Final SRFI 49: Indentation-sensitive syntax
srfi-e...@srfi.schemers.org
This announces that
Scheme Request for Implementation 49
Indentation-sensitive syntax
by Egil Möller.
has gone into ``final'' status.
The document and an archive of the discussion is available at
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-49/
Regards,
The SRFI Editors
Ulrich Hobelmann
> This announces that
>
> Scheme Request for Implementation 49
>
> Indentation-sensitive syntax
Ah, Python is abolishing the lambda construct, so the Pythonistas
invade the Schemiverse.
<turns around and runs like hell>
--
XML is a prime example of retarded innovation.
-- Erik Meijer and Peter Drayton, Microsoft Corporation
Matthias Buelow
>Ah, Python is abolishing the lambda construct, so the Pythonistas
>invade the Schemiverse.
Plus, it looks plain horrible. At least python has infix syntax,
which makes it a bit easier to read, in the absence of parentheses.
mkb.
zitterb...@gmail.com
insults most of the other quality SRFI's.
Johan Toki Persson
Ray Dillinger
> How long does it take for this sick joke to be withdrawn? This really
> insults most of the other quality SRFI's.
>
It's not gonna happen. I warned the author that this
was how the scheme community would see it... but he
finalized anyway, and called me a troll to boot.
In fairness, I *was* insulting. But it was the plain
truth.
Bear
Matthias Buelow
>It's not gonna happen. I warned the author that this
>was how the scheme community would see it... but he
>finalized anyway, and called me a troll to boot.
Would have been a nice one for April 1st... well, I guess it got
delayed a bit. ;-)
Maybe it could get re-announced next year.
mkb.
rsher...@gmail.com
correctly, pretty much anything goes as long as you submit it, jump
through a few hoops, and put up with a few insults. I'd like to be
able to skim SRFIs under the assumption that most Schemes, or at least
some Schemes, actually implement them. As it is, you have to know too
much to know which ones are really quasiportable and which ones are a
waste of time.
Ray Dillinger
I think probably the best indication is to look for mention
of widely used and useful implementations that preceded the
existence of the SRFI. These usually appear in the
"rationale" section, and if absent, often indicate a SRFI
whose usefulness is pure speculation.
The best SRFI's are those which put a standard interface on
existing, already widespread practices and capabilities.
Of the finalized SRFI's, there are several which are
redundant, and at least six which are, plainly and simply,
bad ideas. In several cases, something was rushed through
before adequate thought had been invested, and actual use
(or attempts to implement) demonstrated flaws, inconsistencies,
and incomplete ideas. In others, someone had a bad idea,
the reviewers told them it was a bad idea, and they finalized
anyway out of sheer ego.
It's part of the nature of the SRFI process. Previous RnRS
reports had been bound up for years (in some cases decades)
as consensus failed to emerge. The SRFI process was conceived
partly as a way to break through the barriers of requiring
full consensus. But that means that, if someone is sufficiently
egotistical to ignore negative comments and not fix things or
withdraw, there is no quality control and something like
SRFI-49 results.
Bear
Programmer in Chief
You should all just chill out. "Final Status" need not mean "accepted
into Valhalla to live with the gods", it can mean "dead so long it no
longer stinks".
Technically, it just means that we are done arguing about it and there
will be no changes. If it needs fixing, it needs a new id number. If
it needs ignoring, just do it.
I don't see how you can expect a draft standard to specify whether it
is widely accepted. It would be nice if each implementation would
specify which SRFIs it supports. It would be even nicer if those could
be collected into one big table that shows at a glance who supports
each SRFI, but I don't see how that would be possible until after the
SRFI has been put in Final Status.
There is no quality control. The discussion process may help to make
the SRFI better before it reaches Final Status, but there is no
guarantee that it is good. Who would be authorized to declare it good?
For these reasons, implementors should feel no pressure to implement
all SRFIs. If it doesn't fit the goals of your implementation, then
you can proudly boast that you do not support it.
Ulrich Hobelmann
> I don't see how you can expect a draft standard to specify whether it
> is widely accepted. It would be nice if each implementation would
> specify which SRFIs it supports. It would be even nicer if those could
> be collected into one big table that shows at a glance who supports
> each SRFI, but I don't see how that would be possible until after the
> SRFI has been put in Final Status.
Every implementation could provide an RSSS feed (really sweet
sexpr about SRFIs) that contains the SRFIs it supports. Once a
day a central website could read these and update the table.
Maybe rows could be colored according to how many implementations
support a given SRFI.
Just ideas...
Bruce Lewis
> Every implementation could provide an RSSS feed (really sweet sexpr
> about SRFIs) that contains the SRFIs it supports. Once a day a
> central website could read these and update the table.
Here's a quick proposal for a Roughly Standardized Sexpr about SRFIs:
(srfi-support ; Symbol to identify the structure
1 ; Version number to support future changes
"Fictional Scheme" ; Name as it should appear on web
"http://fictional.example.com/" ; Implementation home page
((0 "200.6") ; SRFI number, release designator
(1 "201.0" "2005-01-01") ; ISO 8601 release date where known
(13 "future") ; intent to implement (not binding)
(17 "201.1" "2005-02-02" partial) ; see impl. docs for limitations
(49 "never"))) ; no intent to implement (not binding)
If partial support for an SRFI is implemented in one release, then full
support in a later release, only the later release should appear in the
sexpr for that SRFI.
Implementors should communicate their intent to support or not support
SRFIs where they've made up their minds, and remain silent where they
haven't. They are also free to change their minds.
Release dates will hint as to how reasonable it is to expect the users
of an implementation to have updated to a version that supports the
SRFI.
Comments about fixed vs. variable length and about where to use
numbers/symbols/strings are welcome, but first think about whether this
is the right set of information to provide re. an implementation's SRFI
support.
alex...@gmail.com
I think it's a matter of taste and not truth. I believe the author is
well-intentioned, and I believe there are people who might prefer such
syntax.
Having read the pre-finalization SRFI discussion archive, my
understanding is that you are very emotionally invovled here, and this
is no longer about Scheme syntax to you.
rsher...@gmail.com
with useful SRFIs. It's a waste of my time (and that of others) to
figure out which of the 70+ SRFIs should be ignored. There has to be a
middle ground between letting anything go and R*RS-style analysis
paralysis.
Shiro Kawai
> Every implementation could provide an RSSS feed (really sweet
> sexpr about SRFIs) that contains the SRFIs it supports. Once a
> day a central website could read these and update the table.
>
> Maybe rows could be colored according to how many implementations
> support a given SRFI.
That's a fine idea.
I hacked up the following page.
http://www.shiro.dreamhost.com/scheme/wiliki/schemexref.cgi/SRFI
Currently the coverage of SRFI-support is entered manually.
It'd be nice if each implementation provides such RS^n feed
in the top of its webpage so that the process can be automated
(right now, in some implementations it isn't obvious which srfis
it supports from its documentation).
If your favorite implementation does support certain SRFI but
isn't listed, you can add to the list by the following steps:
- Go to your implementation page from the link in the right pane, under
"Implementations".
- click or select [Edit] link on the top.
- Enter the following line (replacing numbers with SRFI numbers
the implementation supports) somewhere in the page. (Entire construct
must be in one line). Check out the existing implementations page
for example.
[[$$srfis 0 1 2 8 9 47 58 59 60 63 70]]
--shiro
Ray Dillinger
> Ray Dillinger wrote:
>> In fairness, I *was* insulting. But it was the plain
>> truth.
> I think it's a matter of taste and not truth. I believe the author is
> well-intentioned, and I believe there are people who might prefer such
> syntax.
> Having read the pre-finalization SRFI discussion archive, my
> understanding is that you are very emotionally invovled here, and this
> is no longer about Scheme syntax to you.
What, you think it's a territorial issue? Sorry, it's
not. I take no credit for scheme's syntax, and there's
no ego whatsoever involved with it for me. If it's a
territorial issue for someone, think of McCarthy.
I just think this guy had a bad idea, applied it to the
wrong language, picked the worst possible design for it,
and then plugged the worst possible number into his bad
design. And from greatest to least, refused to correct
his errors on any level at all before rushing to
finalization. The design is ugly; the mistakes in the
specification make it into a full-fledged monstrosity.
Even a minor correction to rule out the possibility of
"invisible" indentation errors would have made this srfi
less bad; but he would not do even that.
Yes, I'm blunt about it. I honestly believe that there
is real and important truth in design aesthetics, and
I'm not willing to write bad ideas off to "matters of
individual taste." I believe in the existence of good
taste, which is better than bad taste in a way that is
inherent, universal, and eternal. Furthermore, I believe
that a belief in good taste has positive value.
While some things really are "neutral" in terms of which
you prefer, I consider it a betrayal of truth and beauty
(and usually efficiency and clarity as well) to invoke
individual taste as a defense of bad taste in technical
design.
Bear
elitist, curmudgeon, whatever.
alex...@gmail.com
> alex...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ray Dillinger wrote:
>
> >> In fairness, I *was* insulting. But it was the plain
> >> truth.
>
> > I think it's a matter of taste and not truth. I believe the author is
> > well-intentioned, and I believe there are people who might prefer such
> > syntax.
>
> > Having read the pre-finalization SRFI discussion archive, my
> > understanding is that you are very emotionally invovled here, and this
> > is no longer about Scheme syntax to you.
>
> What, you think it's a territorial issue?
It's a basic civility issue.
"I'll just take it as a warning that there are idiots out there who
would do this"
- Ray Dillinger
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-49/mail-archive/msg00010.html
Ray Dillinger
> It's a basic civility issue.
>
> "I'll just take it as a warning that there are idiots out there who
> would do this"
> - Ray Dillinger
> http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-49/mail-archive/msg00010.html
Admittedly, not terribly polite. I managed to stick to the
technical points only for at least the first ninety percent
of the message anyway, and should have left it at that. I
crossed the line into the above ad hominem mainly because I
was startled and, yes, offended at the sheer jaw-dropping
stupidity of the proposal. I shouldn't have gone there,
because that made it personal rather than technical. On
the other hand, that really is how I feel about it.
I can apologize for making the ad hominem; I truly shouldn't
have said that, and I'm trying to cut down on flamage. It
was the wrong thing to do in a technical forum, and I truly
am sorry I failed to exercise better self-control. On the
other hand, I would be lying if I claimed that I didn't
mean it, or that it's not literally true that that's what
it means to me.
Bear
Förster vom Silberwald
> How long does it take for this sick joke to be withdrawn? This really
> insults most of the other quality SRFI's.
I mean people already familar with the old syntax will have a hard time
to get used to the new one and young people being exposed to the new
syntax will have having a harder time to get used to the old one.
I do not think it is a joke and the SRFI editor has some deep
knowledge. However, his motivation for doing it seems weired to me.
My Bee in Bigloo does all the identation and I do not understand what
might be wrong with it.
It is not always a good idea to shape a programming language for the
beginner. My rule of thumb has always been: parentheses will never come
into my way! Never! Never! Never! And the trick worked for me. If a
beginner counts parentheses he is doing something wrong maybe.
Zitteraal
Anton van Straaten
> It's a basic civility issue.
>
> "I'll just take it as a warning that there are idiots out there who
> would do this"
> - Ray Dillinger
> http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-49/mail-archive/msg00010.html
That should be "- Ray Dillinger, speaking for a large majority of the
Scheme community".
Ray was right. Pussyfooting around the fact that SRFI-49 was a bad joke
which only its author didn't get, doesn't help anyone.
Anton
alex...@gmail.com
> alex...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It's a basic civility issue.
