Time for a Fresh Scheme Standard: Say Goodbye to the RnRS Relic
New Scheme
Time for a Fresh Scheme Standard
And to Say Goodbye to the RnRS Relic
----------------------------------------------------
Is it time for a new scheme standard? Is it time to make a break from
the ossified RnRS document? Is it time to bring Scheme into the 21st
century?
Scheme has become very dated. The RnRS series of documents are a
relic of a more dynamic past but are now little more than a fossil
record of its ever slowing development. With each year that passes,
scheme becomes more irrelevant to the practical and academic software
development, education and research worlds.
So what should be done? Fix the uncertainties, clear up the undefined
areas. Don't be scared to admit weaknesses and mistakes in the
current standard. Solicit help from the Common Lisp community and
draw upon their extensive practical experience. Learn from the
Functional community and their many strong ideas. And ask the
compiler vendors about practicalities.
Its time for a fresh look at scheme. Its time to break away from the
RnRS and its brotherhood of old men in their isolated,
self-referential world. Its time to reinvigorate the language.
Its time for a new standard.
Erik Naggum
| With each year that passes, scheme becomes more irrelevant to the
| practical and academic software development, education and research
| worlds.
Yes! This is good news.
| Solicit help from the Common Lisp community and draw upon their extensive
| practical experience.
Please keep Scheme impractical to retain its spriit.
///
--
The past is not more important than the future, despite what your culture
has taught you. Your future observations, conclusions, and beliefs are
more important to you than those in your past ever will be. The world is
changing so fast the balance between the past and the future has shifted.
New Scheme
> So who the fuck are you anyway?
[...]
> This is such bullshit...
[...]
> This is such bullshit, it has to be a troll. You're secretly Erik
> Naggum aren't you?
[...]
> I did it in Scheme because I don't have to fuck around with
> a lot of stupid mis-features from 'advanced' languages like
> Perl, Python, Tcl, Ruby, or (God help us) C++ and Java
[...]
> the current generation of no-talent simps graduating into
> the CS business.
> > Solicit help from the Common Lisp community
[...]
> They're a bunch of losers who have bought and sold the
> lambda-nature for a profit.
[...]
> So who the fuck are you, Mr. Hotmail.com?
Your extreme pathologic response clearly demonstrates the problem with
the small, fundamentalist group of scheme "defenders of the faith"
that are being left further and further behind as the world moves
forward.
Anyone calling for injection of fresh ideas into the language is
attacked with a level of spite and religious vehemence rarely seen
outside of fundamentalist religious sects.
Rather than address the issues raised in the positing, you spent
considerable effort attacking me and others in your reply. You
attacked other languages such as Lisp, C++ and Perl.. You attacked
the other programming communities as if they were the devils own. I
can just imagine you frothing at the mouth, up on the pulpit declaring
that the evil sinners who do not follow the one true way of scheme
will rot in hell for all eternity.
Resisting the inevitable, sticking your head in the sand and yelling
obscenities at anyone and everyone who has the audacity to suggest
change is like pissing into an oncoming typhoon… you just end up with
wet pants, looking like a sad old man who has lost all bowel control.
Its time to reinvigorate scheme. See you in hell.
...
> david rush
> (who has just watched _the matrix_ for the first time and is feeling
> pretty radicalized just at the moment)
Congratulations on seeing the matrix; its only been out for, like,
three years. That explains alot.
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Rush <ku...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<okfg064...@bellsouth.net>...
> <posted-and-mailed why="cross-postings to cll and clf">
> <flame mode="on">
> news...@hotmail.com (New Scheme) writes:
>
> So who the fuck are you anyway? I mean really, behind the
> freshly-minted hotmail alias. You sound like Tom Lord, but that's just
> my opinion.
>
> > ***************************************************************
> > Time for a Fresh Scheme Standard
> > And to Say Goodbye to the RnRS Relic
>
> This is such bullshit that I think I'm being trolled. Congratulations
> whoever, you have succeeded - but I don't agree with either your tone
> or your explicit opinions. R5RS is an excellent document, in spite of
> its need for revision. I have only two issues that I think *must* be
> fixed, and only one of them is truly controversial.
>
> No I'm not going to list them - If you don't know you can google for
> the info, but I suspect that you already do know. And I suspect that
> you have a particular wish-list...care to come out of the closet?
