another take on "C is faster than lisp"
Erik Naggum
| The only way to program around those limitations is to convert
| everything to FORTRAN-style code, where you don't use structures and
| rely on monotyped arrays of characters, bytes, and floating point
| numbers and use array indexes as pointers. If you do program
| FORTRAN-style, it is usually relatively easy to get good performance
| in CommonLisp (there are still some gotchas to watch out for), but
| most people choose Lisp in order to have convenient and powerful means
| of expressing their algorithms at their disposal, not to be squeezed
| into FORTRAN-style programming.
I have been reading this rather long-winded discussion with interest
because I have just recently decided that my mental health was more
valuable to me than programming in C++. it is years since I programmed
anything useful in LISP besides the daily functions I write in Emacs LISP
to write code in various stupid programming languages for me, so I was
happy to return and see so many good tools and compilers and so much neat
stuff lying around. I'm really grateful to all of you who have unwittingly
helped me become one happy programmer, again.
to the point: I am about 50 times more efficient in LISP than I am in C++,
and about 20 times more efficient in LISP than in C, but that's because I
write C with my spinal cord. I build small tools to build other things,
and like to build languages that I express myself in, instead of writing
everything in the base language. I've done this ever since I programmed in
MACRO-10 and -20 on the truly lovely PDP-10, so it may be a habit that's
hard to break, and that itself may explain my painful encounter with C++,
where this is surprisingly hard to do well (it shouldn't have been).
if these numbers are not untypical, it means programmers will spend _far_
less time getting the software to do what it should do, find all the bugs
and gaps in the _design_ (rather than their code or the compiler), and they
have time to redesign the whole thing from scratch several times over, if
they use LISP instead of C++ and C. you know this.
now, my nearly 12-year experience with C is that it takes a lot of solid,
hard-earned skills to be good at C. C is not efficient per se, although
the machine will do what you ask it to do without much further ado. the
question is what you ask it to do, and whether you want to write portable
code. you know this, too, right?
_because_ C is deemed to be efficient because it doesn't add any (visible)
overhead, vast scores of programmers think they write efficient programs.
they couldn't be more wrong! the same vast scores of programmers wouldn't
know a good algorithm from a kluge. even with good algorithms, you need to
make tradeoffs between space and time that can be affected by the length of
the input you expect, etc, etc. this is not news, either.
what I don't understand, even after reading so many posts on this topic,
is: why do you compare C with LISP? why do you want C-type efficiency in
LISP? if it takes you longer to experiment with a design in C than in
LISP, what makes you think you will find the best solution sooner in C?
don't your programs _evolve_? do you think overhead is important if your C
algorithm is O(n^2) with really tight loops and your LISP algorithm is
O(n), perhaps with a much higher cost per loop?
I don't write programs to handle tiny known-size amounts of data, anymore.
I would be happy to stay with C if I did. I don't write programs that will
do one task and then terminate, either. my programs don't know much about
the external world except that it's a hostile place, and they need to be
able to undo possible damage if the world unexpectedly changes around them.
C is not the language to do this in. there are a number of arbitrary
limits in C that are really hard to work around and still be reasonably
efficient. I could implement bignums and use them transparently with C++,
but why? I don't want to know about implementing bignums. consistent
error handling in C (Unix) is a pain. I need polymorphous types -- and I
don't want to implement them myself; I trust that somebody else is _much_
better than me at such things, and at making it reasonably fast, to boot.
until I know _exactly_ what the program is going to do, and I reasonably
safely can assume it won't be radically changed next week, I cannot trust
that I will find the best solution at the first attempt. if I write in C,
I often don't get more than one attempt. doing more than the primitive
operations take a _lot_ of time in C and C++ is even worse, with its very
annoyingly inappropriate defaults for classes. a language encouraging you
to use pointers should not require you to do so many stupid tricks if you do.
so, if you think in FORTRAN, why don't you program in FORTRAN? if you need
speed over flexibility, why don't you write in C? why do you think one
language fits all? the clue is to know more than one language and to use
them well. this _must_ be obvious. I can't have figured this out all by
myself and _nobody_ else got the idea.
if speed is so important to you, and you still need to be reasonably
efficient as a programmer, try writing a program in LISP that will write
the program you want in FORTRAN or C at the source level. people did this
all the time back when they used strong macro assemblers. in C, however,
macros are so hard to define properly, more than one-liners are effectively
discouraged. anybody remember RATFOR? isn't there a lesson from history
here, somewhere? how old do you need to be to remember these things and
apply this knowledge to those supposedly "modern" languages? why do such
newbie-languages become popular in the first place?
I'm not sure this needed to be said, but thanks for listening.
#<Erik>
--
Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO is the answer.
Thomas M. Breuel
|so, if you think in FORTRAN, why don't you program in FORTRAN? if you need
|speed over flexibility, why don't you write in C? why do you think one
|language fits all? the clue is to know more than one language and to use
|them well. this _must_ be obvious. I can't have figured this out all by
|myself and _nobody_ else got the idea.
Sure: I already use multiple languages, and so do lots of other
people. It's just a shame that I can't get more efficiency in a
language like CommonLisp so that I can do a larger fraction of my
problems in it.
The reason why this discussion keeps going on is not to prove that one
side is stupid or incompetent. I at least hope that everybody will
get a better idea of what the (perceived or actual) issues and
problems related to efficiency in CommonLisp are.
Thomas.
ch...@labs-n.bbn.com
--> I have been reading this rather long-winded discussion with interest
--> because I have just recently decided that my mental health was more
--> valuable to me than programming in C++. it is years since I programmed
--> anything useful in LISP besides the daily functions I write in Emacs LISP
--> to write code in various stupid programming languages for me, so I was
--> happy to return and see so many good tools and compilers and so much neat
--> stuff lying around. I'm really grateful to all of you who have unwittingly
--> helped me become one happy programmer, again.
glad to have you back! how'd you manage it, Mr. SGML?
--> to the point: I am about 50 times more efficient in LISP than I am in C++,
--> and about 20 times more efficient in LISP than in C, but that's because I
me too, although it is certainly caused by feeling scorched every time I
have to write C code, it happens so seldom.
--> now, my nearly 12-year experience with C is that it takes a lot of solid,
--> hard-earned skills to be good at C. C is not efficient per se, although
--> the machine will do what you ask it to do without much further ado. the
--> question is what you ask it to do, and whether you want to write portable
--> code. you know this, too, right?
my 10 year experience with Lisp says that it takes a lot of solid
hard-earned skills to be good at Lisp. I have recently learnd that
there's still at least one large gap in my knowledge, too, despite
having written some good-sized and powerful distributed applications.
--> so, if you think in FORTRAN, why don't you program in FORTRAN? if you need
--> speed over flexibility, why don't you write in C? why do you think one
--> language fits all? the clue is to know more than one language and to use
--> them well. this _must_ be obvious. I can't have figured this out all by
--> myself and _nobody_ else got the idea.
the problem is that managers think one language fits all, and that
language is now C++. this is likely to drive me from being a s/w
engineer into being a s/w manager.
I fail to understand why it is that the implementation language even
needs to be mentioned. we bid, we win, we implement, we support. would
you go over to Computer City and ask what language Microsoft Word is
written in? if they said ALGOL 60, would you buy something else
instead? (you'd probably be more amazed that the words ALGOL 60 even
came out of their mouth)
-- clint
Steven Rezsutek
I fail to understand why it is that the implementation language even
needs to be mentioned. we bid, we win, we implement, we support. would
you go over to Computer City and ask what language Microsoft Word is
written in? if they said ALGOL 60, would you buy something else
instead? (you'd probably be more amazed that the words ALGOL 60 even
came out of their mouth)
Funny you should mention this. I recall that when I was doing s/w
development for a PC oriented company, many of the ads for software in
the magazines of the time had a loud proclamation of "Written in C!"
somewhere in them. _Somebody_ must have though it meant something.
