Fernando <f...@wanadoo.es> writes: > C++ programmers that consider Lisp a difficult language to > grasp... =:-O
This reminds me of Windows uses that think it's easy. They've been brainwashed. -- (__) Doug Alcorn (mailto:d...@lathi.net http://www.lathi.net) oo / PGP 02B3 1E26 BCF2 9AAF 93F1 61D7 450C B264 3E63 D543 |_/ If you're a capitalist and you have the best goods and they're free, you don't have to proselytize, you just have to wait.
* Fernando <f...@wanadoo.es> | C++ programmers that consider Lisp a difficult language to grasp... =:-O
Cool. A Common Lisp-based Emacs does not have to support C++.
/// -- Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate. -- Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
In article <d4kvttojjp7lskia1m03gn129pvrfji...@4ax.com>, Fernando wrote: >Hi!
>From a discussion in borland.public.cppbuilder.non-technical
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- >> There is an incomprehensible tendency among C++ people to favor EMACS >> (which I personally detest). That EMACS is a Lisp-based system, about as >> far removed from the spirit of C++ as anything I can imagine makes it all >> the more curious. To each his own.
>We definitely agree here. Of all the scripting languages, why did they >choose Lisp? They basically picked one of the most difficult languages >in existence, which is probably a shock to newcomers, unless they are >already CS grads and Lisp programmers. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
>C++ programmers that consider Lisp a difficult language to grasp... =:-O
Note that these are some goofballs hanging around a vendor-specific compiler newsgroup. Nobody in their right mind uses anything Borland anymore. You might as well have read this in the CP/M users group.
Also note that they can't think rationally, nor understand each other.
One says basically this:
1. Emacs is favored by C++ programmers. [ Editorial translation: a few C++ programmers I know use Emacs, from which we can clearly extrapolate to the entire population. ] 2. I detest Emacs. 3. Why other people like things I detest is incomprehensible to me. [ Editorial translation: my ego does not permit the investigation of view points held by others. ] 4. Therefore I can't comprehend why others like Emacs.
5. Emacs is based on Lisp. 6. Lisp is very different from C++. 7. It's curious to me that users of one language can favor a tool based on a different language. [ Editorial translation: programming languages are religions or political camps. Moreover, they all compete for the same small set of one's brain-cells. ] 8. Therefore, to me, it's curious as well as incomprehensible why C++ programmers like Emacs.
The other replies:
1. I agree with all this, Lisp is difficult. [ Editorial translation: I either have no reading comprehension, or I just like to write semi-automatic ``me too'' postings in response to anything that contains a few trigger keywords like Emacs or Lisp. ]
In article <d4kvttojjp7lskia1m03gn129pvrfji...@4ax.com>, Fernando wrote: >Hi!
>From a discussion in borland.public.cppbuilder.non-technical
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- >> There is an incomprehensible tendency among C++ people to favor EMACS >> (which I personally detest). That EMACS is a Lisp-based system, about as >> far removed from the spirit of C++ as anything I can imagine makes it all >> the more curious. To each his own.
>We definitely agree here. Of all the scripting languages, why did they >choose Lisp? They basically picked one of the most difficult languages >in existence, which is probably a shock to newcomers, unless they are >already CS grads and Lisp programmers. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
>C++ programmers that consider Lisp a difficult language to grasp... =:-O
Note that these are some goofballs hanging around a vendor-specific compiler newsgroup. Nobody in their right mind uses anything Borland anymore. You might as well have read this in the CP/M users group. So, what I'm trying to say, is that this has nothing to do with the public image of anything.
Also note that they can't think rationally, nor understand each other.
One says basically this:
1. Emacs is favored by C++ programmers. [ Editorial translation: a few C++ programmers I know use Emacs, from which we can clearly extrapolate to the entire population. ] 2. I detest Emacs. 3. Why other people like things I detest is incomprehensible to me. [ Editorial translation: my ego does not permit the investigation of view points held by others. ] 4. Therefore I can't comprehend why others like Emacs.
5. Emacs is based on Lisp. 6. Lisp is very different from C++. 7. It's curious to me that users of one language can favor a tool based on a different language. [ Editorial translation: programming languages are religions or political camps. Moreover, they all compete for the same small set of one's brain-cells. ] 8. Therefore, to me, it's curious as well as incomprehensible why C++ programmers like Emacs.
The other replies:
1. I agree with all this, Lisp is difficult. [ Editorial translation: I either have no reading comprehension, or I just like to write semi-automatic ``me too'' postings in response to anything that contains a few trigger keywords like Emacs or Lisp. ]