>
> > Is it time for a new scheme standard?
>
> No. It is time to open discussions.
>
> > Is it time to make a break from the ossified RnRS document?
>
> No. It has been one of the most successful language standards
> documents in history, at least by my criteria.
>
> > Is it time to bring Scheme into the 21st century?
>
> No. The 21st century still has a lot of catching up to do.
>
> > Scheme has become very dated. The RnRS series of documents are a
> > relic of a more dynamic past but are now little more than a fossil
> > record of its ever slowing development.
>
> This is such bullshit, it has to be a troll. You're secretly Erik
> Naggum aren't you? The RnRS series is converging on an idealized
> language; the changes are *bound* to become smaller over time.
>
> > With each year that passes,
> > scheme becomes more irrelevant to the practical and academic software
> > development, education and research worlds.
>
> Well I can't speak to academia, but I've got 7KLOC (and headed for the
> 20s) of very intelligent *commercially-developed* software which is
> very relevant to our business. I did it in Scheme because I don't have
> to fuck around with a lot of stupid mis-features from 'advanced'
> languages like Perl, Python, Tcl, Ruby, or (God help us) C++ and Java;
> all languages which will very quickly become dead-weight in legacy
> systems ensuring long-term pay stability for the current generation of
> no-talent simps graduating into the CS business.
>
> Scheme Lives!
>
> > Solicit help from the Common Lisp community and
> > draw upon their extensive practical experience.
>
> There are no good ideas over there. They've completely missed the
> boat. They're a bunch of losers who have bought and sold the
> lambda-nature for a profit. I mean really, who could take a language
> with that 'for' construct seriously. The 'do' is Scheme is bad
> enough. And CLOS, let's not waste time with that over-designed Sherman
> Tank. It's not even close to the bleeding edge of object-think.
>
> > Learn from the
> > Functional community and their many strong ideas.
>
> There is a *huge* cross-over from Scheme to the functional
> community. Scheme occupies a significant patch of the intellectual
> turf: untyped, eager-evaluation lambda-calculus.
>
> > And ask the compiler vendors about practicalities.
>
> There are 2: Chez (who seem to be taking the same tack that killed
> Smalltalk and charging $4000/seat), and Erian Concept (who I keep
> trying - and failing - to convince myself to try their free beer
> version). Scheme, in addition to advancing the pursuit of the
> lambda-nature is also essentially free: more free than any other
> language. Clearly freedom is too difficult for the mainstream software
> community to deal with, but so what? If I lived in New Hampshire I
> would put a motion to the State legislature to make Scheme the
> official computer language of the State (the State motto is 'Live Free
> or Die'), there are more high (and low) quality 'free speech' Schemes
> than exist for any other language. What does *that* tell you?
>
> > Its time for a fresh look at scheme. Its time to break away from the
> > RnRS and its brotherhood of old men in their isolated,
> > self-referential world. Its time to reinvigorate the language.
>
> Those are fucking *smart* old men. I just want to get them engaged
> again. I realize that the political infighting that got us a language
> as good as R5RS is a PITA - I have to deal with similar bullshit as a
> software architect at my day job. And it's a thankless job because at
> the end of the day, people are only going to pick the thing apart, but
> still somebody's got to do it.
>
> I'm not going to pretend that I can keep up with Shriram, Matthias F,
> Will, and Jonathan, or even Olin (no offense intended to Olin, I just
> am not aware of his contributions to R5RS), Matthias B, Oleg, and A*
> Petrofsky. I do care a lot about Scheme, though, and I wish that we
> could get some movement. I fear that Scheme might well suffer the fate
> of C and get replaced with something almost infinitely worse if these
> people are not involved.
>
> > Its time for a new standard.
>
> Only if we can get quality people to work on it. So who the fuck are
> you, Mr. Hotmail.com?
> </flame>
>
> david rush
> (who has just watched _the matrix_ for the first time and is feeling
> pretty radicalized just at the moment)
IsraelRT
wrote:
>Anyone calling for injection of fresh ideas into the language is
>attacked with a level of spite and religious vehemence rarely seen
>outside of fundamentalist religious sects.
Anyone ?
Or an anonymous troll who is too scared to use his real name ?
> See you in hell.