[We used to use the phrase "Written in C", spoken in a mocking,
sing-song tone of voice, as the equivalent of "Ooh, ahh. So what?" :-)]
Steve
--
---
Steven Rezsutek Steven.M....@gsfc.nasa.gov
Nyma / NASA GSFC
Code 735.2 Vox: +1 301 286 0897
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Curt Eggemeyer
>the problem is that managers think one language fits all, and that
>language is now C++. this is likely to drive me from being a s/w
>engineer into being a s/w manager.
>
>I fail to understand why it is that the implementation language even
>needs to be mentioned. we bid, we win, we implement, we support. would
>you go over to Computer City and ask what language Microsoft Word is
>written in? if they said ALGOL 60, would you buy something else
>instead? (you'd probably be more amazed that the words ALGOL 60 even
>came out of their mouth)
>
lisp applications for multiple projects, while each of us is simultaneously
working on three other tasks (most are fortunately lisp-based). Yet, inspite
of our demonstration of maintainability and rapid response to new
requirements, our management here still holds to the C/C++ is the defacto
standard language for all applications. Even though it is sort of an apple
to oranges comparison (the C/C++ based applications are strictly maintained
in the standard requirements documentation/lifecycle way, while we have
yet to be force into that paradigm) the equivalent C++ application to mine
eats up ~5x the budget of my stuff and requires ~4x the manpower support.
... oh well
William Paul Vrotney
I've hinted at ending this thread, but since Clint has renamed it "another
take" and more importantly he has brought out what I consider to be one of
the more insightful observations related to this thread, I couldn't resist.
>
> the problem is that managers think one language fits all, and that
> language is now C++. this is likely to drive me from being a s/w
> engineer into being a s/w manager.
First, YES YES YES. Why should managers be allowed to dictate the choice of
language for a project? I would not get surgery from a doctor if the
hospital staff manager made the choice of which tools to use in my
surgery. And yes, the programmer is as important to a successful program as
a doctor is to a successful surgery, even if the manager has to go all the
way to India to find him (Dig dig :-)
>
> I fail to understand why it is that the implementation language even
> needs to be mentioned. we bid, we win, we implement, we support. would
> you go over to Computer City and ask what language Microsoft Word is
> written in? if they said ALGOL 60, would you buy something else
> instead? (you'd probably be more amazed that the words ALGOL 60 even
> came out of their mouth)
>
> -- clint
>
Second, YES YES YES YES. It is kind of like one of those insight
problems. The people of this thread who are arguing that the application
should dictate the language should also consider a different way of looking
at things. Namely what Clint is suggesting above. I want to be able to write
applications in Lisp and not even tell the user as long as he is happy with
using my program.
After all, it is all ones and zeros in the final image. Yes I know, the
"Application Dictation" people are going to come back and say "Yeah but the
language you choose will have a lot to do with the configuration of those
ones and zeros". But as Jeff Dalton as so eloquently argued in this thread
(at least it seemed to me), if I may, the translated configuration of ones
and zeros is mostly and possibly entirely determined by the language
implementation.
And just to give you another insight example. Since I like Lisp syntax
better than C (easier to edit in Emacs, easier to parse) (yes I know about
the C modes in Emacs), I was, at one time, going to write a fast
preprocessor to the C compiler so that I could write my C programs using
Lisp syntax. So that instead of writing
foo(a, b, c)
I would write
(foo a b c)
Now if I also add a "Lisp like" library you will see stuff in my C code file
like
(apply foo (cdr list))
and note that the resulting semantics after translation is still strictly C.
I hope you see where I am leading. At least to me now the STRICT argument of
the application determining the language is starting to look more and more
silly.
Don't get me wrong, I think C is an elegant language for writing operating
systems and related utilities, and that's what it was designed for. BUT,
excuse me if I am wrong, to solve the software crisis BY FAR the more
important issues are (1.) software productivity and (2.) software hardness
(fewer bugs). It seems to me we should not only be using very high level
languages like Lisp for applications but in addition even higher level tools
for building applications like INTERLISP originated tools, interface
builders, visual programming languages, component based software etc. And
here we are in 1994 still trying to conserve bytes and microseconds. I call
it C sickness.
--
Bill Vrotney - vro...@netcom.com
Adrian L. Flanagan
>working on three other tasks (most are fortunately lisp-based). Yet, inspite
>of our demonstration of maintainability and rapid response to new
>requirements, our management here still holds to the C/C++ is the defacto
>standard language for all applications. Even though it is sort of an apple
>to oranges comparison (the C/C++ based applications are strictly maintained
>in the standard requirements documentation/lifecycle way, while we have
>yet to be force into that paradigm) the equivalent C++ application to mine
>eats up ~5x the budget of my stuff and requires ~4x the manpower support.
> ... oh well
That may well be true, and I don't want to seem be taking a position
in the Lisp v. C++ debate (which is a good way to get your head shot
off to no good purpose, kind of like sightseeing in Bosnia). That
said, I should point out that support and maintenance issues are
very dependant on the skill and professionalism of the programmers
who wrote the original code. If you and the C++ programmers were
interchanged, I expect that ratio would be quite different.
C++'s problem is that you _can_ write very good code with it, but
it's a lot easier to write incomprehensible garbage. C had that
problem to begin with, and C++ seems to have raised it to a higher
degree of seriousness. For that matter, Lisp can get pretty flaky;
but (dangerous generalization) there are a lot more untrained
amatuers writing C++ code than writing Lisp code.
In general, a lot of the programmers writing code out there are
really terrible, but I haven't seen a proposal for handling it that
looked workable.
--
A. Lloyd Flanagan a.k.a. "Wild Card"
Think: What you do when you can't thwim. -- Dexter's Disturbed Dictionary
Cyber Surfer
st...@baloo.gsfc.nasa.gov "Steven Rezsutek" writes:
> ch...@labs-n.bbn.com writes:
>
> I fail to understand why it is that the implementation language even
> needs to be mentioned. we bid, we win, we implement, we support. would
> you go over to Computer City and ask what language Microsoft Word is
> written in? if they said ALGOL 60, would you buy something else
> instead? (you'd probably be more amazed that the words ALGOL 60 even
> came out of their mouth)
>
> Funny you should mention this. I recall that when I was doing s/w
> development for a PC oriented company, many of the ads for software in
> the magazines of the time had a loud proclamation of "Written in C!"
> somewhere in them. _Somebody_ must have though it meant something.
>
> [We used to use the phrase "Written in C", spoken in a mocking,
> sing-song tone of voice, as the equivalent of "Ooh, ahh. So what?" :-)]
I wonder if a comp.lang.lisp.advocacy (if it existed) would be a
better place for debates like this? I'm just a little tired of adding
threads like this one to my killfile.
--
Future generations are relying on us
It's a world we've made - Incubus
We're living on a knife edge, looking for the ground -- Hawkwind
Patric Jonsson
>I wonder if a comp.lang.lisp.advocacy (if it existed) would be a
>better place for debates like this? I'm just a little tired of adding
>threads like this one to my killfile.
>
No!
But why restrict it to Lisp? I propose a Comp.lang.x-vs-y group.
--
Patric Jonsson,d88...@nada.kth.se;"always mount a scratch monkey"-jargon file.