> >
> > "I'll just take it as a warning that there are idiots out there who
> > would do this"
> > - Ray Dillinger
> > http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-49/mail-archive/msg00010.html
>
> That should be "- Ray Dillinger, speaking for a large majority of the
> Scheme community".
Verbal abusiveness is not characteristic of the Scheme community. If
you feel otherwise, perhaps you shouldn't represent it on the RnRS
committee.
> Ray was right. Pussyfooting around the fact that SRFI-49 was a bad joke
> which only its author didn't get, doesn't help anyone.
"only its author" ? Who elected you to speak for everyone?
Jens Axel Søgaard
>>>http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-49/mail-archive/msg00010.html
>>
>>That should be "- Ray Dillinger, speaking for a large majority of the
>>Scheme community".
>>Ray was right. Pussyfooting around the fact that SRFI-49 was a bad joke
>>which only its author didn't get, doesn't help anyone.
>
> "only its author" ? Who elected you to speak for everyone?
Well - I can't remember any Schemers stating SRFI-49 is a good idea.
The submitter of the SRFI now programs in Python.
--
Jens Axel Søgaard
Anton van Straaten
> Anton van Straaten wrote:
>
>>alex...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>It's a basic civility issue.
>>>
>>>"I'll just take it as a warning that there are idiots out there who
>>>would do this"
>>>- Ray Dillinger
>>>http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-49/mail-archive/msg00010.html
>>
>>That should be "- Ray Dillinger, speaking for a large majority of the
>>Scheme community".
>
>
> Verbal abusiveness is not characteristic of the Scheme community.
Of course, I agree there's *never* been any verbal abusiveness on
comp.lang.scheme. Well, hardly ever. Um...
In any case, I'm referring to the reaction to SRFI-49 amongst actual
Scheme users, not speculating about some abstract characteristic of the
Scheme community.
>>Ray was right. Pussyfooting around the fact that SRFI-49 was a bad joke
>>which only its author didn't get, doesn't help anyone.
>
>
> "only its author" ? Who elected you to speak for everyone?
I stand corrected -- you didn't get the joke either?
If the point of all this is that you think SRFI-49 is a good idea, I'm
curious as to whether you've written any non-trivial programs using its
syntax.
Anton
alex...@gmail.com
> alex...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Anton van Straaten wrote:
> >
> >>alex...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>It's a basic civility issue.
> >>>
> >>>"I'll just take it as a warning that there are idiots out there who
> >>>would do this"
> >>>- Ray Dillinger
> >>>http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-49/mail-archive/msg00010.html
> >>
> >>That should be "- Ray Dillinger, speaking for a large majority of the
> >>Scheme community".
> >
> >
> > Verbal abusiveness is not characteristic of the Scheme community.
>
> Of course, I agree there's *never* been any verbal abusiveness on
> comp.lang.scheme. Well, hardly ever. Um...
Do you know what "characteristic" means?
> In any case, I'm referring to the reaction to SRFI-49 amongst actual
> Scheme users, not speculating about some abstract characteristic of the
> Scheme community.
>
> >>Ray was right. Pussyfooting around the fact that SRFI-49 was a bad joke
> >>which only its author didn't get, doesn't help anyone.
> >
> >
> > "only its author" ? Who elected you to speak for everyone?
>
> I stand corrected -- you didn't get the joke either?
I never said whether I like SRFI-49. You purported to speak for
everyone. Where did you get the crazy idea that you can?
Anton van Straaten
>>>Verbal abusiveness is not characteristic of the Scheme community.
>>
>>Of course, I agree there's *never* been any verbal abusiveness on
>>comp.lang.scheme. Well, hardly ever. Um...
>
>
> Do you know what "characteristic" means?
How about if I use it in a sentence: "a characteristic of the Scheme
community is that it doesn't suffer idiots gladly."
> I never said whether I like SRFI-49. You purported to speak for
> everyone. Where did you get the crazy idea that you can?
The fact that no regular Scheme user has said anything in support of
SRFI-49, or writes code using its syntax.
If you'd like to quibble that there might in theory be a vast
indentation-sensitive conspiracy secretly writing SRFI-49 Scheme code
without telling anyone about it, I can't stop you, but it doesn't affect
the real point.
Let's see if we can turn this thread onto a more constructive tack, though.
In a perfect world, instead of a comment about idiots, someone might
write up a thoughtful explanation of why an indentation-sensitive syntax
is not a great idea for Scheme, and more specifically, why SRFI-49 is
particularly inappropriate. That explanation might talk about things
like the difference in the role of delimiters between Scheme and other
indentation-sensitive languages such as Python and Haskell. (As one
example, although Python is indentation-sensitive, it still uses
parentheses to delimit argument lists.) Such an explanation might
discuss macros, and the inadequacy of SRFI-49's GROUP keyword as a way
to deal with lists of terms. To spice things up, the explanation might
include some mildly relevant but colorful analogy like "painting stripes
on a horse doesn't make it a zebra".
This explanation would be quite enlightening to newbies, and would
perhaps help prevent them from being taken advantage of on their next
African safari, but it wouldn't tell any existing members of the Scheme
community anything that they haven't already demonstrated instinctive
knowledge of, by either ignoring or excoriating SRFI-49.
In our imperfect world, we have to infer all of the above and more from
the disgruntled comments of the few people who bothered to say anything
about SRFI-49 at all. I'd encourage readers to focus more on where such
words are coming from, than on whether they occasionally violate some
norm of political correctness. And for those who really don't
understand where it's coming from, another characteristic of the Scheme
community is that it responds well to honest questioning.
Anton
alex...@gmail.com
== basic civility". Can you tell us for the record if English is your
native language? I really don't know, but based on how many times you
misunderstood me, I'm guessing it is not.
Political correctness is nonsense forced on us by communists and
left-wingers. Basic civility, on the other hand, such as not publicly
calling a person an idiot, because he suggested a new, if not
completely original (*) indentation-dependent syntax for Lisp, that you
happen to find distasteful, has nothing to do with it.
(*) there were others. Google.
bunn...@gmail.com
> The fact that no regular Scheme user has said anything in support of
> SRFI-49, or writes code using its syntax.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You couldn't possibly know all regular Scheme users.
The SRFI process as it is currently defined, is open to
all designs, even if they insult some or manys idea of
good design or elegance.
Just to make this clear, I don't like SRFI-49 particularly.
But I don't like several other SRFIs as well, yet this doesn't
entitle me to insult the authors, or take my personal taste
for granted as the One True Way (as Bear apparently is doing).
cheers,
felix
Nils M Holm
> Political correctness is nonsense forced on us by communists and
> left-wingers.
alt.politics is right over there.
For the record:
I do not consider myself a 'characteristic schemer', but got the
SRFI-49 joke anyway, had a good laugh, and now life goes on.
--
Nils M Holm <n...@despammed.com> -- http://www.t3x.org/nmh/
Michael Sperber
Anton van Straaten <an...@appsolutions.com> writes:
> Of course, I agree there's *never* been any verbal abusiveness on
> comp.lang.scheme. Well, hardly ever. Um...
Being boring is a kind of insult. You guys sound like a bunch of
pimply geeko teenagers wondering why the guy with the t-shirt you
don't like is making out with the cheerleader you've been secretly
craving. Needless to say, it does nothing to further your cause, if
there is any.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
Anton van Straaten
> Let's see if we can turn this thread onto a more constructive tack,
> though.
Apparently, I failed.
alex...@gmail.com wrote:
> First, it's "not characteristic == never"
That was an attempt at sarcasm. "Never" in that context actually meant
something much closer to "happens pretty regularly, actually".
I apologize if it was overly subtle - I should have stuck with the more
basic "you haven't been reading comp.lang.scheme long, have you?"
> now "political correctness == basic civility".
That's my assessment of your original objection.
> Political correctness is nonsense forced on us by communists and
> left-wingers. Basic civility, on the other hand, such as not publicly
> calling a person an idiot
From my perspective, that's a double-plus ungood slope you're on there.
If I post some wacky technical suggestion or argument (something I've
done more than once!), I'd much rather have someone sincerely tell me
that they think I'm an idiot, than think it and not say anything --
particularly if it's done along with other, more constructive feedback.
Telling people that they should keep quiet in such cases, rather than
say something "uncivil", censors the symptom, without doing anything
about the cause. Sounds pretty PC to me.
I'm not saying that there isn't any issue of civility here, but imposing
a blind and unwavering rule is exactly where political correctness goes
wrong (as with so many other things).
Of course, as I've already acknowledged, the preferable alternative is a
more reasoned argument, but that can take significantly more effort.
> because he suggested a new, if not
> completely original (*) indentation-dependent syntax for Lisp, that you
> happen to find distasteful, has nothing to do with it.
How quickly you forget my alleged sins! This isn't about what any
individual happens to find distasteful -- I'm saying that *no-one* finds
SRFI-49 workable enough to use. Other authors have withdrawn SRFIs for
much less.
As for tastefulness, from a purely aesthetic point of view, SRFI-49 has
its attractions. For example, here's Omega expressed using SRFI-49,
without any recourse to those pesky parentheses:
group
lambda
group
x
x x
lambda
group
x
x x
Makes for much better t-shirt fodder than the parenthesized version,
don't you think?
-- Anton
"The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from
one." -- as quoted by Egil Möller
Anton van Straaten
> Anton van Straaten schrieb:
>
>
>>The fact that no regular Scheme user has said anything in support of
>>SRFI-49, or writes code using its syntax.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You couldn't possibly know all regular Scheme users.
True. I'm dying to hear the experiences of just one person who is
actually writing code using SRFI-49 - it would blow my argument all to
hell, but it would be worth it. However, I don't believe there are any
such people. It is my opinion that this discussion would not be taking
place if anyone who does not believe that SRFI-49 is idiotic, had
actually tried to use it.
Anton
Ulrich Hobelmann
> As for tastefulness, from a purely aesthetic point of view, SRFI-49 has
> its attractions. For example, here's Omega expressed using SRFI-49,
> without any recourse to those pesky parentheses:
>
> group
> lambda
> group
> x
> x x
> lambda
> group
> x
> x x
So, where would the parentheses go here? I don't understand a
BIT, as it is...
> Makes for much better t-shirt fodder than the parenthesized version,
> don't you think?
It looks incoherent, like word soup...
Anton van Straaten
> Anton van Straaten wrote:
>
>> As for tastefulness, from a purely aesthetic point of view, SRFI-49
>> has its attractions. For example, here's Omega expressed using
>> SRFI-49, without any recourse to those pesky parentheses:
>>
>> group
>> lambda
>> group
>> x
>> x x
>> lambda
>> group
>> x
>> x x
>
>
> So, where would the parentheses go here? I don't understand a BIT, as
> it is...
It's this: ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))
The two inner uses of "group" above could also be replaced by
parentheses around the following x. SRFI-49's syntax for representing
lists using indentation doesn't seem to support single-element lists, so
although you can define an addition procedure (lambda (x y) (+ x y)) as:
lambda
x y
+ x y
...you can't similarly define e.g. (lambda (x) (* x 2)) as:
lambda
x
* x 2
...instead, you need either
lambda
group
x
* x 2
or something more like
lambda (x)
* x 2
...and of course, if you want to express that on one line, you have to
add parentheses to make up for the missing indentation:
lambda (x) (* x 2)
One of the points that was missed in this attempt to graft a Pythonesque
syntax onto Scheme is the fact that Scheme is expression-oriented, not
statement-oriented, and as such has a very different relationship
between code on different "lines". This leads to SRFI-49 exhibiting
strange meaning changes as a result of what would otherwise be minor edits.