I am sure that a nice warm spot is being kept for you, Mr Troll.
Erik Naggum
| Its time to reinvigorate scheme.
No, it is not. It is time to leave Scheme behind. It used to be a
language that brought many new ideas into _one_ language, but all of the
good ideas have been picked up by other, better languages. Common Lisp,
Perl, Python, Ruby, and Java have all benefited from the little group of
impractical purists who designed this minimalistic language experiment.
Look, Tengwar is more widely used than Scheme these days. The features
unique to Scheme today are those that are universally considered bad
ideas. Worse: Perl, Python, Ruby, and Java have more of the Lisp nature
than Scheme does, whether they admit to it or not, and better developed
and more widely used to boot. It is time to close the book on Scheme and
let it wither and die, which it will if you leave the kind of people you
have seen respond to you alone to destroy it from within.
If you still want a functional programming paradigm, there are lots and
lots of more recent academic experiments that should be at least as
useless as Scheme for real work, but which could be a little harder to
teach, since they actually try to do _something_ and are not just trying
to make a language optimized for reimplementation of itself by students.
If you are not welcome in the Scheme community, take a hint: Leave. They
do not even need to be provoked to attack individual people, as you have
seen, so they are clearly bad people. Do not try to change bad people:
It makes the bad people worse and wastes your time (that is the lesson I
learned from trying to deal with Scheme freaks as if they were people).
Try instead to find good people who welcome the ability to think.
Ask yourself what you actually _like_ in Scheme. Chances are you can get
it, better implemented and better understood, in any number of other
languages. The only thing you probably cannot get in other languages is
a full implementation of the language itself done as a student project.
If you want that, just create your own language like everybody else who
has ever actually tried to used Scheme does, anyway.
Hirotaka Yamamoto
> Look, Tengwar is more widely used than Scheme these days. The features
> unique to Scheme today are those that are universally considered bad
> ideas.
Prove it by examples, please.
Yamamoto
IsraelRT
> Look, Tengwar is more widely used than Scheme these days.
And an infamous Common Lisp user gives popularity as a reason to
choose a language ?
Wonders will never cease....
Erik Naggum
> Look, Tengwar is more widely used than Scheme these days.
* Hirotaka Yamamoto
| Prove it by examples, please.
I am glad you asked. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring,
has premiered recently all over the world. Tengwar is a writing system
devised by J.R.R.Tolkien in this monumental work. Millions of people all
over the world have taken a renewed interest in his works, including his
new languages and writing systems, because of this movie. I venture a
guess that more people were fluent in Tengwar than in Scheme before this
movie was announced, as well, but I am certain that the number has
exceeded Scheme fluency because of the movie. I certainly reread LotR
and took up my old calligraphic Tengwar skills in joyful anticipation of
the movie, and I did not reread RnRS nor take up my old Scheme skills in
anticipation of, um, anything. Q.E.D.
Note: Despite the fictitious "please", I consider the brevity, style, and
substance of your request to communicate hostility. Requests for proof
or references are never constructive on USENET, just mere tactics in a
rhetorical game. I have responded with ridicule. Please be pleased with
the results. Thank you and goodbye.
New Scheme
> On 22 Dec 2001 01:02:35 -0800, news...@hotmail.com (New Scheme)
> wrote:
>
> >Anyone calling for injection of fresh ideas into the language is
> >attacked with a level of spite and religious vehemence rarely seen
> >outside of fundamentalist religious sects.
>
> Anyone ?
> Or an anonymous troll who is too scared to use his real name ?
You obviously didn't read David Rush's rant. Are you suffering from a
bit of selective amnesia?
Erik Naggum
> Look, Tengwar is more widely used than Scheme these days.
* IsraelRT <isra...@optushome.com.au>
| And an infamous Common Lisp user gives popularity as a reason to
| choose a language?
No. That would be a rather spectacularly invalid conclusion. Since you
obviously have no idea what Tengwar is, suffice to say that a relatively
small group of people have adopted this artificial writing system from
J.R.R.Tolkien in order to enjoy communication within the secluded world
of ardent fans. Some therefore consider it a symptom of a cult. It was
the likeness of ardent fans in small number who keep the rest of the
world out through a measure of intended obscurity that prompted the
comparison, not the mere quantity of weirdos. Please confirm that you
have been enlightened by responding with another hostile grunt.
| Wonders will never cease....