Steven Rezsutek
In article <STEVE.94A...@baloo.gsfc.nasa.gov>
st...@baloo.gsfc.nasa.gov "Steven Rezsutek" writes:
> ch...@labs-n.bbn.com writes:
>
> I fail to understand why it is that the implementation language even
> needs to be mentioned. we bid, we win, we implement, we support. would
> you go over to Computer City and ask what language Microsoft Word is
> written in? if they said ALGOL 60, would you buy something else
> instead? (you'd probably be more amazed that the words ALGOL 60 even
> came out of their mouth)
>
> Funny you should mention this. I recall that when I was doing s/w
> development for a PC oriented company, many of the ads for software in
> the magazines of the time had a loud proclamation of "Written in C!"
> somewhere in them. _Somebody_ must have though it meant something.
>
> [We used to use the phrase "Written in C", spoken in a mocking,
> sing-song tone of voice, as the equivalent of "Ooh, ahh. So what?" :-)]
I wonder if a comp.lang.lisp.advocacy (if it existed) would be a
better place for debates like this? I'm just a little tired of adding
threads like this one to my killfile.
[...]
Well, this is kind of the tail end of what, if I remember correctly,
was a lament about how the-language-to-use is handed down on high.
My point here was in agreement with chyde. _I_ know it doesn't
matter, _you_ know it doesn't matter, in fact _everybody here_
knows it doesn't matter. My attempted sarcasm was intendended to
show that somewhere, for whatever reason, somebody created the
impression among the PC software buying populus of the time that
it did matter [which implementation language was used]. I guess
I dropped a smiley somewhere.
But, I agree. There's no real point to any of it, except perhaps
a venting of steam and a bit of a diversion from the duldrums of
day to day work.
I'll say no more (but I did enjoy reading all this for a while :-)
Cyber Surfer
> ch...@labs-n.bbn.com writes:
>
> I fail to understand why it is that the implementation language even
> needs to be mentioned. we bid, we win, we implement, we support. would
> you go over to Computer City and ask what language Microsoft Word is
> written in? if they said ALGOL 60, would you buy something else
> instead? (you'd probably be more amazed that the words ALGOL 60 even
> came out of their mouth)
>
> Funny you should mention this. I recall that when I was doing s/w
> development for a PC oriented company, many of the ads for software in
> the magazines of the time had a loud proclamation of "Written in C!"
> somewhere in them. _Somebody_ must have though it meant something.
>
> [We used to use the phrase "Written in C", spoken in a mocking,
> sing-song tone of voice, as the equivalent of "Ooh, ahh. So what?" :-)]
I wonder if a comp.lang.lisp.advocacy (if it existed) would be a
better place for debates like this? I'm just a little tired of adding
threads like this one to my killfile.
Am I the only one? Judging by the lack of replies to my earlier
article, I can either assume that I am alone, or that everyone
else had added that thread to their killfile. So, I'm asking again.
I've noticed many advocacy newsgroups on UseNet, and all for subjects
that I'm sure need them. I know users who love to slag off another
machine, mainly (I assume) because it's one they don't use. I saw
this when micros were still uncommon, and the PET, Apple II, and
TRS-80 were the leading machines.
Not much has changed, only now we argue over software. Back in the
early 80s, some friends and I attempted to settle a debate about
the merits of the PET and TRS-80 machines. We challenged the PET
owner to a game of chess. I don't recall which game the PET owner
used, but the TRS-80 was running Sargon. Both were set to the lowest
earch level. Eventually the two machines (the games) reached a
deadlock", as they began repeating their moves. So, neither "won".
Now, you could argue that the contest was unreastic and arbitrary.
This is true. However, so were all our other arguments. At the
time it seemed like a reasonable way to evaluate the two machines.
What would we use today to eveuate the merits of two programming
languages, such as C and, let's say, Common Lisp? We'd have to
first agree that C, rather then C++ or Objective C, or any other
C relative, should represent the C group of languages. We'd also
have to agree that Common Lisp should represent the "Lisp" family
of languages. Assuming that this could be done, which implementations
of these two languages should be used, and what application might
be used to test them?
I feel sure that this whole debate will look very silly to most
programmers in 10 years time. It certainly bores the pants off me.
Perhaps the only real way to evaluate a language today is to look
at the number of users, or we could compromise and merely could
the revenue generated by application written in it, but that would
ignore the value of the growing amount of freeware.
In any case, I simply don't care. I'll use whatever tools I'm
asked to use, and when I'm free to choose my tools myself, I'll
exercise that freedom without forcing my choices and opinions
on other programmers - unless they ask me for advise. If they
ask for an explanation/justification for my choices, I might
answer, "because I _can_".
If Lisp is "dying" as an industry, I won't mourn it. I can't use
most Lisp systems, as they're prices out of my reach. The freeware
Lisps (and other language systems) will still be there.
When I see a complaint here about Lisp's lack of popularity, I'm
reminded of the comment that Merlin makes in the film Excalibur,
about the time of magicians passing. Larry Niven makes a similar
point in his novel, The Magic Goes Away. I particularly think
of the image he described of aborigines waving bones in the air,
trying invoke magic that no longer exists. It's a sad image, esp
as Niven suggests that it was because of magicians using up mana
(the force behind magic) wastefully, and then not understanding
why it slowly begins to fade.
It's a sade image, but that's how I see it. You can see it
differently, if you like. I won't argue with you. I hope that
I'm wrong, and that the magic will return.
STEB
> If Lisp is "dying" as an industry, I won't mourn it. I can't use
> most Lisp systems, as they're prices out of my reach. The freeware
> Lisps (and other language systems) will still be there.
>
> When I see a complaint here about Lisp's lack of popularity, I'm
> reminded of the comment that Merlin makes in the film Excalibur,
> about the time of magicians passing. Larry Niven makes a similar
> point in his novel, The Magic Goes Away. I particularly think
> of the image he described of aborigines waving bones in the air,
> trying invoke magic that no longer exists. It's a sad image, esp
> as Niven suggests that it was because of magicians using up mana
> (the force behind magic) wastefully, and then not understanding
> why it slowly begins to fade.
>
> It's a sade image, but that's how I see it. You can see it
> differently, if you like. I won't argue with you. I hope that
> I'm wrong, and that the magic will return.
Magick, any form, is something that is created within one's self and in it's
application is how we attempt to change the world. This is as true if you're
thinking on terms of, say, alt.pagan or here in c.l.l
The reason this rather dull thread refuses to die is simple enough: the c
familiy of languages and the lisp familiy each require vastly differing world
views in order to effectivly cast the appropriate incantations in them. It's
hardly impossible to use both; I do (and sometimes what I program even
_works_). Yet each of us is more attracted to one or the other. So? We might as
well get into a thread on sexual orientation: it'd do as little good and might
be slightly less dull. Doubt it though, I've seen those threads too.
If you fear for the magick of programming then it's time for you to do one of
two things:
1) quit. Walk away from yer killer micro and never look back.
2) Hack something you love and rediscover the real magick that lies between
your ears and in your heart.
When I started actually working in computers, I promised myself I'd stop the
day it was no longer fun. Well, I haven't crossed that bridge yet because, for
me, lisp and such like keep me laughing at myself. That's the magick...
William
st...@macc.wisc.edu
*standard_disclaimers*
William Paul Vrotney
> In article <STEVE.94A...@baloo.gsfc.nasa.gov>
> st...@baloo.gsfc.nasa.gov "Steven Rezsutek" writes:
> > ch...@labs-n.bbn.com writes:
> >
> > I fail to understand why it is that the implementation language even
> > needs to be mentioned. we bid, we win, we implement, we support. would
> > you go over to Computer City and ask what language Microsoft Word is
> > written in? if they said ALGOL 60, would you buy something else
> > instead? (you'd probably be more amazed that the words ALGOL 60 even
> > came out of their mouth)
> >
[...]
> I wonder if a comp.lang.lisp.advocacy (if it existed) would be a
> better place for debates like this? I'm just a little tired of adding
> threads like this one to my killfile.