>> Makes for much better t-shirt fodder than the parenthesized version,
>> don't you think?
>
>
> It looks incoherent, like word soup...
Nicely indented soup, though.
Anton
Anton van Straaten
> Anton van Straaten <an...@appsolutions.com> writes:
>
>
>>Of course, I agree there's *never* been any verbal abusiveness on
>>comp.lang.scheme. Well, hardly ever. Um...
>
>
> Being boring is a kind of insult. You guys sound like a bunch of
> pimply geeko teenagers wondering why the guy with the t-shirt you
> don't like is making out with the cheerleader you've been secretly
> craving. Needless to say, it does nothing to further your cause, if
> there is any.
No need to get personal, calling us idiots would suffice.
Anton
bunn...@gmail.com
> >
> > You couldn't possibly know all regular Scheme users.
>
> True. I'm dying to hear the experiences of just one person who is
> actually writing code using SRFI-49 - it would blow my argument all to
> hell, but it would be worth it. However, I don't believe there are any
> such people. It is my opinion that this discussion would not be taking
> place if anyone who does not believe that SRFI-49 is idiotic, had
> actually tried to use it.
>
You don't seem to get the point: your opinion might not be
necessarily important whether a SRFI is useful or not.
Egil Möller considered it useful, the SRFI editors accepted it,
from then on it's completely on the author to decide whether
to finalize or withdraw. I admit the SRFI-49 is an extreme
example, but that's how the process works.
If you (or bear) can't live with this, then you should consider
blaming the SRFI authors, or propose a better approach. But please
don't try to excuse bear's rudeness by pointing out SRFI-49's
insufficiences (if that's not your intention, then I apologize - but
that's how it looks, at least to me).
cheers,
felix
Scott G. Miller
>
> If you (or bear) can't live with this, then you should consider
> blaming the SRFI authors, or propose a better approach. But please
> don't try to excuse bear's rudeness by pointing out SRFI-49's
> insufficiences (if that's not your intention, then I apologize - but
> that's how it looks, at least to me).
>
This seems like the perfect cue....
Joe Marshall
> You guys sound like a bunch of pimply geeko teenagers wondering why
> the guy with the t-shirt you don't like is making out with the
> cheerleader you've been secretly craving. Needless to say, it does
> nothing to further your cause, if there is any.
Cheerleaders simply don't make out with pimply geeko teenagers, so
bitching about the t-shirt is probably the most entertainment we'll
get.
Anton is correct in his assessment that no one will use SRFI-49. But
withdrawing it will simply cause a similar one to be submitted within
a couple of years, so why not keep it?
~jrm
Michael Campbell
I'd like to mention that as a newcomer to the lisp/scheme community
(but old time bang-path era netnewser), this particular thread has
been entertaining on multiple levels. =)
--
Michael Campbell
Ray Dillinger
> Anton van Straaten schrieb:
>
>
>>The fact that no regular Scheme user has said anything in support of
>>SRFI-49, or writes code using its syntax.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You couldn't possibly know all regular Scheme users.
>
Considering that there is an absence of implementations of
SRFI-49 among all known scheme implementations, I would
feel that Anton is pretty safe in his assumption that no
"regular" Scheme user uses it.
In order to do this, you'd have to hack or patch the reader -
and that is fairly irregular.
Bear
Ray Dillinger
> One of the points that was missed in this attempt to graft a Pythonesque
> syntax onto Scheme is the fact that Scheme is expression-oriented, not
> statement-oriented, and as such has a very different relationship
> between code on different "lines".
See, I just looked at it and thought it was ugly and in poor taste
and that scheme was one of the worst possible languages to apply
indentation-sensitive syntax to; you've managed to succintly articulate
*WHY* it's so ugly and in poor taste as applied to scheme.
This is a very important insight; for me it sank below the level
of "instinct", in the same way fish aren't really aware of water.
Bear
Ray Dillinger
:-)
What, you expect me to be rude to this guy? He hasn't tripped
any of my real pushbuttons; no idiotic proposals, no faint and
fuzzy thinking, no blind worship of flawed technical standards
for buzzword compliance, no willful confusion of syntax with
procedure names, no suggestions to gut basic power or capabilities
out of the language to make it more newbie-friendly.... Heck,
he's not even baiting people who use minority operating systems
or astroturfing for big vendors.
What he's done is make an "unnecessary roughness" call, and,
frankly, he's got a point. I don't get mad at people who tell
the truth - especially not when it's the truth about me. I
should have presented the technical arguments and stopped
rather than presenting the technical arguments and then making
a comment about idiots. This much is true, and he gets points
for saying so.
However, if he says about one more time that nobody has the
right to express opinions on matters of taste, I'm just going
to have a belly laugh and forget about it.
Bear
Anton van Straaten
> Anton van Straaten schrieb:
>
>
>>>You couldn't possibly know all regular Scheme users.
>>
>>True. I'm dying to hear the experiences of just one person who is
>>actually writing code using SRFI-49 - it would blow my argument all to
>>hell, but it would be worth it. However, I don't believe there are any
>>such people. It is my opinion that this discussion would not be taking
>>place if anyone who does not believe that SRFI-49 is idiotic, had
>>actually tried to use it.
>>
>
>
> You don't seem to get the point: your opinion might not be
> necessarily important whether a SRFI is useful or not.
Right, but as I've stated repeatedly, I'm not talking about my opinion
of the SRFI, I'm talking about the collective opinion of everyone who's
looked at it, judging by their actions in not using it. If I'm wrong in
that assessment, all it takes to demonstrate that is one counterexample,
which I eagerly await.
> Egil Möller considered it useful
Egil Möller imagined it useful, but doesn't seem to have found it useful
in practice. IOW, I'm including him as not having a very high opinion
of the usefulness of SRFI-49, as evidenced by his actions.
> the SRFI editors accepted it,
> from then on it's completely on the author to decide whether
> to finalize or withdraw.
Certainly. My point has nothing to do with the appropriateness of the
SRFI process.
> I admit the SRFI-49 is an extreme
> example, but that's how the process works.
I agree. That doesn't mean that authors who propose idiotic SRFIs and
then finalize them shouldn't come in for criticism.
> If you (or bear) can't live with this, then you should consider
> blaming the SRFI authors
Bingo!
> or propose a better approach.
That's a tangential issue. There's nothing wrong with the SRFI process,
as far as it goes, if it's understood for what it is.
> But please
> don't try to excuse bear's rudeness by pointing out SRFI-49's
> insufficiences (if that's not your intention, then I apologize - but
> that's how it looks, at least to me).
What I'm defending might be described as "justifiable flameage". As
with justifiable homicide in the law in some jurisdictions, it can be
forgiven if used to prevent a serious crime, i.e. one considers the
circumstances when determining the seriousness of an offense. The
biggest problem here, afaict, is that the flameage wasn't effective in
convincing the author of the weakness of his proposal. But then, many
of us didn't even try.
BTW, I apologize to Bear for dragging his name through this ridiculous
discussion. Sorry.
Anton
Chachie
Well, since you insist on dragging this out, first, for the record,
discuss for us how "civil" it is to question someone's English
abilities. That is, for the record, if you're not actually too
"emotionally involved here", and a damned hypocrite to boot.
Do that -- right after, as you've been repeatedly asked to do, you
produce characteristic Schemers who find this SRFI workable....or was it
that "prefer such syntax?" You sure as hell don't speak for the Scheme
community in ANY sense.
And as far as your obvious psychological projection about "left wingers"
and PC, please go burn an American flag or criticize "the troops", and
then you report back to us on what political persuasion quite literally
seeks to force you to alter *that* political speech.
alex...@gmail.com
> alex...@gmail.com wrote:
> > First, it's "not characteristic == never", now "political correctness
> > == basic civility". Can you tell us for the record if English is your
> > native language? I really don't know, but based on how many times you
> > misunderstood me, I'm guessing it is not.
> >
> > Political correctness is nonsense forced on us by communists and
> > left-wingers. Basic civility, on the other hand, such as not publicly
> > calling a person an idiot, because he suggested a new, if not
> > completely original (*) indentation-dependent syntax for Lisp, that you
> > happen to find distasteful, has nothing to do with it.
>
> Well, since you insist on dragging this out,
Nope. You do. Straaten tries to. That's why he claimed Dillinger was
speaking for an overwhelming majority of Schemers when he called Egil
an idiot, when the matter was essentially settled already.
> first, for the record,
> discuss for us how "civil" it is to question someone's English
> abilities.
Why is it not civil? Some people do not know English very well, others
misinterpret what they are replying to on purpose. I like to know which
I'm dealing with.
> Do that -- right after, as you've been repeatedly asked to do, you
> produce characteristic Schemers who find this SRFI workable....or was it
> that "prefer such syntax?" You sure as hell don't speak for the Scheme
> community in ANY sense.
Pay attention, because this is the last time I will be repeating this:
Disagreeing with Straaten, I wrote that it's not characteristic of
Schemers to publicly call people *idiots* because of differences in
syntax preferences. I did *not* state that most Schemers like SRFI-49.
> And as far as your obvious psychological projection about "left wingers"
> and PC, please go burn an American flag or criticize "the troops", and
> then you report back to us on what political persuasion quite literally
> seeks to force you to alter *that* political speech.
Straaten brought up political correctness, not me. I merely corrected
his N-th distortion of my point.
P.S. I see this is your first post to USENET. Welcome, puppet.
alex...@gmail.com
Anton van Straaten wrote:
> bunn...@yoho-gmail.com wrote:
> > Anton van Straaten schrieb:
> >
> >
> >>The fact that no regular Scheme user has said anything in support of
> >>SRFI-49, or writes code using its syntax.
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > You couldn't possibly know all regular Scheme users.
>
> True.
Then why do you claim no regular Scheme user writes code using SRFI-49?
Anton van Straaten
My analysis indicates that SRFI-49 is effectively unusable, by which I
mean not usable in practice, even if it is usable in theory. I don't
need to know any Scheme users to know that none of them are using
something that's effectively unusable.
Others have performed their own analyses and reached similar
conclusions. It's notable that no-one has yet come forward in defense
of the usability of SRFI-49.
Like any good scientific theory, mine has testable consequences: it
could be falsified merely by the discovery of the existence of a single
Scheme programmer who writes code using SRFI-49. So far, the theory has
not been falsified.
Further, there's reason to believe that falsifying cases would come to
our attention quite easily: because of the flaws in SRFI-49, the chances
are high that a SRFI-49 user who plans to continue using it would seek
to discuss its problems with others, or perhaps contribute solutions to
those problems. However, there is no evidence of such activity.
Of course, it's always possible that someone could choose to fix SRFI-49
somehow and use the fixed version without telling anyone else. However,
that person would no longer be using SRFI-49 (particularly because the
necessary fixes would not be minor), so this would have no effect on my
argument.
In short, I believe that logic and evidence make it entirely safe to say
that no Scheme users are writing code using SRFI-49. It's possible that
this statement might be proven false at some time in the future, in the
same sort of way that the statement "the sun will rise tomorrow morning"
might be proven false by the appearance of a sufficiently large black
hole which, travelling at a relative velocity close to the speed of
light, could gobble the sun and be out of the solar system in a mere
twelve hours or so, leaving us to face a morning as dark as the life of
a Schemer forced to program in SRFI-49 syntax.
Anton
Ray Dillinger
>>True.
Y'know, implying that someone hasn't the right to tell
you the truth is sorta making you look bad. There are
no implementations of SRFI-49; there is no visible code
anywhere written using it. Inferring that "regular"
scheme users are not using it is supported by the
evidence, whether there are individual schemers he
doesn't know or not.