That easily happens when you abandon rationality. Enjoy your wonders.
IsraelRT
wrote:
>> Or an anonymous troll who is too scared to use his real name ?
>
>You obviously didn't read David Rush's rant. Are you suffering from a
>bit of selective amnesia?
Still posting anonymously ?
Coward.
IsraelRT
>* IsraelRT <isra...@optushome.com.au>
>| And an infamous Common Lisp user gives popularity as a reason to
>| choose a language?
>
> No. That would be a rather spectacularly invalid conclusion. Since you
> obviously have no idea what Tengwar is
You are either delusional or sadly lacking in rationality if you
believe that the second statement follows as a consequence of the
first.
Go take your medication.
Erik Naggum
| And an infamous Common Lisp user gives popularity as a reason to
| choose a language?
* Erik Naggum
> No. That would be a rather spectacularly invalid conclusion. Since you
> obviously have no idea what Tengwar is
* IsraelRT <isra...@optushome.com.au>
| You are either delusional or sadly lacking in rationality if you believe
| that the second statement follows as a consequence of the first.
As a _consequence_? No. Logic and rational thought is not quite your
thing, is it? But since your emotive invective is conditional upon your
false premise, I guess I am in the clear. Whew! That was _so_ close.
| Go take your medication.
I assume you have extensive experience with medication helping your own
behavioral problems since you think this silliness is an insult, but it
just goes to show that once again, the aggressiveness of Israel gets
blamed on those attacked. History is indeed repeating itself.
Courageous
> Note: Despite the fictitious "please", I consider the brevity, style, and
> substance of your request to communicate hostility. Requests for proof
> or references are never constructive on USENET, just mere tactics in a
> rhetorical game. I have responded with ridicule. Please be pleased with
> the results. Thank you and goodbye.
Ouch. That was very damning. You gave him a bloody nose and all that.
Could you stop cross posting, though? We like to concern ourselves with
_relevant_ languages over here. LOL.
C//
Hirotaka Yamamoto
you intentionally changed my posting and neglect what I guess
is inconvenient to you. I wrote,
------------ cut here ----------
> Look, Tengwar is more widely used than Scheme these days. The features
> unique to Scheme today are those that are universally considered bad
> ideas.
Prove it by examples, please.
------------ cut here ----------
but you wrote,
------------ cut here ----------
> * Erik Naggum
> > Look, Tengwar is more widely used than Scheme these days.
>
> * Hirotaka Yamamoto
> | Prove it by examples, please.
------------ cut here ----------
Why could you claim that "the features unique to Scheme today
are those that are universally considered bad ideas." without
any proof?? Especially, why could you use the word "universally"??
Ah... maybe because you are the only person who lives in
"your universe"?
Yamamoto
Kent M Pitman
http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/cross-posting.html ]
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.net> writes:
> * news...@hotmail.com (New Scheme)
> | Its time to reinvigorate scheme.
>
> No, it is not. It is time to leave Scheme behind.
I'd recommend anyone who wants to reinvigorate Scheme consider Dylan.
It started out pretty much with that agenda, and though it's drifted some,
it's probably still in many ways close enough to be worth a look before
doing the work of starting over.
MJ Ray
>> So who the fuck are you, Mr. Hotmail.com?
>Your extreme pathologic response clearly demonstrates the problem with
>the small, fundamentalist group of scheme "defenders of the faith"
>that are being left further and further behind as the world moves
>forward.
Nice failure to answer the question, Mr Hotmail. In case you haven't
noticed while you've been constructing yet another alias, work to update
Scheme in many aspects continues apace.
As my experience should show, the Scheme community is very welcoming to
newcomers and it is possible to use Scheme for modern applications. If you
don't want to help it, that's your problem. It is small, clean and, yes,
relevant to today's work.
You are just a common troll and I'm sorry I replied, but some things
couldn't be left unsaid. Goodbye.
Follow-ups set.
MJ Ray
> No, it is not. It is time to leave Scheme behind. [...]
Oh joy. I thought I saw the last Naggum post when I unsubbed from
comp.lang.lisp. Are you still sore that Scheme is installed on far more
computers than oxymoronically-named "Common" Lisp?