[...]
As he goes on ... (is Cyber a he or a she?)
>
> I feel sure that this whole debate will look very silly to most
> programmers in 10 years time. It certainly bores the pants off me.
[...]
As he goes on and on with HIS version of boring stuff ...
Do you really think the "Great Lisp/C Debate" will be over in 10 years? In
my circles it's been ranging for the LAST 10 years and it still doesn't seem
any MORE sillier. Besides, it's so much fun! If you are a good Lisp
programmer you can insinuate how stupid C programmers are. If you are a
good C programmer you can insinuate how irresponsible Lisp programmers are.
If you are an "I've seen the light" C programmer you can insinuate how
misguided diehard Lisp programmers are. If you an "I've seen the light but
I've seen it again and come back to Lisp" you are now a good Lisp and C
programmer which entitles you to insinuate that anyone in back of you is
stupid. And it goes on and on. Maybe someday another language will be added
to the fray. Currently its the Lisp-erals versus the C-servatives and
everyone in between. It's the mystery of the dialectic. Accept it.
But seriously, another thing that I liked out of this thread is Jeff
Dalton's standing up to Lisp bashing. I know, certain parties are going to
say "If you thought I was Lisp bashing, you didn't understand what I was
saying". I'm not accusing. But hey, being critical of Lisp for the sake of
making Lisp better has a different tone, you know what I mean?
ch...@labs-n.bbn.com
--> the problem is that managers think one language fits all, and that
--> language is now C++. this is likely to drive me from being a s/w
--> engineer into being a s/w manager.
-->
sounds like I'm getting ready to join the ranks of the "one language
fits all" group...no, I'm not.
I'm just not going to become a C programmer.
I like to use a woodworking analogy on some of this, since I do a chunk
of that as well.
someone asks me to design and build some piece of furniture. I don't
tell them what tools I'm going to use, what design methods, or any of
that stuff, and they don't ask. we discuss the design, the appearance,
and where it fits into their house.
if they were going to insist on telling me "you aren't allowed to use
*your* table saw, you have to use the gov't standard table-saw, or the
XXX-brand table-saw because that's the one most everyone else has" I'd
tell them to find someone else to build their furniture. I have and use
the tools I have because they are tools which do the job and I like
them. I don't consider the "everyone else is doing it" argument to be
particularly valid...it's like the old line your parents would say to
you when you asked if you could do X because Billy's parents let HIM do
X: if Billy jumped off a bridge, would you insist on doing it too?
-- clint
Jeff Dalton
>In <778955...@wildcard.demon.co.uk> cyber_surfer said:
>> When I see a complaint here about Lisp's lack of popularity,
What complaints? I don't complain about Lisp's "lack of
popularity", and I've posted most of the "pro-Lisp" messages.
>The reason this rather dull thread refuses to die is simple enough: the c
>familiy of languages and the lisp familiy each require vastly differing world
>views in order to effectivly cast the appropriate incantations in them.
So far as I'm concerned, BTW, there are perfectly good reasons to
prefer C to Lisp and this whole discussion has nothing to do with
whether Lisp is better than C or vice versa (for such comparisons
make little sense).
Some people either have mistaken ideas about Lisp or else post
articles that will reinforce mistaken ideas. I think it's
entirely reasonable to want comp.lang.lisp, at least, to
contain the truth about Lisp.
If you want a new newsgroup, have it be comp.lang.lisp.flames
or alt.lang.lisp.sucks.sucks.sucks in which those who think it's
really important to let everyone know how bad they think "Lisp"
is for various applications can post whatever they like.
-- jd
Cyber Surfer
d88...@black01.nada.kth.se "Patric Jonsson" writes:
> >Am I the only one?
>
> No!
>
> But why restrict it to Lisp? I propose a Comp.lang.x-vs-y group.
That sounds even better! Of course, we could have a whole bunch of
comp.lang.*.advocacy newsgroups.
Cyber Surfer
> The reason this rather dull thread refuses to die is simple enough: the c
> familiy of languages and the lisp familiy each require vastly differing world
> views in order to effectivly cast the appropriate incantations in them. It's
Well, I blame the programmers who pointlessly debate this issue, not
the tools themselves. They may well serve different purposes, but
not all people are not rational. Some don't care about that, so they
create these, as you say, boring threads.
> If you fear for the magick of programming then it's time for you to do one of
> two things:
I didn't say that. I refered to Lisp as "magic", as in the phrase that
Niven used as his book title, "The Magic Goes Away", mean that when you
use it, it dies. In the case of Lisp, it seems that it dies when not
enough people use it, or they use it badly. Same as any other language.
> 1) quit. Walk away from yer killer micro and never look back.
I don't have a killer micro. :-) Anyway, you've missed the point.
> 2) Hack something you love and rediscover the real magick that lies between
> your ears and in your heart.
This is what I do. I just wonder why anyone has to whinge about something
that is dying, if it is dying. See above. The magic goes away, but that
doesn't mean it can't come back. It's a matter that goes beyond mere
programming. It's a market thing. What people mean when they say that
Lisp is dying, is that the market is dying. Lisp goes on.
> When I started actually working in computers, I promised myself I'd stop the
> day it was no longer fun. Well, I haven't crossed that bridge yet because, for
> me, lisp and such like keep me laughing at myself. That's the magick...
Yeah, but who pays you to do it? Nobody even advertises Lisp jobs,
or thereare none that I've seen. I wonder when people will just wake
up and recognise that, and instead of whinging about it, do something.
Well, I'm not whinging about the whingers. I'm doing something. I'm
suggesting an advocacy newsgroup. What do _you_ think about it? Do
you have anything to say about it? So far, you've completely missed
the point.
Cyber Surfer
st...@baloo.gsfc.nasa.gov "Steven Rezsutek" writes:
> But, I agree. There's no real point to any of it, except perhaps
> a venting of steam and a bit of a diversion from the duldrums of
> day to day work.
There are times when I'm inclined to stop reading any newsgroup,
no matter how interested it can be at other times. This is one of
the reasons. Even using a killfile, I still have to read the headers.
> I'll say no more (but I did enjoy reading all this for a while :-)
How do you feel about an advocacy newsgroup? Either one specifically
for Lisp, or one single newsgroup for all those people without a life
who feel that _they_ can make a different by debating with someone else
who feels just as strongly about their favourite language?
We can see the same behaviour for operating systems, hence the advocacy
newsgroups for OS/2, Windows, and perhaps others, but I can't remember.
I never read them, as I have far better things to do! I've noticed that
opinions rarely if ever change as a result of debating on UseNet, or
any other place. Let's give these people a "ghetto" or "playpen", so
they won't have to disturb the rest of us.
Cyber Surfer
vro...@netcom.com "William Paul Vrotney" writes:
> As he goes on ... (is Cyber a he or a she?)
He. Martin Rodgers. Full details will be available as soon as I get
a WWW home page. Finger doesn't work here.
> As he goes on and on with HIS version of boring stuff ...
It's a small sacrifice. If you don't like this thread, add it to
your killfile. It'll go away soon enough, unlike the advocacy threads,
which recreate themselves every few weeks.
> Do you really think the "Great Lisp/C Debate" will be over in 10 years? In
> my circles it's been ranging for the LAST 10 years and it still doesn't seem
> any MORE sillier. Besides, it's so much fun! If you are a good Lisp
> programmer you can insinuate how stupid C programmers are. If you are a
I don't give a monkeys about it. I use whatever tools I'm paid to
use. End of story. So far, nobody has offered me a job programming
in Lisp, so I can choose to use it in my own time. Everybody else
wants me to use C++. What else is there to say? The merits are not
that relevant unless you have a choice.