What it looks like you're doing here is appealing to
some kind of "rules of debate" that you have in your
head in order to get someone to shut up, regardless of
whether that person is telling you the truth. That's
ugly behavior on your part and doesn't help in any
efforts to shed more light than heat. Please stop.
Bear
alex...@gmail.com
> alex...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Anton van Straaten wrote:
> >
> >>bunn...@yoho-gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>You couldn't possibly know all regular Scheme users.
>
> >>True.
>
> > Then why do you claim no regular Scheme user writes code using SRFI-49?
>
> Y'know, implying that someone hasn't the right to tell
> you the truth is sorta making you look bad.
Straaten: the coin flip will be "heads".
Felix: you can't possibly know that
Straaten: true
Goldman: then why do you claim what you can not know?
Dillinger: but there is a 50% chance he is right; implying he can not
tell you the truth is sorta making you look bad; please stop
> There are
> no implementations of SRFI-49; there is no visible code
> anywhere written using it.
You didn't see all visible code, or even the tiniest fraction of it.
Most code will never be "visible" to you. Many schemers will never post
to USENET.
Are there any more far-reaching conclusions predicated on questionable
assumptions you wanted to share with us to cover up your guilt?
bunn...@gmail.com
> >
> > You don't seem to get the point: your opinion might not be
> > necessarily important whether a SRFI is useful or not.
>
> Right, but as I've stated repeatedly, I'm not talking about my opinion
> of the SRFI, I'm talking about the collective opinion of everyone who's
> looked at it, judging by their actions in not using it. If I'm wrong in
> that assessment, all it takes to demonstrate that is one counterexample,
> which I eagerly await.
What do you know about the collective opinion of everyone who's
looked at it?
> > I admit the SRFI-49 is an extreme
> > example, but that's how the process works.
>
> I agree. That doesn't mean that authors who propose idiotic SRFIs and
> then finalize them shouldn't come in for criticism.
Criticism is fine (and the SRFI mailing lists are full of it),
insult is something different.
> What I'm defending might be described as "justifiable flameage". As
> with justifiable homicide in the law in some jurisdictions, it can be
> forgiven if used to prevent a serious crime, i.e. one considers the
> circumstances when determining the seriousness of an offense.
Wow, what an analogy.
BTW, this "justifiable flamage" is not exactly encouraging for future
SRFI authors.
cheers,
felix
Ray Dillinger
> Straaten: the coin flip will be "heads".
> Felix: you can't possibly know that
> Straaten: true
> Goldman: then why do you claim what you can not know?
> Dillinger: but there is a 50% chance he is right; implying he can not
> tell you the truth is sorta making you look bad; please stop
Y'know, some folks believe that, because we can't see *EVERY*
animal in north america at a given moment, we have to believe
that some of those animals are sasquatches, jackalopes,
splintercats, sidehill sheep, and ratchet-head owls --
that even though no one's ever been able to prove that even
one of them exists, there is no way to prove that they don't
exist. There could be entire populations, they claim,
that exist out of sight, and that no individual from those
populations has ever been caught or captured.
I didn't say there's a 50% chance he's right; I said he's
right. If you ask me to lay odds, I'll say the odds of
such a colony of scheme users existing, without even one
of them ever contacting the rest of the world, are about
similar to the odds of a colony of jackalopes existing
in the wild. And that the evidence supporting the claims
of their existence is about the same.
So, it's time for knowledgeable folks to do what they do
when they see someone out trying to prove the existence of
jackalopes; have a belly laugh at your expense and forget
about it.
Bear
Anton van Straaten
> Anton van Straaten schrieb:
>
>
>>>You don't seem to get the point: your opinion might not be
>>>necessarily important whether a SRFI is useful or not.
>>
>>Right, but as I've stated repeatedly, I'm not talking about my opinion
>>of the SRFI, I'm talking about the collective opinion of everyone who's
>>looked at it, judging by their actions in not using it. If I'm wrong in
>>that assessment, all it takes to demonstrate that is one counterexample,
>>which I eagerly await.
>
>
> What do you know about the collective opinion of everyone who's
> looked at it?
First, I'm judging by their actions -- all the available evidence
indicates that no-one is using it. What do _you_ think that says about
their opinion of it?
Further, have _you_ tried to use SRFI-49? My position is that anyone
who actually tries to use it in any non-trivial way will form a similar
opinion. This isn't some kind of "all right-thinking people" claim --
the thing is unusable. I gave more detail in my other reply to Alex
about it being effectively unusable.
>>>I admit the SRFI-49 is an extreme
>>>example, but that's how the process works.
>>
>>I agree. That doesn't mean that authors who propose idiotic SRFIs and
>>then finalize them shouldn't come in for criticism.
>
>
> Criticism is fine (and the SRFI mailing lists are full of it),
> insult is something different.
I agree. However, one of my points (touched on in an earlier post) is
that when a discussion reaches the point of insults, that's information
of its own kind. In this case, it was indeed an indication of serious
problems with the SRFI, which you have agreed is an "extreme example".
There's also an element of "the truth hurts" here. Would it be an
insult to call the SRFI "idiotic", i.e. "showing complete lack of
thought or common sense, foolish"? It might be insulting, but it's also
pretty close to being factual. What else would you call something
intended to be useful, that's actually effectively unusable? So the
original comment mainly made the mistake of attacking the person instead
of the idea.
>>What I'm defending might be described as "justifiable flameage". As
>>with justifiable homicide in the law in some jurisdictions, it can be
>>forgiven if used to prevent a serious crime, i.e. one considers the
>>circumstances when determining the seriousness of an offense.
>
>
> Wow, what an analogy.
Reread my posts and count the times you think I could have inserted a
smiley. There've been quite a few, and one of them is quoted above.
I'm taking this about as seriously as it deserves to be taken.
I happened to hear part of a speech the other day by ex-US Senator for
Wyoming, Alan Simpson, who is well respected and known for his
forthrightness. He mentioned that US citizens consider their
politicians "idiots", and said that "they like their own
representatives, but not the other jerks" (that's from memory, but close
to verbatim).
Curious as to whether Senator Simpson made a habit of using the word
"idiot", I googled and found him quoted as saying "That guy's an
idiot"[*] in reference to a particular anti-gay activist. Senator
Simpson clearly believes in the principle of justifiable flameage.
> BTW, this "justifiable flamage" is not exactly encouraging for future
> SRFI authors.
So you'd like to see the SRFI process used to bolster the self-esteem of
authors who do an extremely poor job? A process that encourages the
participation of every inexperienced newbie with a half-assed idea?
Realistically, a SRFI author who submits a bad SRFI is going to come in
for criticism. If they'd like to avoid that, I'd suggest that they
first publish their work as a library, if possible, gather some users,
and work with the library seriously themselves. Had that been done in
this case, SRFI-49 would never have existed in its current form.
Anton
[*] http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hbo_realtime_042205.htm
alex...@gmail.com
> alex...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Straaten: the coin flip will be "heads".
> > Felix: you can't possibly know that
> > Straaten: true
> > Goldman: then why do you claim what you can not know?
> > Dillinger: but there is a 50% chance he is right; implying he can not
> > tell you the truth is sorta making you look bad; please stop
>
>
> Y'know, some folks believe that, because we can't see *EVERY*
> animal in north america at a given moment, we have to believe
> that some of those animals are sasquatches, jackalopes,
> splintercats, sidehill sheep, and ratchet-head owls --
> that even though no one's ever been able to prove that even
> one of them exists, there is no way to prove that they don't
> exist. There could be entire populations, they claim,
> that exist out of sight, and that no individual from those
> populations has ever been caught or captured.
Since you devised this stupid analogy, I'll go with it: if you had seen
one jackalope, and heard a rumor that the jackalope got eaten, would
you still claim that the odds of the existence of jackalopes are
vanishingly small?
> I didn't say there's a 50% chance he's right; I said he's
> right. If you ask me to lay odds, I'll say the odds of
> such a colony of scheme users existing,
"Colony of scheme users" ?! Sounds to me like you surrendered your
original position. Straaten stated that no single regular Scheme user
(including Egil Mollner) writes code with SRFI 49.
Anton van Straaten
> Goldman: then why do you claim what you can not know?
> Dillinger: but there is a 50% chance he is right; implying he can not
> tell you the truth is sorta making you look bad; please stop
Now you've descended to attributing made-up statements to other people
that are completely incorrect. Well done - you will no doubt win your
argument with your fictional Dillinger!
If you want to put a percentage to it, my own opinion is that it's
vanishingly close to 100%. More on this below.
>>There are
>>no implementations of SRFI-49; there is no visible code
>>anywhere written using it.
>
>
> You didn't see all visible code, or even the tiniest fraction of it.
> Most code will never be "visible" to you. Many schemers will never post
> to USENET.
You seem to be having some difficulty here with the idea that we can
ever make apparently certain statements about something that we don't
have absolute deductive proof for. That's an understandable concern,
but it's one that's been well-covered in philosophy and other
disciplines. To understand this better, I recommend reading about
inductive logic:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/
Also, epistemology deals with how we know what we know, how we can be
sure about it, and how sure we can be about it:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html
Here's a very relevant quote:
"What distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate)
knowledge? Practically, this questions translates into issues of
scientific methodology: how can one develop theories or models that are
better than competing theories?"
I've provided quite a bit of information about the methodology
underlying my theory of non-adoption of SRFI-49 amongst Scheme users.
So far, you have been unable to falsify this theory, for example by
demonstrating the existence of a single user of SRFI-49. If you can't
falsify it, all you can do is try to come up with a better theory.
Your theory would have to address questions such as how users are
dealing with the effective unusability of SRFI-49. You could perhaps do
this by making the case that SRFI-49 is in fact usable. Your theory
would also have to explain why none of these users have ever made any
known public statements about SRFI-49.
Given such a competing theory, we could examine the merits of the
respective theories and use scientific methodology to decide which
theory is better. But if you don't have a competing theory which fits
the evidence, then you aren't really in a position to attack mine, which
is supported by logic, analysis, and evidence.
Your only remaining recourse is to call me an idiot. You know you want to.
Anton
alex...@gmail.com
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/
>
> Your only remaining recourse is to call me an idiot.
If you had actually studied inductive reasoning, you'd know that you
are making a classic mistake. It's so classic that it's explained in
any text on the topic worth a dime.
Instead of calling you an idiot, I'll illustrate where you are wrong by
a simple example. If you measure the unique density of a sample of
water, you'll find that it's about 1000 kg/m^3. Given sufficient
knowledge of liquid matter, you can induce that all samples of water
have this unique density. Now, I got news for you: Schemers are not a
homogeneous liquid. By looking at a tiny sample of Schemers, you can
not possibly know what all Schemers do or think.
Anton van Straaten
> If you had actually studied inductive reasoning, you'd know that you
> are making a classic mistake. It's so classic that it's explained in
> any text on the topic worth a dime.
>
> Instead of calling you an idiot, I'll illustrate where you are wrong by
> a simple example. If you measure the unique density of a sample of
> water, you'll find that it's about 1000 kg/m^3. Given sufficient
> knowledge of liquid matter, you can induce that all samples of water
> have this unique density. Now, I got news for you: Schemers are not a
> homogeneous liquid. By looking at a tiny sample of Schemers, you can
> not possibly know what all Schemers do or think.
You're correct that inductive reasoning alone is suspect as a way of
reaching conclusions. However, that's not what I'm doing. I'm not
concluding anything purely from looking at a tiny sample of Schemers.