> If you are not welcome in the Scheme community, take a hint: Leave. [...]
The Scheme community is a warm and welcoming place compared to the Common
Lisp one, I think. The the open, academic-yet-practical, friendly spirit of
Lisp lives on in comp.lang.scheme and numerous general lisp mailing lists.
We just don't like anonymous posters saying that we got it all wrong.
israel r t
.
.
{ much spectacularly irrelevant , incoherent and grammatically
challenged psychotic ravings by Eroc Nogumshoe deleted }
> blamed on those attacked. History is indeed repeating itself.
No, the No Gum is repeating himself.
New Scheme
> The Scheme community is a warm and welcoming place compared to the Common
> Lisp one, I think.
Say what?? Let me just repeat Mr Rush's "warm and welcoming" post:
---------------------------------------------
David Rush <ku...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<okfg064...@bellsouth.net>...
> So who the fuck are you anyway? [...]
> This is such bullshit... [...]
> This is such bullshit, it has to be a troll. You're secretly Erik
> Naggum aren't you? [...]
> I did it in Scheme because I don't have to fuck around with
> a lot of stupid mis-features from 'advanced' languages like
> Perl, Python, Tcl, Ruby, or (God help us) C++ and Java [...]
> the current generation of no-talent simps graduating into
> the CS business.
> > Solicit help from the Common Lisp community [...]
> They're a bunch of losers who have bought and sold the
> lambda-nature for a profit. [...]
> So who the fuck are you, Mr. Hotmail.com?
--------------------------------------------
> The the open, academic-yet-practical, friendly spirit of
> Lisp lives on in comp.lang.scheme and numerous general lisp mailing lists.
> We just don't like anonymous posters saying that we got it all wrong.
hahaha the "friendly spirit" lives on does it?? hahaha
Erik Naggum
| Oh joy. I thought I saw the last Naggum post when I unsubbed from
| comp.lang.lisp.
It was one of your own (David Rush) who called on me, blaming me for his
serious coping problems when that New Scheme fellow posted some heretical
comments that could threaten to undo the universe as he knew it. I am
sure that the Scheme religion needs a Devil figure and that you guys are
so irrational as to blame the Devil when you need to explain some of the
otherwise _inexplicable_ evil that happens to you (like reality invading
your nice little theories), but if I wanted to undo the Scheme community,
nobody would know it had even existed, OK? Such are my evil powers. I
_let_ you insufferable little freaks continue to have your community,
because you do less harm believing in and being preoccupied with Scheme
than if you were roaming free. Or perhaps this Devil imagery that you
guys seem to need is a bit stale and idiotic?
| Are you still sore that Scheme is installed on far more computers than
| oxymoronically-named "Common" Lisp?
No, never was. On the contrary, I am quite happy that all those who
install Common Lisp systems actually use them productively.
Have you thought about how _necessary_ it is for you Scheme freaks to be
hostile to those who do not agree with you? E.g., where _did_ the stupid
need to attack Common Lisp now come from? So immature and vindictive!
On the other hand, if you suffer form Perl envy, I am sure that it is
natural to think that other language communities must suffer from similar
problems, but so far, we have had a large number of Scheme freaks invade
Common Lisp fora to tell us how superior Scheme is, while no Common Lisp
programmers invade Scheme camps to tell you how good Common Lisp is. Why
is this? Well, we know that Common Lisp is better than Scheme, and so do
you, so there is no need to repeat the obvious, but any clueless Scheme
freak who feels the urge to rebel against authority and common sense must
try to provoke those better than him. That is why you had to include
that stupid attack on Common Lisp, too. So immature. So Scheme.
Incidentally, are you still raping preschool children? Scheme is the
favorite language of pedophiles, who love the pure and small, you know.
| The Scheme community is a warm and welcoming place compared to the Common
| Lisp one, I think.
Of course you think so. But let us ask this New Scheme fellow, or any of
the other people that Scheme freaks routinely attack on no basis at all.
Why did your David Rush need to attack me this time, for instance? Why
did you have to attack Common Lisp? I have not done anything to you
insane fucks, but you nutballs need no provocation to attack me. Why?
Do you think normal, sane people behave the way you do?