> But seriously, another thing that I liked out of this thread is Jeff
> Dalton's standing up to Lisp bashing. I know, certain parties are going to
> say "If you thought I was Lisp bashing, you didn't understand what I was
> saying". I'm not accusing. But hey, being critical of Lisp for the sake of
> making Lisp better has a different tone, you know what I mean?
Who needs to bash Lisp/C/whatever? Not me. I have better things to do
with my spare time. The same is true for a lot of people who don't want
to argue about Unix vs OS/2 vs NT. There are advocacy newsgroups for
those who do.
Of course, I could be accused of bashing those who love to bash the
tools chosen by other programmers, or the platforms chosen by other
users. What I find curious about is why these people feel so in
insecure that they feel compelled to defend their choices. I'm not
saying they shouldn't, but I do wish I didn't have to continually
update my killfile. If there was an advocacy flag in the headers,
I'd use that in my killfile.
It proves _nothing_, and changes _nothing_. This thread just _might_.
It could improve the signal to noise ratio of some newsgroups.
Lawrence G. Mayka
Yeah, but who pays you to do it? Nobody even advertises Lisp jobs,
or thereare none that I've seen. I wonder when people will just wake
up and recognise that, and instead of whinging about it, do something.
To get on the Lisp jobs mailing list, I think you send a line like
subscribe lisp-jobs <name>, <organization>
to
ai+q...@cs.cmu.edu
--
Lawrence G. Mayka
AT&T Bell Laboratories
l...@ieain.att.com
Standard disclaimer.
Cyber Surfer
> What complaints? I don't complain about Lisp's "lack of
> popularity", and I've posted most of the "pro-Lisp" messages.
I didn't mean you. ;-) There are plenty of others, even Lisp programmers,
who don't seem to be happy. However, that's rather different from the
real "lisp bashing" that I'd like prefer an advocacy newsgroup for.
> So far as I'm concerned, BTW, there are perfectly good reasons to
> prefer C to Lisp and this whole discussion has nothing to do with
> whether Lisp is better than C or vice versa (for such comparisons
> make little sense).
Exactly. It isn't about that. It's about where to debate something
that will never be "settled". I wouldn't mind if anyone had anything
new or interesting (in my opinion (-; ) to say about it, but it
always seems to be the same.
> Some people either have mistaken ideas about Lisp or else post
> articles that will reinforce mistaken ideas. I think it's
> entirely reasonable to want comp.lang.lisp, at least, to
> contain the truth about Lisp.
I agree, but where should the advocacy msgs go? Since this advocacy
will never end, is it really constructive? My reason for using Lisp
is simply that I can. I often get the feeling from reading these
advocacy threads that other people do the same. They just prefer to
justify it, and feel a need to _tell_me_ (or people who might disagree
with them) about it. If that's so, then they've missed the point.
> If you want a new newsgroup, have it be comp.lang.lisp.flames
> or alt.lang.lisp.sucks.sucks.sucks in which those who think it's
> really important to let everyone know how bad they think "Lisp"
> is for various applications can post whatever they like.
Why do they then post in comp.lang.lisp? Why are there advocacy
newsgroups for OS/2 and NT etc? I don't know, but I guess it could
be coz a positively named newsgroups is more attractive. I've no
wish to read negative msgs about Lisp, unless there's a damn good
point, and I call "Lisp bashing" pretty damn negative. Since I'm
looking for a newsgroup for constructive threads about Lisp, why
shouldn't I look at in a positive way, and ask for an advocacy
newsgroup? Anyway, the important thing, for me at least, would be
to take the "Lisp bashing" threads out of comp.lang.lisp.
Constructive criticism of Lisp is another matter. ;-) I just don't
get that impression from threads in which Lisp is being bashed by
C programmers who don't use Lisp.
Martin Rodgers
Brad Miller
LGM> To get on the Lisp jobs mailing list, I think you send a line like
LGM> subscribe lisp-jobs <name>, <organization>
LGM> to
LGM> ai+q...@cs.cmu.edu
Full details on this and other publically available resources for Lisp and
Lisp-like languages are available off the ALU home page:
http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/miller/alu.html
If you only have memory for one address, this should be it, because you can get
everywhere else from there. (If I've missed any links you think should be there,
tell me and I'll add them.)
Currently there are a number of (different) pointers into Mark K's archives,
pointers to Apple Cambridge's home page, pointers to Dylan archives, Scheme
archives, source code for various books (and indeed, two different bibliographies
of books), a page on Lisp history, and even pages of Lisp humor.
Jeff Dalton
> I've noticed that
>opinions rarely if ever change as a result of debating on UseNet, or
>any other place.
The views of the immediate participants typically don't change
right away, but they're not the only people who matter.
Jeff Dalton
>Of course, I could be accused of bashing those who love to bash the
>tools chosen by other programmers, or the platforms chosen by other
>users. What I find curious about is why these people feel so in
>insecure that they feel compelled to defend their choices. I'm not
>saying they shouldn't, but I do wish I didn't have to continually
>update my killfile. If there was an advocacy flag in the headers,
>I'd use that in my killfile.
What's with this psychological analysis? "Insecure"? How do
you know why they do it?
Also, how did defending a choice get turned into advocacy?
Surely advocacy is more "active" than that.
I tend to defend the reasonableness of choosing Lisp against
claims that it's not reasonable. But I don't say Lisp is better
than other languages or go into random newsgroups trying to
convert people. I don't say "you should use Lisp for this
because...".
Erik Naggum
| We can see the same behaviour for operating systems, hence the advocacy
| newsgroups for OS/2, Windows, and perhaps others, but I can't remember.
| I never read them, as I have far better things to do! I've noticed that
| opinions rarely if ever change as a result of debating on UseNet, or
| any other place.
just to second Jeff Dalton on this one. between two debaters, nothing may
appear to change, but as soon as you consider the "lurkers", and consider
the e-mail that either participant receives, it is obvious that opinions
change all over the world from a debate involving strong factual points,
even flamefests have positive effects even far removed from USENET itself.
don't be tricked into believing that USENET is only those who post here
because those are the only ones you see. to take one example: Norwegian
politicians recently have referred to statements that have been expressed
on USENET about electronic availability of the text of our laws. if this
is not changing people's opinions, I don't know what would be! note that
they don't post followups.
Cyber Surfer
l...@polaris.ih.att.com "Lawrence G. Mayka" writes:
> To get on the Lisp jobs mailing list, I think you send a line like
Thanks, I'll try that, altho I don't expect that's what I'm looking
for, as I'm only looking for jobs would have to be based within the UK.
At what kind of frequency do jobs appear on that list?
Thanks
Cyber Surfer
> The views of the immediate participants typically don't change
> right away, but they're not the only people who matter.
Is that a justification of endless "X vs Y" debates? I agree with
you about their views (if I understand you correctly), but I don't
see the value in everything I see in these debates. They look like
at least a few of participents are not looking for a constructive
result. I sense a desire for a _destructive_ result, like deminishing
interest language X or language Y.
These debates are often called "religious wars". I'm questioning the
constructive value of such wars, and the appropriate place to hold
them. I'm also assuming that comp.lang.lisp is a newsgroup for
constructive debates. Perhaps this is an impossible expectation,
I don't know. I've been using UseNet for about 2 years, so I'm
sure I'm not experienced enough to judge it in this respect. Plus,
I've seen similar debates elsewhere, with what appears to me to be
an equal lack constructive discussion, compared with discussions
that don't compare two or more languages. So I haven't found UseNet
to be any better or worse than other networks or systems for electronic
exchanges of opinion.
Thanks for your contribution to this debate. I'm just a little
puzzled by it. Could you please help me? Perhaps I've misunderstood
your post.
