly_ the same standard is applied, you will
  have matured significantly as a human being.

This depends on what you do, I would think.  I doubt Python can match
Common Lisp in performance even if expressiveness and such were close
enough as you claim.  Given that the above is true for your purposes:

    EG>  If I want to use Lisp I have to
    EG> fight with my colleagues.  When I use Python I don't.  

This is fine.  No arguments.  This is no different than some of us having
to edit stuff in MS Word because the client is too valuable to risk
offending by fussing about these things.  If, say, you were paid to
work with Erik, the situation would be different.  

    EG> When I
    EG> use Python I get regular expressions and database connectivity
    EG> with zero effort -- it's already there.  When I use Lisp I use
    EG> MCL, and it doesn't come with regexps or database
    EG> connectivity, so I have to put in some effort.  

Is what you are saying true on the Mac for Python?  

    EG> At the very
    EG> least I have to download a library, install it, evaluate it. [...]

This is no big deal if you are assured that once you do get it and get
it work it will perform adequately.  I think the hassle is no big deal
if you are sure you need to do it once.  What seems to bother people more
is that it might not be just getting one library getting it to work and
being happpy ever after but getting library A sinking time into getting
it to work, being failed by it, and going through the same thing with B.
Now, I can see this happening with random pieces of code off the net but
does it also happen with vendor supplied libraries?  

  You have no basis for this stupid retort.

| 1.  Despite the fact that Lisp had many more major language features much
| earlier than most other languages, it isn't perfect, and should continue
| to evolve if it is to keep its competitive edge.

  An instance of the bleeding obvious with which nobody disagrees.

| 2.  That conclusions ought to be drawn from evidence and not from
| arguments-from-authority.

  An instance of the bleeding obvious with which nobody disagrees.

| 3.  That you aren't always right about everything, and that assuming you
| are, while it may be a good heuristic for staying out of trouble, is not
| 100% effective at arriving at the truth.

  An instance of the bleeding obvious with which nobody disagrees.

  You clearly did not read the article you responded to when you found yet
  another moronic reason to hurl yet another moronic accusation my way.  I
  suggest you actually read it, now, lest you repeat something that has
  already been strongly refuted and falsified.

| Sure you are.  But if you are allowed to do these things, then so am I.
| I have never said you are not *allowed* to do these things.  My position
| has always been simply that you would be more effective if you didn't.

  Yes, towards you and in your view, which I am obligated to disregard
  because you are clearly nuts and unable to provide a balanced view or
  even information.

| We'd both have more time for technical contributions if we weren't
| fighting with each other all the time.  I'm ready to call this off any
| time you are.

  Coward.  I am not ready to call this off, as I think you are truly evil
  and as long as you keep posting your purely destructive bullshit about
  me, about Common Lisp, about other respected Lispers, you _will_ receive
  harsh replies.  You can stop fighting unilaterally.  Unlike you, I do not
  attack people who do not post anything bad.  I do _not_ make the first
  move.  That is your peculiar modus operandi, and one for which you should
  learn to accept full responsibility.  One way to do that is to accept the
  _humiliation_ you will feel if you quit posting your usual crap about and
  to me.  You will feel soundly defeated in your own view, but it is only
  in your view, because you are completely nuts and so enraged at the
  moment that you think that you will "lose face" if you do not respond.
  If you feel this way, as I suspect, it is all the more important that you
  actually stop fighting unilaterally.

  Also, please realize this, because you are so hard of learning and have
  such an investment in vilifying me far beyond anything reasonable, I am
  not responding to your extremely disgusting behavior, but your abuse of
  this forum with your incessant loads of crap, disinformation, confusion,
  and general ill will.  Just stop, return to whatever cave your ilk comes
  from, and things will return to normal.  Keep filling up this forum with
  your special kind of putrid disinformation, and you _must_ be fought, not
  just by me, but by anyone who wants comp.lang.lisp to be about Lisp, to
  foster an environment and a community where professional Lispers and
  those who want to become professional Lispers can find both personal and
  professional needs fulfilled.  You do neither, and it is your choice.
  There is nobody you can blame for your behavior.  Accept this and shut up.

  And if you are so goddamn happy about Python, go kick up some dirt in
  comp.lang.python, instead of making life so miserable for those who are
  quite happy with Lisp and who are working tirelessly to make the world of
  Lisp so much more enjoyable.  You are hurting the community and the
  ability of people to feel good about what they do.  In this forum, you
  are en evil influence.  Whatever happened to your stupid "faith" in Lisp,
  it is no longer our concern when you turn into a destructive bastard who
  blames other people for your lack of self-control.

  Show us that you are a man, and just quit.

BTW, I think the situation is more like the Palestinian/Israeli situation,
with genuine and legitimate grievances on both sides.  I have a sincere
desire for peace, but it's going to be a negotiated peace, not an
unconditional surrender.

Tell you what.  I hereby declare a unilateral ceasefire.  Erik proposed an
idea that I think is really good: a standard virtual machine for Lisp
libraries.  I heartily endorse that idea.  Let's put all this other crap
behind us and figure out how we can all work together to turn this idea
into reality, OK?