Anyone can see that a community of people who condone and support attacks
on others behind their back is neither warm nor welcome, no matter how
much you wish to be and lie that you are. Most religions have been warm
and welcome to those likely to be duped by their gospel, and extremely
hostile to those who would be a threat to them. Which one of them would
say that some _other_ religion is more warm and welcoming than they are?
So this vacuous phrase is sheer marketing. When you need to engage in
such marketing, you must know that you have a shitty product that nobody
would buy if they knew the truth about it. What a scheme!
| The the open, academic-yet-practical, friendly spirit of Lisp lives on in
| comp.lang.scheme and numerous general lisp mailing lists.
Of course you believe this. You have chased away every free-thinking
person who has ever discarded Scheme and you display _such_ hatred of
non-believers that you are like the biological end result of in-breeding.
The people who come to you in the first place are already converts and
are unlikely to question the gospel. Those who do not like Scheme do not
exactly have to deal with you -- which is also why you Scheme freaks have
to come to Common Lisp groups and fora and make a stupid scene.
| We just don't like anonymous posters saying that we got it all wrong.
Are you sure that is what he said? Are you sure that those who do not
believe in the Scheme religion would react the same way? Have you found
a rational person you could ask how would react to that article? I would
bet that not a single rational person would say that you got it all wrong
-- on the contrary, a reasonable reading is you got it right _eons_ ago,
but now you need do something more to keep doing the right thing. Of
course, a card-carrying Scheme nutcase would feel all defensive only if
he _knew_ that his favorite religion was all wrong, and therefore needs
to stop people from figuring it out. That is how organized religions
have reacted to "heretics" for ages.
It is quite amazing how fanatic and stupid you Scheme freaks are. Of
course you think you are friendly -- you only have people around you who
are in complete agreement on something _really_ stupid, and _anybody_ is
all friendly when they are never challenged by disagreement of any kind,
but challenge you guys and one gets to see what you are really made of:
Just watch David Rush in action, or your opening line. Just look at how
you treat people who disagree with your beliefs!
But trust me on this: Unless that psychotic David Rush character had been
so amazingly stupid as to blame me for this, _and_ that New Scheme fellow
had cross-posted it back to the newsgroups that coward little shit David
Rush did _not_ post to, none of this would have happened. Perhaps you
friendly Scheme freaks need to purge your own evils and excommunicate the
worst among your own? I would have started by frying David Rushs' balls.
It is increasingly obvious that Scheme is a mental disease, particularly
since you mental cases always make a point out of attacking non-believers
out of the blue. They do not even have to be posting to your newsgroup!
Terry Reedy
Please delete comp.lang.python from this thread. (and maybe
c.l.perl).
Terry J. Reedy
MJ Ray
>Say what?? Let me just repeat Mr Rush's "warm and welcoming" post:
>hahaha the "friendly spirit" lives on does it?? hahaha
How many places do you know that are warm and welcoming to anonymous idiots?
Followups set.
MJ Ray
> Have you thought about how _necessary_ it is for you Scheme freaks to be
> hostile to those who do not agree with you? E.g., where _did_ the stupid
> need to attack Common Lisp now come from? So immature and vindictive!
Sorry Erik. I attacked you, not Common Lisp. Or are you Common Lisp
itself?
> [...] so far, we have had a large number of Scheme freaks invade
> Common Lisp fora to tell us how superior Scheme is, while no Common Lisp
> programmers invade Scheme camps to tell you how good Common Lisp is.
I can only think of one Common Lisp forum, CLiki, and it contains little
about Scheme. Maybe you wish to make general Lisp fora "pure" and filled
only with your One True Lisp?
I've snipped the rest of your content-free post. Followups set.
Erik Naggum
> Have you thought about how _necessary_ it is for you Scheme freaks to be
> hostile to those who do not agree with you? E.g., where _did_ the stupid
> need to attack Common Lisp now come from? So immature and vindictive!
* MJ Ray
| Sorry Erik. I attacked you, not Common Lisp. Or are you Common Lisp
| itself?
Could you explain what "oxymoronically-named "Common" Lisp?" is if not an
attack? Do you think your immature and vindictive "opinions" do _not_
constitute an attack? If so, I understand better what you mean by "warm
and welcoming".
And just _why_ do you attack me? You are just warm and welcoming, right?
| Maybe you wish to make general Lisp fora "pure" and filled only with your
| One True Lisp?