Martin Rodgers
Cyber Surfer
> What's with this psychological analysis? "Insecure"? How do
> you know why they do it?
It's a general observation about people who agressively defend
their beliefs. It wasn't about anyone specific. Sometimes you
can tell that a person has a vested interest in their point of
view, and they can't be blamed for that. Other times, I'm not
sure why someone feels so strongly negative about something that
they're not compelled to use. Of course, it's possible that they
_are_ compelled to use it, but that's another issue.
> Also, how did defending a choice get turned into advocacy?
> Surely advocacy is more "active" than that.
I agree. However, advocacy for some people means making nagative
comments about another person's choice. Perhaps some people find
X vs Y debates to be interesting, but reading them for over two
years, I've either lost whatever interest I once had in the subject,
or the comments aren't so interesting any more, or the first thread
I read comparing Lisp and C was a particularly fine example. It ended
when someone suggested compiling code written in Lisp into C, which
was what I had been waiting for someine to say.
> I tend to defend the reasonableness of choosing Lisp against
> claims that it's not reasonable. But I don't say Lisp is better
> than other languages or go into random newsgroups trying to
> convert people. I don't say "you should use Lisp for this
> because...".
I have no problem with you doing that. I simply wish to avoid
reading such msgs. Please continue, I won't stop you! As if I
could! No, I'm merely proposing an advocacy newsgroup for such
debates. That seems innocent enough to me.
It's been done for operating systems like NT and OS/2, which are
prone to the same problems as Lisp, for what I guess could be
similar reasons. I'm sure that there are some people who have very
good reasons to use the OS that they do, and I have no reason to
"convert" them, as if that might be possible. Still, this is exactly
what _some_ people try to do.
If they merely wish to correct some misinformation about a product
or family of products, that's another matter, but it could still
be done in an advocacy newsgroup. I don't see problem with that,
and I'm not sure I understand why you think there is a problem,
or what it might be.
Cyber Surfer
> just to second Jeff Dalton on this one. between two debaters, nothing may
> appear to change, but as soon as you consider the "lurkers", and consider
> the e-mail that either participant receives, it is obvious that opinions
> change all over the world from a debate involving strong factual points,
> even flamefests have positive effects even far removed from USENET itself.
This could still be done in an advocacy newsgroup. If there's a
reason why this would _not_ be possible, then please explain it
and I'll shut up.
> don't be tricked into believing that USENET is only those who post here
> because those are the only ones you see. to take one example: Norwegian
> politicians recently have referred to statements that have been expressed
> on USENET about electronic availability of the text of our laws. if this
> is not changing people's opinions, I don't know what would be! note that
> they don't post followups.
See above. I don't see the connection, but I'm hoping that you can
explain it to me. I'm not against advocacy, or any other kind of
debate. I'm simply suggesting that it could have its own newsgroup.
That seems innocent enough to me, and shoudln't hinder it in any
way. At the same time, it would leave comp.lang.lisp free for those
who are interested in discussions of purely Lisp issues. If that's
a bad idea, please explain why. Surely "Lisp vs C" advocacy threads
would still be read by those who want to read them?
Jeff Dalton
>In article <Cw312...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk "Jeff Dalton" writes:
>
>> The views of the immediate participants typically don't change
>> right away, but they're not the only people who matter.
>
>Is that a justification of endless "X vs Y" debates?
No, it's just a reply to one point against such debates.
> I agree with
>you about their views (if I understand you correctly), but I don't
>see the value in everything I see in these debates. They look like
>at least a few of participents are not looking for a constructive
>result. I sense a desire for a _destructive_ result, like deminishing
>interest language X or language Y.
I think that's true in some cases, though it's difficult to be sure
about motives. But I can say something about my case.
Perhaps my position is unusual, and hence easily mistaken for
something else. I don't know. But I don't say Lisp is better
than X, Y, or Z. (Ok, I might in extreme cases, but not for
languages like C or Beta.) Instead, I try to show that it can
be reasonable to prefer Lisp and why someone might to so, and
I try to keep open some possibilities that are in fact open.
(By "open" I mean that so far as we know they are possible and
not impossible, hence not "closed".) This does not strike me
as a "religious" position as that is usually defined.
I'm probably not very effective as a Lisp "advocate". I'm too
annoying, and I write too much. But I'm after a constructive
result along two fronts:
1. That Comp.lang.lisp present a true picture of Lisp.
The true picture does not include "Lisp is better than C", or
anything like that, but it does include the full complexity of Lisp:
that it's a family of languages that differ in many ways and for
which implementations vary much more than, say, C implementations;
and that a number of implementation strategies and techniques have not
yet been fully explored. (Indeed, some are only just starting to be
explored.)
2. That complaints about Lisp be sufficiently specific that
people reading comp.lang.lisp can tell (a) how serious the
problem is and (b) what are the possibilities for fixing
the problem by changing the language or the implementation.
For (b) I want something specific, such as "change the buffer
size to 1 K instead of 2" or "this GC excessively reduces
locality of reference because ..., but this other strategy is
better" or "optimize leaf procedures in following way".
(See the discussion of "data bloat" for another example.)
In some cases, we won't know the full story -- maybe we don't know
whether the problem can be fixed, or maybe we don't know exactly
why it occurs -- but this restricts the conclusions we can draw.
If we don't know whether it's possible to completely remove the
problem, then we *don't know*.
>These debates are often called "religious wars". I'm questioning the
>constructive value of such wars, and the appropriate place to hold
>them.
My understanding of "religious wars" was that they involved
opinions presented as facts.
In any case, I have little interest in arguing whether Lisp is
better or worse than something else. I do have some interest
in people reaching conclusions about Lisp (and about particular
Lisp-family languages and implementations) for good reasons
rather than bad ones. But a good reason could be something
like "I can program well in C and I know it will be suffficiently
efficient" (if, of course, C really can be suffficiently efficient).
>I'm also assuming that comp.lang.lisp is a newsgroup for
>constructive debates. Perhaps this is an impossible expectation,
>I don't know. I've been using UseNet for about 2 years, so I'm
>sure I'm not experienced enough to judge it in this respect. Plus,
>I've seen similar debates elsewhere, with what appears to me to be
>an equal lack constructive discussion, compared with discussions
>that don't compare two or more languages.
I thought the initial postings on Beta vs Lisp were fairly useless,
because they didn't say enough for me to tell why certain remarks
were being made. (E.g. why threads would make WITH-HASH-TABLE-
ITERATOR obsolete -- which we straightened out vai e-mail -- or
what the "incredible symmetry" was.)
>Thanks for your contribution to this debate. I'm just a little
>puzzled by it. Could you please help me? Perhaps I've misunderstood
>your post.
Does the above help at all?
-- jeff
Telford Tendys
> analogy on some of this, since I do a chunk of that as well.
>
> someone asks me to design and build some piece of furniture. I don't
> tell them what tools I'm going to use, what design methods, or any of
> that stuff, and they don't ask. we discuss the design, the appearance,
> and where it fits into their house.
They should be interested in the materials you are using, the style of
joints, the surface finish, the upholstery and the precision to which
you can work - just to name a few. Just discussing the design can
involve a host of fiddly details that really can effect the quality
of the finished article. Especially if the item is expected to last
10 or 20 years.
The relationship between producer and consumer is not as simple as
you pretend. Both sides want the job done right.
Cyber Surfer
> >Is that a justification of endless "X vs Y" debates?
>
> No, it's just a reply to one point against such debates.
Ok, that's fine with me. I'm more concerned about _where_ these
debates might take place.
> I think that's true in some cases, though it's difficult to be sure
> about motives. But I can say something about my case.