The truth is that labelling Kent a coward is actually grossly unfair, and
I did it in part because, as I said, it was late and I was feeling
grumpy.  So Kent, I'm sorry I called you a coward.  Nonetheless, it does
reflect a genuine sentiment, that Kent could help us work this out, and
I'm frustrated that he chooses not to do so.

  This does not follow.  All we can conclude from his choice of vehicle for
  his ideas is that he found it the locally optimal choice at the time.
  There is no reason to maximize any crises, here.

  Common Lisp is _not_ "popular".  This fact is never going to change.
  What we want to do with Common Lisp is not going to be stuff that can be
  done with a random selection of people off the streat.

  However, it _is_ getting increasingly harder to start using Common Lisp
  in a project -- because the path of least resistance goes through a more
  specialized tool for the kinds of tasks people are now generally starting
  new projects.  Optimizing for popularity is one way to avoid Common Lisp.

  Optimizing for extensibility, building systems that can themselves be
  used to build applications, _without_ the annoying Open Source thing, is
  Common Lisp's forté.  The ability to think "system" is not very common
  with today's crop of programmers who are mostly building inside somebody
  else's systems (be they Windows or something like KDE or GNOME, or the
  whole Java system), and Common Lisp programmers have someone gotten into
  the mindset that they must fit into other systems, and this is where it
  is least likely to win in the short term.

I have said in the past that I find remarks "constructive" when they are
clear and to the point such that I can figure out how to respond in a
productive way, regardless of how they are presented.  I will therefore
accept your remark as constructive in the sense that it offers me the
opportunity to clarify my position in an area where you think I have been
not clear.  I don't plan to make a habit of this, by the way, but I do feel
it warrants a simple and clear statement.

In point of fact, I don't think Erik's behavior is unacceptable.  See
 http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/usenet-freedom.html
for some side detail, but basically I think this place will always be a
free speech forum and if you want otherwise, you want another forum.

In point of fact, I don't think it is appropriate to "speak out against"
people violating harmony here because I don't see that as productive.  I
think it is sometimes appropriate to make a reasoned statement and hope that
the person hearing it will merely say "oh, sorry. of course." and correct
their behavior.  That sometimes happens.  But when it doesn't, I'm pretty
sure that all subsequent conversation on the topic is going nowhere and
that anyone on either side who further fans the flames is no better than
the other.  

I further believe that anyone who escalates a single remark to a whole thread
is doing worse by this forum than the person who started things.

I also do not believe there are grades of "name calling" so I find no
productive value in comparing epithets and saying "mine was more
acceptable than yours".  It's not productive to do namecalling here at
all.  I recommend that people not do it.  But not because I regard it
as "unacceptable".  If it were, both you and Erik would be guilty
equally.  Fortunately, I think you are both acceptable.  But I do
think name-calling is just not well-advised as a way to make one's
point. And, as such, I continue to recommend that no one do it.  And
that we all just get back to talking about Lisp as quickly as possible
after these little eruptions happen rather than fanning the sparks of
feuds, vendettas, and such.

We just want there to not be infighting at all.  And we don't find it
made better when people get all righteous and start joining the fray
on either side in some necessarily partisan notion of "Right".

So here's my clearer summary.  It happens to be less cowardly, I
think, too.  But my reason for making it is not that I've been forced
by fighting words to make a statement; rather, I felt you were putting
words into my mouth and I wanted to be clear about my own position
rather than have someone characterize me...

Erik: Your points are more clear to others when foul language is not
involved.  But my posts have their problems, too, and I slug through
glitches in presentation by others just as I expect others to slug
through my own glitches. I nevertheless appreciate your presence here
and do not agree with those who either think your behavior
unacceptable (in part, but not in whole, because I believe there is no
stnadard of acceptable in this forum) nor with those who believe even
that alleged unacceptable behavior is somehow made better by ranting
against it.

Erann: Your points are no less name-calling merely because you avoid
foul language.  It seems to me that your dislike of Erik is
subjectively arrived at and not agreed to as a universal truth here;
the more you seek to assert the rightness of your actions, the farther
I find myself positioned from you, because while I fall within your
general zone of personal comfort as to language, I fall very far from
your notion of rights and your apparent desire for vigilante justice,
especially in a forum whose very physics do not allow such, but also
in a forum whose core rules are not what you seem to believe they are.
I nevertheless appreciate your presence here and do not agree with
anyone who might suggest your behavior unacceptable (in part, but not
in whole, because I believe there is no stnadard of acceptable in this
forum).  I disagree with you outright ont he question fo whether it is
worthwhile to "speak out" against alleged unacceptable behavior; I
regard this not only as vigilante justice since you were not elected
to be our forum's keeper, but also as improper justice since the rules
you so often assert to do not, as nearly as I can tell, exist, and
finally as ineffective justice since the enforcement techniques you
seek to use are provably too weak to accomplish your goal even if the
cause were provably right.