No, that would be the Scheme way of dealing with diversity of opinion, as
we have seen from you guys already. This is one of the really important
differences between Common Lisp and Scheme. It is not suprising that you
do not know this, considering your "warm and welcoming" behavior.
By the way, you are probably right. The Scheme community is certainly
more "warm and welcoming" than the Common Lisp community."
| I've snipped the rest of your content-free post.
So you lack the courage to deal with all forms of counter-information.
Hirotaka Yamamoto
> So you lack the courage to deal with all forms of counter-information.
So you do too against my post.
israel r t
(MJ Ray) wrote:
>Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.net> wrote:
>> Have you thought about how _necessary_ it is for you Scheme freaks to be
>> hostile to those who do not agree with you? E.g., where _did_ the stupid
>> need to attack Common Lisp now come from? So immature and vindictive!
>
>Sorry Erik. I attacked you, not Common Lisp. Or are you Common Lisp
>itself?
Only on weeksdays.
On weekends, Erik is God.
At least that is what he tells the men in the white coats...
Erik Naggum
| So you do too against my post.
"How can you say this without proof?" Do you know the future? Can I
have your crystal ball so I can see if you grow a brain in the future?
I thought you were full of shit when I got that moronic response from
you, but thank you for _proving_ it with this response. You are a credit
to the Scheme community, however, since you have the guts to post your
shit in full public view. Most of the spineless wimps who think Scheme
is not completely worthless seem to prefer to talk behind people's back.
Erik Naggum
| Only on weeksdays.
| On weekends, Erik is God.
|
| At least that is what he tells the men in the white coats...
You seem to have a disconcerting amount of experience in this particular
area of the human condition. You have been absent form our newsgroups
for quite a while, too. Have you recovered? Are you out on probation?
Anyhow, I am sorry that I have triggered your problems, again. Please do
not kill anyone this time. Instead, enjoy the peaceful holiday season,
and get some _better_ help to get over your personal problems, will you?
Sander Vesik
> Still posting anonymously ?
Oh, please! This is a totally irrelevant small detail.
> Coward.
It would have been nice of you to actualy refute his claims, and not just
namecall.
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Anton van Straaten
>It would have been nice of you to actualy refute his claims, and not just
>namecall.
Except that the troll's claims are self-fulfilling. By posting an
essentially content-free rant under a pseudonym, he generated some annoyed
responses. He then used that as "evidence" in his argument:
>Anyone calling for injection of fresh ideas into the language is
>attacked with a level of spite and religious vehemence rarely seen
>outside of fundamentalist religious sects.
The problem with this is, had this person posted a reasoned message about
the issues in question, it's quite unlikely that the same kind of response
would have been generated.
Besides, if the troll is claiming that he's afraid to post under his real
name because of the response it would generate, is it because he's afraid of
a few flames? Or is he simply unwilling to tarnish his reputation, which
would certainly suffer if he posted messages like that first one, which was
an amateurish call-to-arms based on a faulty premise.
I support the idea of some movement in the standards area myself, but that
isn't the troll's motivation, you can be sure - or if it is, he has a very
strange way of going about it.
Anton
Sander Vesik
> Sander Vesik wrote:
>>It would have been nice of you to actualy refute his claims, and not just
>>namecall.
> Except that the troll's claims are self-fulfilling. By posting an
> essentially content-free rant under a pseudonym, he generated some annoyed
> responses. He then used that as "evidence" in his argument:
Well... tthe original mail wasn't *THAT* bad - besides, trolls are
trolls, you don't have to feed them...
>>Anyone calling for injection of fresh ideas into the language is
>>attacked with a level of spite and religious vehemence rarely seen
>>outside of fundamentalist religious sects.
> The problem with this is, had this person posted a reasoned message about
> the issues in question, it's quite unlikely that the same kind of response
> would have been generated.
> Besides, if the troll is claiming that he's afraid to post under his real
> name because of the response it would generate, is it because he's afraid of
> a few flames? Or is he simply unwilling to tarnish his reputation, which
> would certainly suffer if he posted messages like that first one, which was
> an amateurish call-to-arms based on a faulty premise.
> I support the idea of some movement in the standards area myself, but that
> isn't the troll's motivation, you can be sure - or if it is, he has a very
> strange way of going about it.
> Anton