I know, you're definitly one of the most constructive advocates
I've seen. It's unfortunate that I've seen some very destructive
advocates who suffer from what I call "redmist", which is the
inability to even read the msgs of the people they're flaming.
You can't argue with people like that, as they're arguments are
less than rational, and they don't even respond to your msgs,
but to what they'd like to think that you're saying.
These people and their "advocacy" rather colour my feelings, and
so every time I see any form of advocacy, my first reaction is
"oh not, not _again_". Usually I'm wrong, but there are plenty of
times when I just can't bothered to read such debates, regardless
of how well behaved and rational everyone involved may be.
So, it isn't a comment on _your_ advocacy of Lisp, or any other
that we might point to. I just wanted to test the water, and see
if anyone else felt as I do. I could have posted a long article
about remisting, but that might have been too negative. Perhaps
I still got it wrong, in which case I apologise. It wasn't meant
as a personal attack on _anyone_.
> Perhaps my position is unusual, and hence easily mistaken for
> something else. I don't know. But I don't say Lisp is better
> than X, Y, or Z. (Ok, I might in extreme cases, but not for
> languages like C or Beta.) Instead, I try to show that it can
> be reasonable to prefer Lisp and why someone might to so, and
> I try to keep open some possibilities that are in fact open.
That's fair enough, but in the hierarchies for Windows and OS/2,
where there could be a _lot_ of advocacy, they instead isolate
such debates to special advocacy newsgroups. That way, everyone
else can just get on with the business of using their chosen
software.
Sometimes it makes no sense to debate choices which may have been
made by forces beyond the control of most of us, like the choice
of our employers, for example. I've not noticed any advocacy threads
that take these factors into account. That might be like debating
which political party should be in power when it isn't even an
election year. You can certainly debate it, but not everyone will
have the time for it. That's a different question, and I suspect
it's the reason for the existing advocacy newsgroups.
It could also be that the levels of advocacy for OS/2 and Windows
(dare I say flamewars? I don't know, as I avoid such newsgroups)
demand special advocacy newsgroups, while Lisp does not. That's
why I started this thread.
> (By "open" I mean that so far as we know they are possible and
> not impossible, hence not "closed".) This does not strike me
> as a "religious" position as that is usually defined.
Agreed. However, my choice of language is dictated by forces
beyond my control. I don't have a Lisp that can produce a DLL
(a shared library for Windows), so I'll have to use C or C++
to do that. There are also many things that I wouldn't choose
C/C++ for, based on my experience with re-writing code in Lisp
very easily when the original C/C++ code took me much longer
to write. I value _both_, and for very different reasons, and
I'd like to _use_ both. Nobody will convince me that I can't.
In the same way, nobody will convince me that I should use _their_
choice of software instead of mine. They can inform me, but that's
something different. The trouble only begins when those people
fail to recognise this.
I have a prepared argument that I somtimes use, when the situation
demands it. I find that settles the matter quietly. ;-)
> I'm probably not very effective as a Lisp "advocate". I'm too
> annoying, and I write too much. But I'm after a constructive
> result along two fronts:
>
> 1. That Comp.lang.lisp present a true picture of Lisp.
I hope it does! ;-) I'm aware of your desire for a constructive
result. That's why I find myself agreeing with you so often.
> The true picture does not include "Lisp is better than C", or
> anything like that, but it does include the full complexity of Lisp:
> that it's a family of languages that differ in many ways and for
> which implementations vary much more than, say, C implementations;
> and that a number of implementation strategies and techniques have not
> yet been fully explored. (Indeed, some are only just starting to be
> explored.)
I'd even refer people to some books on compiler theory. It's amazing
how some people can be so unaware of what a compiler _can_ do, if it
uses the right techniques. That's not a language issue, as it could
apply to a compiler for any language. I find that Basic is often a
poorly implemented language, but doesn't mean it has to be, and
I've got books that describe how to apply some pretty sophisticated
techniques (compared to standards of Basic implementations!).
By the way, I rarely see any Basic advocates. I wonder if I did,
would they know about the compiler theory that could make their
favourite language as fast as, let's say, code from a typical C
or Pascal compiler? I'm sure it's possible that I just never see
these advocates.
I'm also sure that there are some C programmers who still believe
that Basic must be slow because it's interpreted. I have just the
book to prove them wrong, and it only costs 9 quid. ;-)
> 2. That complaints about Lisp be sufficiently specific that
> people reading comp.lang.lisp can tell (a) how serious the
> problem is and (b) what are the possibilities for fixing
> the problem by changing the language or the implementation.
Are you sure that we all need to know that? I get the impression
that it's the people not normally reading comp.lang.lisp who need
the advocacy, in order to educate them, or at least to dispell
some of the myths.
I'm someone who doesn't need convincing. That's why I question
the need for advocacy in comp.lang.lisp. It would be possible
to redirect people to the comp.lang.lisp.advocacy newsgroup, if
it existed. I suspect that is why comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
and comp.os.os2.advocacy exist, and also comp.sys.acorn.advocacy,
comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, comp.sys.atari.advocacy, comp.unix.advocacy,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy, comp.sys.next.advocacy, and many other
newsgroups.
My own "advocacy", as a reason for using Lisp, can be summed up
very simply as, "because I _can_". That's it. I don't wish to
read about someone else's reason for using an alternative, as it
often isn't an alternative for me. For example, I can't run NT,
however good it might, and however good the software for it might
be. It simply won't run on my 386! This doesn't stop people from
suggesting that I _should_ be using it, and not something else.
I may soon find that I can't afford to use VC++ instead of Lisp. ;-)
And for the same reasons that I can't afford to use NT...not
enough RAM and CPU speed, and not enough money to change that
situation. You can't argue with that. Nobody can.
> For (b) I want something specific, such as "change the buffer
> size to 1 K instead of 2" or "this GC excessively reduces
> locality of reference because ..., but this other strategy is
> better" or "optimize leaf procedures in following way".
> (See the discussion of "data bloat" for another example.)
Agreed. It's easy for complex software to be misunderstood.
I've found that technical debates, on Cix (http://cix.compulink.co.uk/)
and maybe even some FidoNet echos in the UK, such issues give way
to a more "religious" style of debate. That gets us nowhere. In
fact, it may get us into a flamewar. I've seen it happen. I hope
that experience has just been a negative one so far.
> My understanding of "religious wars" was that they involved
> opinions presented as facts.
Exactly. People who join them usually have already decided what
to believe, and refuse to change. Have you seen any advocate
threads involving comp.lang.lisp which include such religious
arguments? I've seen a few in the last two years that suggested
that to me. I don't see any point in me joining such debates,
as I don't believe that such people will ever change their view,
or realise that their view makes no difference to many of us.
> In any case, I have little interest in arguing whether Lisp is
> better or worse than something else. I do have some interest
> in people reaching conclusions about Lisp (and about particular
> Lisp-family languages and implementations) for good reasons
> rather than bad ones. But a good reason could be something
> like "I can program well in C and I know it will be suffficiently
> efficient" (if, of course, C really can be suffficiently efficient).
You have yet to explain why such threads should be in comp.lang.lisp
and not comp.lang.lisp.advocacy, if it existed. I don't disagree
with you, I merely feel that an advocacy newsgroup would leave
comp.lang.lisp newsgroup free of such debates. You could read and
participate in both newsgroups, while I would only use this one.
I don't see why this would be a bad idea. That doesn't mean I
don't see why it might not happen - newsgroups sometimes fail
to be created at the voting stage.
> I thought the initial postings on Beta vs Lisp were fairly useless,
> because they didn't say enough for me to tell why certain remarks
> were being made. (E.g. why threads would make WITH-HASH-TABLE-
> ITERATOR obsolete -- which we straightened out vai e-mail -- or
> what the "incredible symmetry" was.)