In all, Erann, looking back on these summaries, I find myself siding
more with Erik on this than with you.  I didn't have any preconceived
notion of whether that was so because I honestly hadn't given it sufficient
depth of thought.  As I say, I mostly prefer not to focus on these
useless issues, and I am annoyed to have wasted the last two hours
composing this message which has no technical merit at all.

This message of mine is perhaps not what you wanted to hear.  But you
did speculate on my keeping silent, and it was not for the reasons you
suggest.  The real reason is that I just don't think any of this
interpersonal flaming is useful.

Both you and Erik have a bunch of technical threads going on.  I wish
you would both keep to those.  And that I would, too. I don't plan to
re-issue this appeal on a daily or weekly basis.  If I'm drawn into
commenting on this unpleasant business again, I'll likely take another
penalty time away from this forum.  A lot of people tell me they like
reading my posts, but if all of them were rants about interpersonal
matters, I think my reputation would be quickly down the toilet.  I
don't like how this presents me and I don't want to find myself doing
it a lot.

Java is _interesting_, but has the demerit that it really was designed
for use with just one language.

The "CLR" (Common Language Runtime) of .NET is particularly pointed
towards the kinda-Java-like C#, and and certainly doesn't support the
"type tree" of CL; its "type tree" is rather more like an OO view of
C.  But it has the slight merit that there is the intent to allow it
to be usable with "more than just C#."

It's interesting that the Franz guys decided to pooh-pooh .NET.  

Python 2.1.1 (#97, Aug  2 2001, 21:53:31)  [CW PPC GUSI2 THREADS] on mac
Type "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.

  Such is not the path to maturing.  You yourself just recently said that
  arguments from authority were not valid.  The authority of "others" is
  just as invalid.  This is not about what other people think, but about
  what _you_ understand.  You can always find someone who are equally or
  more immature than yourself.  Do you really want to relegate your own
  personal development to the existence of less evolved people?  If you
  had at least asked if there were others who thought there were no double
  standards, you could perhaps have had a point, but since you are so
  immature, that is precisely what you do _not_ do.  So, try again.

  I did not have JVM specifically in mind, but my code is rife with design
  comments and the choice of lexically scoped variable namaes that capture
  a lot of the meaning of the algorithm.  If I use macros, I do so in order
  to make the code easier to read.  I spect comments and lexical variable
  names to have vanished in the virtual machine "binary", and all macros to
  have been expanded.  Thus, whether it can be "restored" to source or not,
  I do not believe it will be nearly as usable to another programmer as the
  source code itself.  In order to disassemble code back to readable source,
  you need a tremendous amount of what is usually known as debug information
  that I see no reason to impart to a purchaser of a particular library -- I
  would instead expect the library to be thoroughly debugged before shipping
  -- an expectation that generally does not hold for Open Source where the
  vendor has bet on the free labor of its users to iron out its bugs.

Now on to the coward thing.  When you call some one a coward you are
using a grave personal insult.  You are not attacking the action you
are attacking the person.  And you are leveling a very serious charge
against him.    

And the apologists bit.  In the above paragraph I said Erik was
correct not that Erik needs to have allowances mad for his behavior.
It means that I think Erick is correct, you are fucked up and
vicious.  

I see more than a double standard. I see a pathology. I don't care how
knowledgeable he is. The noise consistently drowns out the signal in his
posts.

I've lost track of the number of times Erik has, apropos of nothing,
called someone "insane" (or a variation thereof), and then gone on to
lecture the rest of us about interpersonal psychology. It's a kind of
Usenet terrorism.

Of course, this message will probably put me on Erik's enemies list as
well. So be it.

This can't quite work because the expansions of a lot of CL-defined
macros are implementation-dependent, but I suspect that something
along those lines could be made to work.

(this is not a completely serious suggestion).

  Better call George W. Bush and have him stage a war like you have never
  seen in order to squash this terrorism.  Oh, come to think of it, that is
  _precisely_ what happens.  I just happen to believe that posting idiotic
  drivel to a technical newsgroup is terrorism, and squash it.  Gee, can it
  be as simple as differing priorities?  Some people like nice people who
  say nothing controversial whatsoever.  Other people like controversial
  people who make intellectually stimulating points.  The two are largly
  incompatible from the outset.  What I cannot figure out is that those
  touchy-feely guys are looking for in a technical newsgroup.

| Of course, this message will probably put me on Erik's enemies list as
| well. So be it.

  My supposed "enemies list" is another creation of Erann Gat.  Like most
  everything else he imputes to me, it does of course not exist.  You are
  entitled to your opinion, although you are clearly not sufficiently aware
  of what you think to make a worthwhile contribution to this forum.  Why
  did you choose to make this vile crap your virgin post?  This is what
  Erann Gat and his style encourages, and I am saddened to see someone like
  yourself lured into his trap out of overly emotional reasons.  If you had
  kept this shit to yourself, you would not have _contributed_ to the
  hostile tone set by Erann Gat and others who mistakenly believe they
  fight evil, when they are themselves much worse than whatever it is they
  fight.