Rather, my claim that no Schemers are using SRFI-49 rests on the premise
that SRFI-49 is effectively unusable, and is supported by evidence that
what little experimental use it ever had, even by its author, has been
discontinued. In addition, my claim is easily falsifiable (which makes
it a strong claim from a Popperian perspective), but no evidence has
been found to falsify it.
The falsification point bears a close relationship to the question of
inductive reasoning, which is why I raised the latter in my previous
post. Even though we can't use inductive reasoning alone to reach
conclusions "known" to be valid, inductive reasoning is still an
indispensable part of science and epistemology in general, in at least
two ways:
First, inductive reasoning is one of our most important strategies for
discovering hypotheses, or possible theories. Having noticed some
pattern, we may then seek reasons for it, and develop hypotheses to
account for it. In the present case, noticing a distinct lack of
discussion anywhere from users of SRFI-49, and negative comments from
those who have examined it, we may look for some hypothesis to account
for this.
We then need to test our hypotheses to determine which one(s) best fit
the evidence. This is the second way in which inductive reasoning is of
critical importance: even once an hypothesis has been elevated to the
status of a theory, all such scientific theories depend on induction in
a way that is ultimately uncertain. Once we are sufficiently confident
in a hypothesis to call it a theory, we believe that its conclusions
hold, but we cannot usually test that its conclusions hold in every
possible situation. Instead, we rely on inductive reasoning,
essentially saying that because no tests so far have contradicted the
theory, that the theory holds, and therefore it's likely that future
tests will also hold.
It's the combination of a theory, with testable consequences, and the
fact that tests of the theory do not falsify it, which allow us to
develop some degree of confidence in a theory.
You've essentially been telling me that despite lack of falsification so
far, I don't have enough information to conclude that my theory is
valid. Faced with such a situation, the reality is that social factors
come into play: what conclusions do other people examining the available
theories and evidence come to?
Over time, a combination of consensus and continued lack of
falsification may lead us to develop stronger and stronger faith in a
particular theory. But there is no certain guarantee against the
possibility that at some point in the future, a previously successful
theory will be falsified, in which case it will hopefully replaced by a
theory that better fits the available evidence.
Note that this is true even of the water density example quoted above:
the example refers to "sufficient knowledge of liquid matter", but that
knowledge is based on theories, and those theories depend on the same
sort of inductive reasoning related to non-falsification which I've
described above. It is possible that our theories about liquid matter,
or matter in general, could turn out to have missed some corner case,
and that the density of a sample of water could vary under some
circumstances which we haven't yet discovered or tested. This sort of
thing has happened repeatedly in the history of science[*], and we can
be quite sure it will happen again (inductive reasoning tells us that!)
Note that in this post, I've described the situation mostly in Popperian
falsificationist, hypothetico-deductive terms. There are other ways to
analyze it, but none of them put scientific theories on any firmer
footing. In the end, it all depends on inductive reasoning.
As David Hume apparently put it, someone who insists on sound deductive
justifications for everything would starve to death.
Anton
[*] See Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
Matthias Buelow
>Rather, my claim that no Schemers are using SRFI-49 rests on the
>premise that SRFI-49 is effectively unusable, and is supported by
>evidence that what little experimental use it ever had, even by its
>author, has been discontinued. In addition, my claim is easily
>falsifiable (which makes it a strong claim from a Popperian
>perspective), but no evidence has been found to falsify it.
Why the agelong discussion about it? If it's been abandoned even by
its author, why not just quietly delete the nonsense from the list of
SRFIs and leave it at that, then?
mkb.
Anton van Straaten
The discussion I've been having with Alex isn't so much about SRFI-49
itself. Alex has disputed the validity of many of the claims I've made,
and as a result I've been explaining my position, quite patiently I hope.
Feel free to ignore these messages if you don't like them. I imagine
you won't be the only one. Along those lines, sorry if my change of
subject line tricked anyone into reading my previous post; that wasn't
the intent.
As for deleting SRFI-49, afaik the SRFI process doesn't allow for that.
The author could have withdrawn it, but due to diligent efforts on
the part of the SRFI editors and others, the author of the SRFI was
recently contacted and chose to finalize it instead.
Anton
Ray Dillinger
> The discussion I've been having with Alex isn't so much about SRFI-49
> itself. Alex has disputed the validity of many of the claims I've made,
> and as a result I've been explaining my position, quite patiently I hope.
I suggest laughter instead of explanation. It feels much better,
and it doesn't give me the feeling of wasting effort.
Bear
Anton van Straaten
Well, I've been deriving some amusement out of this discussion as it is,
but perhaps that's not as apparent to onlookers as it could be. I'm
easily entertained, in some respects.
Anyway, for the sake of the other readers of this otherwise rather quiet
newsgroup, I will endeavor to restrain myself. I will just have to
contain my disappointment that I haven't yet had the opportunity to
introduce quantum mechanics into the discussion, perhaps linking it to
the probabilistic nature of the foundations of our knowledge.
Anton
Joe Marshall
> If you had actually studied inductive reasoning, you'd know that you
> are making a classic mistake...
... the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in
Asia", but only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against
a Sicilian, when *death* is on the line.". Hahahahahah.
--
~jrm
bunn...@gmail.com
> >
> > What do you know about the collective opinion of everyone who's
> > looked at it?
>
> First, I'm judging by their actions -- all the available evidence
> indicates that no-one is using it.
This makes no sense. What evidence are you talking about?
Do you know the taste and actions of each Scheme programmer
on the planet? Does R6RS-editorship make you omniscient?
>
> Further, have _you_ tried to use SRFI-49? My position is that anyone
> who actually tries to use it in any non-trivial way will form a similar
> opinion. This isn't some kind of "all right-thinking people" claim --
> the thing is unusable. I gave more detail in my other reply to Alex
> about it being effectively unusable.
That's not important. SRFI-49 has followed the normal SRFI process
and the editors have accepted it. That makes it a valid SRFI, whether
you (or me) like it or not. There is no justification for insult, and
no justification for defending someone who brags about his insulting
behaviour because some crazy SRFI doesn't meet his standards.
>
> There's also an element of "the truth hurts" here. Would it be an
> insult to call the SRFI "idiotic", i.e. "showing complete lack of
> thought or common sense, foolish"? It might be insulting, but it's also
> pretty close to being factual. What else would you call something
> intended to be useful, that's actually effectively unusable?
I would call it effectively unusable.
> So the
> original comment mainly made the mistake of attacking the person instead
> of the idea.
Indeed. Quite a mistake. And you are apparently defending that mistake.
> >
> > Wow, what an analogy.
>
> Reread my posts and count the times you think I could have inserted a
> smiley. There've been quite a few, and one of them is quoted above.
> I'm taking this about as seriously as it deserves to be taken.
I assumed that much.
>
> > BTW, this "justifiable flamage" is not exactly encouraging for future
> > SRFI authors.
>
> So you'd like to see the SRFI process used to bolster the self-esteem of
> authors who do an extremely poor job? A process that encourages the
> participation of every inexperienced newbie with a half-assed idea?
It just shows that anybody who is going to submit a srfi has to
be prepared to take a lot of flak. Some people might not be willing
to do this - because they are inexperienced, insecure or shy, for
example.
That doesn't necessarily mean their ideas are half-assed.
I'm just asking for a somewhat more reasonable tone. Probably this is
too much...
>
> Realistically, a SRFI author who submits a bad SRFI is going to come in
> for criticism. If they'd like to avoid that, I'd suggest that they
> first publish their work as a library, if possible, gather some users,
> and work with the library seriously themselves. Had that been done in
> this case, SRFI-49 would never have existed in its current form.
>
A very good idea, indeed.
cheers,
felix
Anton van Straaten
> Anton van Straaten schrieb:
>
>
>>>What do you know about the collective opinion of everyone who's
>>>looked at it?
>>
>>First, I'm judging by their actions -- all the available evidence
>>indicates that no-one is using it.
>
>
> This makes no sense. What evidence are you talking about?
Read my replies to Alex Goldman. I've developed an entire theory on the
subject, and provided a sketch of its epistemological foundations.
I must admit, I find your stance in favor of the possible existence of
SRFI-49 users at least as quixotic as my defense of the mistake
described below. What's the underlying point here? Is it merely coming
from a strict deductivist attitude to knowledge? Would you be satisfied
if used the term "hypothesis" instead of "theory", or do you want to
demote it all the way to "conjecture"? If so, is it OK if I call it an
incredibly strong, titanium-clad conjecture?
>>So the
>>original comment mainly made the mistake of attacking the person instead
>>of the idea.
>
>
> Indeed. Quite a mistake. And you are apparently defending that mistake.
It's more a case of defending the right to make such a mistake, and the
reality that such mistakes are made, even by the best of us.
> I'm just asking for a somewhat more reasonable tone. Probably this is
> too much...
I think you're overreacting, but I'm sure it's a matter of opinion.
>>Realistically, a SRFI author who submits a bad SRFI is going to come in
>>for criticism. If they'd like to avoid that, I'd suggest that they
>>first publish their work as a library, if possible, gather some users,
>>and work with the library seriously themselves. Had that been done in
>>this case, SRFI-49 would never have existed in its current form.
>>
>
>
> A very good idea, indeed.
There we are, a solution satisfactory to everyone.
Wait, how do I know it's satisfactory to *everyone*? Let me explain...
Anton
bunn...@gmail.com
> >
> > This makes no sense. What evidence are you talking about?
>
> Read my replies to Alex Goldman. I've developed an entire theory on the
> subject, and provided a sketch of its epistemological foundations.
That was merely hot air. "Lack of public discussion" doesn't mean
that no discussion has taken place. Neither can you know whether there
was any experimental use or not. Wrapping this up in
pesudo-philosophical
mumbo jumbo is just an attempt to distract - the usual reaction of
pulling a discussion either into ridiculousness or metaphysics, once
the real point vanishes into oblivion.
>
> I must admit, I find your stance in favor of the possible existence of
> SRFI-49 users at least as quixotic as my defense of the mistake
> described below. What's the underlying point here?
The underlying point is very simple: even questionable designs may
have users, and you have no way to prove the opposite. And since we
have a semi-standard way of publicizing design documents (SRFIs),
we should learn to accept when someone follows its rules and publishes
such a design.
>
> >>So the
> >>original comment mainly made the mistake of attacking the person instead
> >>of the idea.
> >
> >
> > Indeed. Quite a mistake. And you are apparently defending that mistake.
>
> It's more a case of defending the right to make such a mistake, and the
> reality that such mistakes are made, even by the best of us.
No, you're definding someone who deliberately makes a point of being
insulting.
>
> There we are, a solution satisfactory to everyone.
>
> Wait, how do I know it's satisfactory to *everyone*? Let me explain...
>
Idiot.
Förster vom Silberwald
> Being boring is a kind of insult. You guys sound like a bunch of
> pimply geeko teenagers wondering why the guy with the t-shirt you
> don't like is making out with the cheerleader you've been secretly
> craving. Needless to say, it does nothing to further your cause, if
> there is any.
Where is the problem? Anton takes a tough stance for Popper.
However, Alex has not been defeated since he is in the camp of the
philosopher Feyerabend ("anything goes").
Nevertheless, even there might be some people who would prefer SRFI-49
at the same time there must be a judicial authorithy who says no.
Lets face it: what will they call you if you start proposing
Scheme-like parentheses into Python?
Schneewittchen
Anton van Straaten
>>reality that such mistakes are made, even by the best of us.
>
>
> No, you're definding someone who deliberately makes a point of being
> insulting.