I agree that there was a problem with the "benchmark", but that
was soon cleared up. It could have been done even earlier, but
that's how it goes. I don't feel this makes it a less than
constructive thread. It at least brough Beta to my attention, and
in a way that didn't make it look bad - to me, at least. I don't
know how you feel about Beta. I'm curious enough to take a look
at comp.lang.beta. If we were to see a series of similar threads,
with similar "benchmarks", then we could also question them.
Also, the Beta thread spawned the "Why do people like C" thread,
which I feel asks a very important question. It's not about which
language is "better", but why one is more popular than another.
I've made some of the points being made in that thread myself,
and I've noticed, you're also making them, but no doubt a lot
better I would, if I had joined you. ;-) Oops, I see that I
_have_ joined that thread. In that case, I'll just say that
you're doing rather better in that thread than I am, even tho
I think we're agree with each other.
> >Thanks for your contribution to this debate. I'm just a little
> >puzzled by it. Could you please help me? Perhaps I've misunderstood
> >your post.
>
> Does the above help at all?
It does help a little. I'm still not sure why you feel that a
comp.lang.lisp.advocacy newsgroup would prevent you from using
it. It shouldn't have that effect at all! It might even encourage
more people to advocate Lisp. Do you feel that's what it would
do, and would that be what you want?
Jeff Dalton
>In article <CwFvt...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk "Jeff Dalton" writes:
>
>> >Is that a justification of endless "X vs Y" debates?
>>
>> No, it's just a reply to one point against such debates.
>
>Ok, that's fine with me. I'm more concerned about _where_ these
>debates might take place.
>[...]
>I'm someone who doesn't need convincing. That's why I question
>the need for advocacy in comp.lang.lisp. It would be possible
>to redirect people to the comp.lang.lisp.advocacy newsgroup, if
>it existed.
It's true (I think) that I haven't said explicitly what (if anything)
I have against an advocacy group.
In part, I don't like the name. It sounds like a place for people
who want to convince the skeptical that Lisp is great, and I don't
see much demand for that. I'm not sure who the Lisp advocates would
be or indeed whether calling someone an advocate in this sense is
a positive remark.
Moreover, the name suggests that advocating Lisp -- but not
attacking it -- is out of bounds for Comp.lang.lisp. That's
why I suggested (but not seriously) comp.lang.lisp.flames or
alt.lang.lisp.sucks.sucks.sucks as alternatives.
>> My understanding of "religious wars" was that they involved
>> opinions presented as facts.
>
>Exactly. People who join them usually have already decided what
>to believe, and refuse to change. Have you seen any advocate
>threads involving comp.lang.lisp which include such religious
>arguments?
Probably. But the recent debates have not been particularly
religious, to my mind. (Comp.lang.scheme may currently be
experienceing something religious, though.)
>I've seen a few in the last two years that suggested
>that to me. I don't see any point in me joining such debates,
>as I don't believe that such people will ever change their view,
>or realise that their view makes no difference to many of us.
I think it's useful to discover that people have such views
and what they base them on and to show that other views are
possible and can be based on "good reasons". But I suspect
a newsgroup for debarting Lisp will be read only by people
who want to fight it out and not by people who just want
to learn something.
>> In any case, I have little interest in arguing whether Lisp is
>> better or worse than something else. I do have some interest
>> in people reaching conclusions about Lisp (and about particular
>> Lisp-family languages and implementations) for good reasons
>> rather than bad ones. But a good reason could be something
>> like "I can program well in C and I know it will be suffficiently
>> efficient" (if, of course, C really can be suffficiently efficient).
>
>You have yet to explain why such threads should be in comp.lang.lisp
>and not comp.lang.lisp.advocacy, if it existed. I don't disagree
>with you, I merely feel that an advocacy newsgroup would leave
>comp.lang.lisp newsgroup free of such debates. You could read and
>participate in both newsgroups, while I would only use this one.
I don't have much interest in advocating Lisp, and I don't
think what I've been doing *is* advocating Lisp. But perhaps
I don't really understand what you mean by "advocacy".
In any case, comp.lang.lisp.advocacy sounds like a group I
would want to avoid, especially if it's a dumping ground
for religious discussions (which some of what you've said
might imply).
-- jeff
Eric Raible
I don't have much interest in advocating Lisp, and I don't
think what I've been doing *is* advocating Lisp.
This is the best thing I've read all day! What a hoot!
- Eric
Cyber Surfer
> It's true (I think) that I haven't said explicitly what (if anything)
> I have against an advocacy group.
Well, I only suggested that name in order to be consistant with
the other advocacy newsgroups. It's only a suggestion.
> In part, I don't like the name. It sounds like a place for people
> who want to convince the skeptical that Lisp is great, and I don't
> see much demand for that. I'm not sure who the Lisp advocates would
> be or indeed whether calling someone an advocate in this sense is
> a positive remark.
I don't know wither, and I don't care. If anyone wants to "advocate"
a language, in the sense that OS/2, Windows, Unix etc are "advocated",
then perhaps they should have such a newsgroup, but you'd have to
look in those newsgroups to see why.
> Moreover, the name suggests that advocating Lisp -- but not
> attacking it -- is out of bounds for Comp.lang.lisp. That's
> why I suggested (but not seriously) comp.lang.lisp.flames or
> alt.lang.lisp.sucks.sucks.sucks as alternatives.
Ahh, now I see! Yes, such names would attract the "Lisp-haters".
I just wonder why OS/2, Windows, Unix etc don't also have groups
with names like that? Perhaps because we don't need such names
to attract those kinds of people? I dunno.
> Probably. But the recent debates have not been particularly
> religious, to my mind. (Comp.lang.scheme may currently be
> experienceing something religious, though.)
That's suhjective. I've seen some non-religious threads recently,
but I can easily think back a few months, and recall threads that
left me with some doubt. The TCL/Perl/etc thread was one example
that immediately springs to mind. I didn't find anything positive
or constructive in there.
> I think it's useful to discover that people have such views
> and what they base them on and to show that other views are
> possible and can be based on "good reasons". But I suspect
> a newsgroup for debarting Lisp will be read only by people
> who want to fight it out and not by people who just want
> to learn something.
I have no problem with that, as I find that people with open
minds are no problem. Do we see Lisp people trying to "convert"
C/C++ programmers? I'm not sure. However, everytime I mention
that I programme in Lisp, I'm asked (and expected to try) to
justify my choice. As I've said, my answer is very short:
"Because I _can_."
That argument is always very short, as they have to prove that
I _can't_ use Lisp, which is pretty tough! I don't have to prove
that Lisp meets their "standards", only mine. Naturally, they
don't understand what I'm talking about...
> I don't have much interest in advocating Lisp, and I don't
> think what I've been doing *is* advocating Lisp. But perhaps
> I don't really understand what you mean by "advocacy".
Ok, here's one definition: any comparison of two or more languages,
and esp one that tries to show that one is superior to the others.
I may be interested in a comparison of features, strengths and
weaknesses, but when I sense something less constructive, that's
when I lose interest. Life is too short to try to meet someone
else's standards, esp if there's no material gain.
> In any case, comp.lang.lisp.advocacy sounds like a group I
> would want to avoid, especially if it's a dumping ground
> for religious discussions (which some of what you've said
> might imply).
Exactly. We'd both like to avoid it. That sounds like a great
reason for it to exist. There's an obvious demand for it. :-)
Jeff Dalton
I haven't said anyone should use Lisp or that it's better than other
languages. I haven't said Lisp is the best language for any application.
Indeed, what have I done that's "advocating Lisp"? Does correcting
false and misleading statements about Lisp now count as "advocating"
it?
BTW, why do you bother to read Comp.lang.lisp anyway?
-- jeff