[PLUG-TALK] Any lispers out there? Newbie needs booster shot

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Sun Aug 21 20:38:40 PDT 2005


On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Renegade Penguin wrote:
> He totally ignored that, harped on some other issue, and showed circular 
> reasoning.

Where was teh circular reasoning?

> He's gotten in a lot of trouble for being contrary (trolling and 
> flaming) and that's only the time I've been here - a couple months.

Being contrary isn't the same thing as trolling or flaming.  You'll note 
that Russell wrote that your comment was idiotic (and then went on to show 
why -- in a perfectly reasonable way), not that YOU are an idiot (which 
was your response).  You want to devalue his argument by devaluing the 
man, but that doesn't work when people are actually paying attention (ad 
hominem, anyone?).

> Then he posts the MANUFACTURERS comments, not anything like independent 
> reviews.

Um, he wasn't giving a "review", he was listing off features of the LISP 
specification.

In fact, the only sentence in the quoted material that isn't a simple FACT 
(that I could find), is this one:

"Its ability to tackle the biggest problems is unmatched."

There was another statement about a feature being "elegant and powerful", 
which are subjective terms, but I don't think they were used in an 
insupportable way.

> I have a very thick skin, but little tolerance for stupidity. 
> Ignorance can be educated, but stupidty has no remedy.  Therefore I 
> won't be privy to Russell's diatribes.

Uh huh.  That might be just fine if Russell were a stupid man, but he just 
ain't.  However, you tried to claim that LISP isn't fault tolerant because 
it won't compile with fatal syntax errors.  I'd be interested to see which 
languages are so "fault-tolerant".  Let's see, your program won't compile 
right in Python if your indenting is off; same for Perl or C-like 
languages if you leave out semicolons... so what magical compilers do you 
use that correct your syntax errors?  Do they fix spelling errors in your 
keywords and variable names, too?

> Also note that I said I am glad Carlos (and others) like Lisp - they can 
> like it, but I offered my opinion about why Lisp doesn't succeed in 
> major commercial ways.

Um, you also pointed out the requirements for AutoCAD and, with no 
justification whatsoever, claimed that those requirements would be lower 
if the program were written in a different language.  (Furthermore, the 
requirements you listed were VERY common requirements for modern 
graphically-intensive software running on Windows.)

> And note that without Russell's input, things are actually fairly 
> flame-free around here.  I responded to you no problem, as you seemed 
> quite civil.

Again, why would we note that unless you want to use Russell's personality 
to somehow devalue his criticisms?

And GOLLY, that argument sounds familiar.  Does anyone recall why PDXLUG 
was founded?

J.
-- 
    -----------------
      Jeme A Brelin
     jeme at brelin.net
    -----------------
  [cc] counter-copyright
  http://www.openlaw.org



More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list