Everything else aside, he apologized, and I find your characterization
to be an extreme overstatement of the situation. Honest technical
feedback was also provided. Most people didn't bother to provide any
feedback. As I mentioned earlier, on the principle of "do unto others",
I'd much rather someone tell me I'm an idiot in that kind of situation,
i.e. as part of an honest reaction, than get no feedback at all.
I won't inflict on the newsgroup any further explanation of how I can be
sure no-one is using SRFI-49, other than to reiterate that it is
effectively unusable. Unusable designs have no users. Suffice it to
say that if you ever come across any users of it, I'd be really
interested to hear about it, and how (and why!) they're working around
its problems.
>>There we are, a solution satisfactory to everyone.
>>
>>Wait, how do I know it's satisfactory to *everyone*? Let me explain...
>>
>
>
> Idiot.
I know some people who would castigate you for saying that, but I'll
defend your right to an honest outburst.
Anton
bunn...@gmail.com
> >
> > No, you're definding someone who deliberately makes a point of being
> > insulting.
>
> Everything else aside, he apologized, and I find your characterization
> to be an extreme overstatement of the situation.
I really don't care whether he apologized or not. This is about
your reaction, not bears.
> As I mentioned earlier, on the principle of "do unto others",
> I'd much rather someone tell me I'm an idiot in that kind of situation,
> i.e. as part of an honest reaction, than get no feedback at all.
Well, I will try to follow that advice in the future, if you
provide the opportunity.
>
> I won't inflict on the newsgroup any further explanation of how I can be
> sure no-one is using SRFI-49, other than to reiterate that it is
> effectively unusable.
Thanks.
> Unusable designs have no users.
That must be qualified to have any truth in it. There are
varying degrees of "unusability". Consider the C++ programming
language for example. Or APL, COBOL, Brainfuck, Unlambda, you
name it (this applies to many other things as well, of course,
not just programming languages).
> >
> > Idiot.
>
> I know some people who would castigate you for saying that, but I'll
> defend your right to an honest outburst.
You asked for it. Your design of "truth" and "evidence" is
effectively unusable.
cheers,
felix
Hans Oesterholt-Dijkema
--
Hans
William D Clinger
> newsgroup, I will endeavor to restrain myself. I will just have to
> contain my disappointment that I haven't yet had the opportunity to
> introduce quantum mechanics into the discussion, perhaps linking it to
> the probabilistic nature of the foundations of our knowledge.
>
> Anton
I do think this discussion has shed some light on
the question of Intelligent Design, even though it
has not yet provided us with an ironclad proof for
the existence of God.
Speaking of Dave Barry, I'd like to put in a plug
for his novel "Big Trouble". Something about this
thread has reminded me of the extended scene in
which a couple of the bad guys are waiting in a
car while another couple of bad guys do something
bad to another couple of bad guys. While they were
waiting, they listened to a sports talk show on the
radio:
Where are the Gator fans now? All you Gators
call when you WIN, but now that you LOSE, you
don't have the guts.
The radio host took a call.
I'm a Gator fan. And I'm calling.
And what do you have to say?
You said we didn't have the guts to call, so
I'm calling.
Yeah, OK, and so what do you have to say?
I'm saying, here I am. I'm calling.
That's it? You're calling to say you're
calling?
You said we didn't have the guts.
Because you DON'T have the guts. All week
I had all these Gator fans on here, talking
trash, and now they run and hide.
Well, I'm calling.
OK, so what's your point?
My point is, you said we didn't have the guts
to call, so I'm...
Henry, shaking his head, turned off the radio.
[Three chapters later, following a great deal of
mayhem, Henry turns the radio back on.]
...point is that all these Gators ever do is
talk trash, and then when they lose, you don't
hear a peep out of 'em.
Well, I'M a Gator, OK? I'm a Gator, and I'm
talkin' to you right now, so what's your problem?
My problem is that you weren't calling until
I SAID no Gators were calling. THEN all of
a sudden there's all these Gators calling.
I would of called before. I'm not afraid to
call.
But you DIDN'T call. You're calling now, but
before I SAID there were no Gators calling,
there no Gators calling, including you.
OK, but I'm calling, OK? You hear me on the
phone now, right? I'm a Gator, and I'm...
Henry turned the radio back off.
"Those guys need a hobby," he said.
Anton van Straaten
> Anton van Straaten wrote:
>> bunn...@yoho-gmail.com wrote:
>>>Idiot.
>>
>>I know some people who would castigate you for saying that, but I'll
>>defend your right to an honest outburst.
>
>
> You asked for it. Your design of "truth" and "evidence" is
> effectively unusable.
Yet strangely effective in practice.
Anton, waiting for a Gator fan to call while looking for another hobby
Joe Marshall
> bunn...@yoho-gmail.com wrote:
>> Anton van Straaten wrote:
>>> bunn...@yoho-gmail.com wrote:
>>>>Idiot.
>>>
>>>I know some people who would castigate you for saying that, but I'll
>>>defend your right to an honest outburst.
>> You asked for it. Your design of "truth" and "evidence" is
>> effectively unusable.
>
> Yet strangely effective in practice.
Just like a pragmatist to appeal to `reality'. Sheesh.
--
~jrm
alex...@gmail.com
play, it would go like this
(all characters are fictional and any resemblence is accidental)
Dillinger: SRFI 49 is really stupid, Moller is an idiot, I will not use
a Scheme that supports SRFI 49 as an option
Goldman: It's not nice to call someone an idiot (who clearly is not)
over different syntax tastes
Dillinger: But I really really really hate this syntax. How about that?
Besides, Moller called me a troll in response.
Goldman: still, it's just syntax. any program in SRFI 49 is completely
isomorphic to a regular Scheme program.
Dillinger: OK, I shouldn't have called the author of this extremely
stupid proposal an idiot
Straaten: Dillinger was speaking for an overwhelming majority of Scheme
users
Goldman: most Scheme users don't call their colleagues idiots when they
propose a new syntax
Straaten: no single Schemer uses SRFI 49
Chachie (puppet): no single Schemer uses SRFI 49
Felix: you could not possibly know that
Straaten: true, but what if I say that it's my SCIENTIFIC THEORY that
no single Schemer uses SRFI 49; now it's a fact, a scientific fact!
Goldman: not exactly
Dillinger: let's laugh at him; the more we talk about whether Straaten
is omniscient, the less we remember what started this discussion.
Straaten: I enjoy being publicly humiliated by other men. Therefore,
Moller should like being called an idiot too.
Clinger: I enjoy horses and romantic walks in the park.
Marshall: My beard is too long for a guy without a tenure or $1,000,000
in the bank.
Anton van Straaten
> I don't know about a novel, but if I had to turn this thread into a
> play, it would go like this
Once again, you resort to a fictional world in order to achieve the
result you want. Reality is so inconvenient.
William D Clinger
> I don't know about a novel, but if I had to turn this thread into a
> play, it would go like this
Best of luck with your day job, Alex.
Will
Chachie
> Chachie wrote:
>
>>alex...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>First, it's "not characteristic == never", now "political correctness
>>>== basic civility". Can you tell us for the record if English is your
>>>native language? I really don't know, but based on how many times you
>>>misunderstood me, I'm guessing it is not.
>>>
>>>Political correctness is nonsense forced on us by communists and
>>>left-wingers. Basic civility, on the other hand, such as not publicly
>>>calling a person an idiot, because he suggested a new, if not
>>>completely original (*) indentation-dependent syntax for Lisp, that you
>>>happen to find distasteful, has nothing to do with it.
>>
>>Well, since you insist on dragging this out,
>
> Nope. You do. Straaten tries to. That's why he claimed Dillinger was
> speaking for an overwhelming majority of Schemers when he called Egil
> an idiot, when the matter was essentially settled already.
>
No, challenged one, as your posting record in this thread plainly shows,
you are the one dragging it out....but the matter HAS been apparently
settled, and guess what....the jury seems to be noting that you and the
SRFI have something, uh, in common.
>
>>first, for the record,
>>discuss for us how "civil" it is to question someone's English
>>abilities.
>
>
> Why is it not civil? Some people do not know English very well, others
> misinterpret what they are replying to on purpose. I like to know which
> I'm dealing with.
>
Bullshit. You got called on your own hypocrisy, now you want to
backpedal. Understandable.
>
>>Do that -- right after, as you've been repeatedly asked to do, you
>>produce characteristic Schemers who find this SRFI workable....or was it
>>that "prefer such syntax?" You sure as hell don't speak for the Scheme
>>community in ANY sense.
>
>
> Pay attention, because this is the last time I will be repeating this:
> Disagreeing with Straaten, I wrote that it's not characteristic of
> Schemers to publicly call people *idiots* because of differences in
> syntax preferences. I did *not* state that most Schemers like SRFI-49.
>
You pay attention, challenged one....and reread your own semi-literate
drivel about "never == characteristic". Let me guess....some people do
not know English very well...and you're one of them....or are you merely
misinterpreting what you yourself wrote on purpose? The point
stands....obviously you weren't able to produce "characteristic"
Schemers who find this SRFI workable....or was it who "prefer such syntax?"
>
>>And as far as your obvious psychological projection about "left wingers"
>>and PC, please go burn an American flag or criticize "the troops", and
>>then you report back to us on what political persuasion quite literally
>>seeks to force you to alter *that* political speech.
>
>
> Straaten brought up political correctness, not me. I merely corrected
> his N-th distortion of my point.
No, child. You're exactly the one who brought up "left wingers" etc.
Now *you're* trying to backpedal there as well...for the Nth time. As
I said, understandable. Since you're the self-proclaimed authority on
"civility" here, explain to us how "civil" is it to stereotype PC as the
sole product of "communists and left-wingers"?
Hint: your hypocrisy shows loud and clear...about as clearly as your
inability to show in *any way* why this SRFI isn't just idiocy.
>
> P.S. I see this is your first post to USENET. Welcome, puppet.
>
P.S. My, how telling that you'd be paranoid and insecure enough to
search someone's USENET posting history. Tell us: how "civil" exactly
is that, since you made yourself unilateral judge of "civility" here.
Do let us know, unless of course it's really just that hypocrisy thing
again.
(And obviously you don't know what you're doing, even with something as
simple as searching the Web....hint: look in the (English) dictionary
under "header".)
Chachie
I think we're all surprised that a characteristic and unhypocritical
Schemer like you wouldn't know that.
bunn...@gmail.com
> >
> > You asked for it. Your design of "truth" and "evidence" is
> > effectively unusable.
>
> Yet strangely effective in practice.
>
Huh? "Effective" in which way? You apply your own definitions
of these terms to the use of SRFI-49, which are not as universal
as you may think.
cheers,
felix
Förster vom Silberwald
bunn...@yoho-gmail.com wrote:
> Idiot.
Idiot are you since oh since. What about start reading some books about
philosophy? A good point where you can start off: "Alles Leben ist
Problemlösen", Popper. It is written in German (you are Germane -
right?).
I am not necessarily in the camp ofAnton with his Popperian theories.
However, I find his arguing cool and I am impressed that he is
interested in philosophy.
Schneewittchen
Förster vom Silberwald
Förster vom Silberwald wrote:
> Idiot are you since oh since. What about start reading some books about
> philosophy? A good point where you can start off: "Alles Leben ist
> Problemlösen", Popper. It is written in German (you are Germane -
> right?).
It is book title from Popper and easy to read.
König der verlorenen Spiele
A. Nawroth
> explain to us how "civil" is it to stereotype PC as the sole product
> of "communists and left-wingers"?
