The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
From: findler_lam...@yahoo.com (Robert Hanlin)
Date: 30 Sep 2002 07:38:26 -0700
Local: Mon, Sep 30 2002 10:38 am
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
"Frank A. Adrian" <fadr...@ancar.org> wrote:
> I haven't seen this. I would not be so arrogant to think that I could I would. It takes an understanding of reasonably rational people to > understand Western philosophy without also understanding historical > "quirks" see why many things happen. You certainly can't learn much from "history," unless you prepare to be a deep-in-the-mud scholar, because quiet details are exceedingly hard to capture. So you need some generalization to rely on, and that's the abstraction of human motivations. As well as a feeling of where it doesn't have to be absolutely rational. If that makes me arrogant, at least history tells us that people have > Why do you think you can understand the "deeper philosophy of Because there are no doubt a lot of boneheaded mistakes behind its > Lisp" without understanding some of the historical features behind its > development? development, and it's occasionally dangerous to put too much stock in some detail that is actually a bit silly. > Well, we try to keep the riff-raff out, but folks like you keep butting back You are aware that you're threatening someone who is not easily > in... killfileable, right? I know you have a need to be gratuitous, because even I am disturbed at what I wrote. But put the snake back in your pants, please. > > - some smart people are emotionally sensitive, but that is no reason No, I don't think you did. > > to lose their thoughts > I haven't noticed any thoughts being lost. > your desire to be relevant to newbies and oher denizens You mean like Python is being increasingly useful to the exclusion of > of the unwashed masses. lisp, simply because it supports more mainstream standards? Or will you use the counterargument that lisp does not need to attach itself like to every new development, as if there were a central lisp entity that could do so? > Yeah, most of us around here read Backus' paper when it was published as a a) some of us weren't alive then, I wasn't > Turing Award lecture in the days before CACM became dumbed down by > attitudes b) sophistication in domain-specific knowledge often trades off with CS sophistication -- at least when it's not embodied in programming environments c) don't cry for the lisp machine or CACM, Virginia, because you don't fully accept why the industry killed them. If you're going to be cold-bloodded, imagine how industry types (like me) are the same way. > So you're having a little public snit because your expectations weren't met. If we agree not to care about each other's snits, will that even > Tell me why I should care? things out? > Form your thoughts into something useful first, then figure out if your I think not. Why don't you write a program all at once, and then test > little snit was worth having. it? Rob You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||