Only communists and left-wingers claim that stereotyping is uncivil.
Thinking people just know that there are exceptions to most rules, but
don't feel this urge to be boring and restate that basic fact in every
other sentence.
Anton van Straaten
Effective in the sense that my theory predicts that no-one will use
SRFI-49 to write real code (because it is effectively unusable), and so
far, all evidence supports the prediction and no evidence has been found
to contradict it.
In the absence of falsifying evidence, or a theory which better fits the
known facts, you have no basis for saying that my theory is wrong (or
ineffective), you can only say that it could be wrong. The same is true
for most scientific theories, and indeed, for much of our knowledge
about anything.
-- Anton "Would philosophy count as a hobby?" van Straaten
"But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means
follows that all arises out of experience."
-- Immanuel Kant, "Critique of Pure Reason"
("Kritik der reinen Vernunft": "Wenn aber gleich
alle unsere Erkenntnis mit der Erfahrung anhebt, so entspringt sie darum
doch nicht eben alle aus der Erfahrung.")
bunn...@gmail.com
> >
> > Huh? "Effective" in which way? You apply your own definitions
> > of these terms to the use of SRFI-49, which are not as universal
> > as you may think.
>
> Effective in the sense that my theory predicts that no-one will use
> SRFI-49 to write real code (because it is effectively unusable), and so
> far, all evidence supports the prediction and no evidence has been found
> to contradict it.
>
That "supporting evidence" does not exist. In this case there is no
(and can be no) evidence of something *not* existing.
You would have to prove that every existing person that
uses Scheme also doesn't use SRFI-49. Which you can't.
cheers,
felix
Anton van Straaten
> I am not necessarily in the camp of Anton with his Popperian theories.
For the record, I'd like to mention that I used a Popperian perspective
because falsification is intuitively easy to grasp for those unfamiliar
with such philosophy, and it is quite a relevant approach in this case.
However, the underlying point is that I know of no currently widely
accepted theories of knowledge which can add *greater* certainty to
knowledge about the "real world" than the sort of approach I've laid
out, so it really doesn't matter too much which philosophical
perspective one takes.
Short of rounding up all Scheme users (which itself presents
philosophical, practical and moral problems) and questioning them while
they're attached to perfect lie detectors, the only statements we can
make about all Scheme users must be based on theories supported by the
usual combination of intuition, logic and evidence.
Such theories are always subject to some degree of uncertainty, as with
any theories about real-world phenomena. However, if a theory appears
to fit the facts well, we usually accept it as a kind of "truth", at
least until a better theory is found. We don't bother to qualify every
statement we make with a footnote about the fundamentally uncertain
state of our knowledge.
Of course, when it comes to theories about people, or about things which
people consider important, science and philosophy is of little use in
preventing some of those people from objecting to the theorizing for
essentially personal, rather than scientific, reasons. Championing
scientific truth can get scientists into a lot of social trouble, as
Galileo Galilei discovered.
> However, I find his arguing cool and I am impressed that he is
> interested in philosophy.
Thanks! "I think about thinking, therefore I am." ;)
Anton
Kristof Bastiaensen
Yes, you are absolutely right. I was discussing this with the dwarves
that live in my refrigerator (the ones that turn on the light when you
open the door), and they agree with you. You aren't saying there is
no such thing as a dwarf living in a refrigerator, are you? Because
you cannot possibly have looked in every refrigerator.
In case you find this argument absurd, it is not more absurd than your
argument.
>
> cheers,
> felix
>
Kristof
bunn...@gmail.com
>
> Short of rounding up all Scheme users (which itself presents
> philosophical, practical and moral problems) and questioning them while
> they're attached to perfect lie detectors, the only statements we can
> make about all Scheme users must be based on theories supported by the
> usual combination of intuition, logic and evidence.
>
> Such theories are always subject to some degree of uncertainty, as with
> any theories about real-world phenomena. However, if a theory appears
> to fit the facts well, we usually accept it as a kind of "truth", at
> least until a better theory is found.
You probably mean "...a theory that fits my perception of the stylistic
taste of the majority of Scheme users, ...". But that still doesn't
apply to your original statement, essentially:
"I find it unusable, I don't know of anybody using it, so this is
evidence that it must be unusable to everyone."
>
> Of course, when it comes to theories about people, or about things which
> people consider important, science and philosophy is of little use in
> preventing some of those people from objecting to the theorizing for
> essentially personal, rather than scientific, reasons.
It's a bit cheap trying to disqualify my position as being founded in
"personal reasons" (if that is your intention). Are you getting bored?
cheers,
felix
Anton van Straaten
>>>
>>>Huh? "Effective" in which way? You apply your own definitions
>>>of these terms to the use of SRFI-49, which are not as universal
>>>as you may think.
>>
>>Effective in the sense that my theory predicts that no-one will use
>>SRFI-49 to write real code (because it is effectively unusable), and so
>>far, all evidence supports the prediction and no evidence has been found
>>to contradict it.
>>
>
>
> That "supporting evidence" does not exist.
The supporting evidence includes dead web sites [1] and [2], as well as
all the people who are known to have examined SRFI-49 and not proceeeded
to use it for writing real code. I've also provided a certain amount of
evidence and analysis of usability problems with the SRFI, and that line
of inquiry showed few signs of having been exhausted.
> In this case there is no
> (and can be no) evidence of something *not* existing.
> You would have to prove that every existing person that
> uses Scheme also doesn't use SRFI-49. Which you can't.
You haven't been paying attention. What you earlier dismissed as "hot
air" was a summary of one of the most widely accepted approaches to our
understanding of knowledge. That summary explained why I do not need to
"prove that every existing person that uses Scheme also doesn't use
SRFI-49", beyond what I have already done, which is to provide an
unfalsified theory which explains why they don't use it, and demonstrate
that the theory fits the facts. I've even provided you with
instructions as to how to displace this theory.
To explain the issue by example, your logic above could also be applied
to the theory of relativity: as you point out, there can be no evidence
of the *non*-existence of massive objects travelling at or beyond the
velocity of light, relative to some other object.
This forces us to reach the conclusion that we can't actually be sure
that no object with mass can travel at or beyond the velocity of light,
because we can't possibly check and experiment with the velocity of
every object in all of spacetime, let alone every relative combination
of two objects.
And your basic logic is correct: we can't ever be completely sure. Yet
the theory allows us to put up GPS satellites which take relativity into
account in order to keep accurate time[3], and we don't qualify every
statement we make about these theories with a disclaimer as to their
uncertainty.
Anton
[1] http://redhog.org/Projects/Programming/Current/Sugar/ (via Google)
[2] http://sugar.mini.dhs.org/ (via http://www.advogato.org/proj/Sugar/)
[3] http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
bunn...@gmail.com
> >
> > That "supporting evidence" does not exist.
>
> The supporting evidence includes dead web sites [1] and [2], as well as
> all the people who are known to have examined SRFI-49 and not proceeeded
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> to use it for writing real code.
How do you know?
>
> You haven't been paying attention. What you earlier dismissed as "hot
> air" was a summary of one of the most widely accepted approaches to our
> understanding of knowledge. That summary explained why I do not need to
> "prove that every existing person that uses Scheme also doesn't use
> SRFI-49", beyond what I have already done, which is to provide an
> unfalsified theory which explains why they don't use it, and demonstrate
> that the theory fits the facts. I've even provided you with
> instructions as to how to displace this theory.
Sorry, but that summary doesn't apply to Scheme programming style, even
if you're trying very hard to make it match. People have written code
in notations that are even worse than SRFI-49 (yes, hard to imagine),
sometimes voluntarily.
cheers,
felix
Anton van Straaten
> Anton van Straaten schrieb:
>
>
>>Short of rounding up all Scheme users (which itself presents
>>philosophical, practical and moral problems) and questioning them while
>>they're attached to perfect lie detectors, the only statements we can
>>make about all Scheme users must be based on theories supported by the
>>usual combination of intuition, logic and evidence.
>>
>>Such theories are always subject to some degree of uncertainty, as with
>>any theories about real-world phenomena. However, if a theory appears
>>to fit the facts well, we usually accept it as a kind of "truth", at
>>least until a better theory is found.
>
>
> You probably mean "...a theory that fits my perception of the stylistic
> taste of the majority of Scheme users, ...".
No, let me be clear: I'm not talking about stylistic taste at all. I
think it's conceivable that a usable indentation-sensitive syntax for
Scheme could be developed. However, SRFI-49 is not such a syntax.
I claim that it is unusable for writing real code in that if you tried
to do so, you would soon find that at the very least, its usability
problems necessitate significant fixes and modifications, at which
point, you would no longer be using SRFI-49; and at worst, and more
likely, you would soon abandon its use.
I suggest trying this experiment for yourself. According to my theory,
you will not choose to continue using this syntax in its current form.
Ideally, we would get some Python-loving Schemers, or Scheme-using
Pythonistas, to try the syntax, since they could be expected to
appreciate indentation-sensitivity. My theory predicts that they, too,
will not want to continue using the SRFI-49 syntax.
This is starting to remind me of a psychological experiment in which
lumberjacks were paid to attempt to chop down trees with large mallets,
instead of axes. In theory, delivering enough mallet blows to a tree's
trunk could bring it down; in practice, even though they were being
paid, none of the lumberjacks were willing to continue with the
experiment for very long, even when they were offered pay raises of many
times the going rate.
> But that still doesn't
> apply to your original statement, essentially:
>
> "I find it unusable, I don't know of anybody using it, so this is
> evidence that it must be unusable to everyone."
There is no argument that cannot be damaged by having an opponent
summarize it in a single sentence.
>>Of course, when it comes to theories about people, or about things which
>>people consider important, science and philosophy is of little use in
>>preventing some of those people from objecting to the theorizing for
>>essentially personal, rather than scientific, reasons.
>
>
> It's a bit cheap trying to disqualify my position as being founded in
> "personal reasons" (if that is your intention).
First, you're not the only participant I was thinking of. But I must
admit, I had the sense that your investment in this discussion had a lot
to do with my defense of the use of the word "idiot", and issues
surrounding that. Coupled with the philosophical weaknesses in your
position that I've attempted to point out, perhaps I jumped to a wrong
conclusion as far as you're concerned. If so, I apologize.
Anton
Nils M Holm
> > The supporting evidence includes dead web sites [1] and [2], as well as
> > all the people who are known to have examined SRFI-49 and not proceeeded
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > to use it for writing real code.
>
> How do you know?
Anton merely implies that /there are/ people "who are known to have
examined SRFI-49 and not proceeded to use it for writing real code",
and he refers to all of them (the people who are /known/...) in the
above statement.
The fact that we are discussing SRFI-49 and none of us has written
(relevant amounts of) code that uses it seems to indicate that such
people exist.
--
Nils M Holm <n...@despammed.com> -- http://www.t3x.org/nmh/
Anton van Straaten
> Anton van Straaten schrieb:
>
>
>>>That "supporting evidence" does not exist.
>>
>>The supporting evidence includes dead web sites [1] and [2], as well as
>>all the people who are known to have examined SRFI-49 and not proceeeded
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>to use it for writing real code.
>
>
> How do you know?
Because I've communicated with a number of them, of course, some of whom
have communicated with others, etc. Some of them have even weighed in
on this thread.
>>You haven't been paying attention. What you earlier dismissed as "hot
>>air" was a summary of one of the most widely accepted approaches to our
>>understanding of knowledge. That summary explained why I do not need to
>>"prove that every existing person that uses Scheme also doesn't use
>>SRFI-49", beyond what I have already done, which is to provide an
>>unfalsified theory which explains why they don't use it, and demonstrate
>>that the theory fits the facts. I've even provided you with
>>instructions as to how to displace this theory.
>
>
> Sorry, but that summary doesn't apply to Scheme programming style, even
> if you're trying very hard to make it match. People have written code
> in notations that are even worse than SRFI-49 (yes, hard to imagine),
> sometimes voluntarily.
If people actually use a syntax for writing real code (e.g. the likes of
Unlambda don't count), it clearly has some degree of usability, however
minimal. (I think MUMPS[*] makes a nice example.)
Usability has a relative component to it: implicit in my theory is the
fact that Scheme already has a very usable syntax, which is a strong
disincentive to switching to a less usable syntax.
Your comparison might be more appropriate if you could suggest a
language with two alternate syntaxes, in which one syntax was somehow
demonstrably "worse", yet also had users.
Since we have yet to locate a SRFI-49 user, you can only hypothesize
that SRFI-49 possesses sufficient usability to attract real users to
write real code in it. You could support your hypothesis by finding a
real SRFI-49 user; otherwise, the evidence is against the usability of
SRFI-49, for the various reasons I've laid out, including the notable
absence of any known SRFI-49 users.
Anton
Andre
> No, let me be clear: I'm not talking about stylistic taste at all. I
> think it's conceivable that a usable indentation-sensitive syntax for
> Scheme could be developed. However, SRFI-49 is not such a syntax.
>
> I claim that it is unusable for writing real code in that if you tried
> to do so, you would soon find that at the very least, its usability
> problems necessitate significant fixes and modifications, at which
> point, you would no longer be using SRFI-49; and at worst, and more
> likely, you would soon abandon its use.
during the discussion period, since you seem to feel strongly enough about
it to take the time to write about it now. It is conceivable that enough
objections from widely respected voices such as your own may have persuaded
the author to address these points or, failing that, withdraw it.
As it is, I see only a few names in the discussion list. One of these is
Bear's, who by his participation there is frankly the only one here, unless
I missed someone, who has some standing to criticise its finalization.
Those who did not participate should perhaps just put up and shut up ;-)
Andre
bunn...@gmail.com
> >>
> >>The supporting evidence includes dead web sites [1] and [2], as well as
> >>all the people who are known to have examined SRFI-49 and not proceeeded
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >>to use it for writing real code.
> >
> >
> > How do you know?
>
> Because I've communicated with a number of them, of course, some of whom
> have communicated with others, etc. Some of them have even weighed in
> on this thread.
Well, I completely misunderstood that sentence. Thanks for Nils to
point it out to me.
> >
> > Sorry, but that summary doesn't apply to Scheme programming style, even
> > if you're trying very hard to make it match. People have written code
> > in notations that are even worse than SRFI-49 (yes, hard to imagine),
> > sometimes voluntarily.
>
> If people actually use a syntax for writing real code (e.g. the likes of
> Unlambda don't count), it clearly has some degree of usability, however
> minimal. (I think MUMPS[*] makes a nice example.)
Not necessarily, some people write Unlambda for the sheer heck of it.
Personally, I find OCaml syntax to be completely unusable.
>
> Usability has a relative component to it: implicit in my theory is the
> fact that Scheme already has a very usable syntax, which is a strong
> disincentive to switching to a less usable syntax.
While I mostly agree, that can not be generalized to everybody.
cheers,
felix
bunn...@gmail.com
> > You probably mean "...a theory that fits my perception of the stylistic
> > taste of the majority of Scheme users, ...".
>
> No, let me be clear: I'm not talking about stylistic taste at all. I
> think it's conceivable that a usable indentation-sensitive syntax for
> Scheme could be developed. However, SRFI-49 is not such a syntax.
I don't disagree, here.
> > But that still doesn't
> > apply to your original statement, essentially:
> >
> > "I find it unusable, I don't know of anybody using it, so this is
> > evidence that it must be unusable to everyone."
>
> There is no argument that cannot be damaged by having an opponent
> summarize it in a single sentence.
Then please summarize it for me.
> >
> > It's a bit cheap trying to disqualify my position as being founded in
> > "personal reasons" (if that is your intention).
>
> First, you're not the only participant I was thinking of. But I must
> admit, I had the sense that your investment in this discussion had a lot
> to do with my defense of the use of the word "idiot", and issues
> surrounding that.
In part, yes. Does that make it personal for me to be involved in
the discussion?
cheers,
felix
Ulrich Hobelmann
They should broadcast that message to lots of brains. I can't
count the conversations I've had with people that needed to have
this simple fact reinforced again and again.
--
Given the choice between dancing pigs and security,
users will pick dancing pigs every time.
Edward Felten
Anton van Straaten
> Anton van Straaten wrote:
>
>
>>No, let me be clear: I'm not talking about stylistic taste at all. I
>>think it's conceivable that a usable indentation-sensitive syntax for
>>Scheme could be developed. However, SRFI-49 is not such a syntax.
>>
>>I claim that it is unusable for writing real code in that if you tried
>>to do so, you would soon find that at the very least, its usability
>>problems necessitate significant fixes and modifications, at which
>>point, you would no longer be using SRFI-49; and at worst, and more
>>likely, you would soon abandon its use.
>
>
> It's a shame, then, that you did not raise these issues in the SRFI list
> during the discussion period, since you seem to feel strongly enough about
> it to take the time to write about it now. It is conceivable that enough
> objections from widely respected voices such as your own may have persuaded
> the author to address these points or, failing that, withdraw it.
I don't think it's a particular shame; it's easy enough to ignore
SRFI-49, in the same sort of way that many Internet RFCs are ignored. I
admit, I was one of those who ignored it, after initially looking at
SRFI-49 before it was submitted as a SRFI.
> As it is, I see only a few names in the discussion list. One of these is
> Bear's, who by his participation there is frankly the only one here, unless
> I missed someone, who has some standing to criticise its finalization.
I agree, and in fact, it was posting a kind of defense of Bear that
originally got me involved in this thread. However, that defense was
perhaps not as politic as it could have been.
That led to the current discussion in which I've been defending my
earlier claim that "no regular Scheme user has said anything in support
of SRFI-49, or writes code using its syntax," which was challenged on
the grounds that I could not possibly know all regular Scheme users.
This is a philosophical debate, having little to do with the SRFI
process itself. ;)
> Those who did not participate should perhaps just put up and shut up ;-)
The rust builds up on the walls of comp.lang.scheme when it's not being
used. The occassional bouts of flame help blast it off.
Anton
Anton van Straaten
> Anton van Straaten schrieb:
>
>
>>>You probably mean "...a theory that fits my perception of the stylistic
>>>taste of the majority of Scheme users, ...".
>>
>>No, let me be clear: I'm not talking about stylistic taste at all. I
>>think it's conceivable that a usable indentation-sensitive syntax for
>>Scheme could be developed. However, SRFI-49 is not such a syntax.
>
>
> I don't disagree, here.
I'm glad we agree on that. At the risk of jeopardizing our convergence
on this, I'll still point out that your perspective on this matches the
predictions of my theory, so you have just become evidence. ;)
>>>But that still doesn't
>>>apply to your original statement, essentially:
>>>
>>>"I find it unusable, I don't know of anybody using it, so this is
>>>evidence that it must be unusable to everyone."
>>
>>There is no argument that cannot be damaged by having an opponent
>>summarize it in a single sentence.
>
>
> Then please summarize it for me.
I'm sorry, I think I'll pass at this point. It would take more than a
sentence, and it's all there in the thread if you want to review it.
I've acknowledged that it's possible that somewhere, there are people
using SRFI-49. I don't believe it's happening, though, and I consider
my belief a rational one, supported by theory, evidence, and lack of
contradictory evidence.
I think you might agree that many people would come to the same
conclusion that I have, that no-one is using SRFI-49. None of those
people can possible know that for sure. But one serious point I was
attempting to make in all this is that this situation is not all that
different from our knowledge about anything in the real world. Of
course, people are not as predictable as, say, the laws of gravitation,
but nevertheless, there's a natural intuition involved here. You
challenged that, and I accepted the challenge of providing a rational
explanation for the basis of that intuition.
I believe you can say that there's some probability that my theory is
wrong, but I think the probability that it's right is far higher than
the probability that it's wrong. Over time, as long as no evidence of
SRFI-49 users surfaces, its probability of being right will only
increase. Again, that's all we can ever hope for from most scientific
theories.
>>>It's a bit cheap trying to disqualify my position as being founded in
>>>"personal reasons" (if that is your intention).
>>
>>First, you're not the only participant I was thinking of. But I must
>>admit, I had the sense that your investment in this discussion had a lot
>>to do with my defense of the use of the word "idiot", and issues
>>surrounding that.
>
>
> In part, yes. Does that make it personal for me to be involved in
> the discussion?
I attempted to explain that in a part which you didn't quote: "Coupled
with the philosophical weaknesses in your position that I've attempted
to point out, perhaps I jumped to a wrong conclusion as far as you're
concerned. If so, I apologize." The wrong conclusion I jumped to was
that your motivation in defending what I saw as a philosophically weak
position involved reasons other than logical ones.
Anton
Anton van Straaten
>>Unlambda don't count), it clearly has some degree of usability, however
>>minimal. (I think MUMPS[*] makes a nice example.)
>
>
> Not necessarily, some people write Unlambda for the sheer heck of it.
By "real code", I mean code being written to perform useful work that
someone needs to do for reasons other than the sheer heck of writing
challenging code.
>>Usability has a relative component to it: implicit in my theory is the
>>fact that Scheme already has a very usable syntax, which is a strong
>>disincentive to switching to a less usable syntax.
>
>
> While I mostly agree, that can not be generalized to everybody.
If that was the only basis for the generalization, I would agree with
you. However, it is the combination of theory, evidence, and lack of
falsifying evidence over time which leads to confidence in a theory and
its predictions. The above point is merely a part of the theory.
Anton
Andre
> The rust builds up on the walls of comp.lang.scheme when it's not being
> used. The occassional bouts of flame help blast it off.
Hee, hee. At least it's not about evaluation order this time (duck!).
Andre
Bradd W. Szonye
> It's a shame, then, that you did not raise these issues in the SRFI
> list during the discussion period, since you seem to feel strongly
> enough about it to take the time to write about it now.
I think Ray, and the folks who backed him, argued the case sufficiently
well, albeit uncivilly. Perhaps a cooler antagonist would've convinced
the submitter, although I personally doubt that.
> As it is, I see only a few names in the discussion list. One of these
> is Bear's, who by his participation there is frankly the only one
> here, unless I missed someone, who has some standing to criticise its
> finalization. Those who did not participate should perhaps just put up
> and shut up ;-)
I'll chime in: Bear made some stinging, true remarks; the submitter blew
them off as trolling; others (including me) pointed out the value of
Bear's criticism, aside from his insult; the author made some weak
excuses and ignored it anyway. It's not the first case of a useless SRFI
pushed through by an arrogant author, and I'm sure it won't be the last,
which is why I don't put much stock in the process.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Bradd W. Szonye
> alex...@gmail.com writes:
>
>> If you had actually studied inductive reasoning, you'd know that you
>> are making a classic mistake...
>
> ... the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in
> Asia", but only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against
> a Sicilian, when *death* is on the line.". Hahahahahah.
But -- Anton isn't Sicilian, is he?
Jiyin Yiyong
And I tried my own version with Node and Chrome..
http://jiyinyiyong.github.com/she/bin/
I think it's a necessary alternative for those who hate brackets(Like me).
Brackets and should never be the problems that borther coders.