Re: LISPPA

From: Alexander Baranovsky (ab_at_cable.netlux.org)
Date: 05/11/04 

Date: 10 May 2004 21:44:10 -0700

Raymond Wiker <Raymond.Wiker@fast.no> wrote in message news:<86zn8gpv1f.fsf@raw.grenland.fast.no>...
> ab@cable.netlux.org (Alexander Baranovsky) writes:
>
> > Rahul Jain <rjain@nyct.net> wrote in message news:<87d65ddpsa.fsf@nyct.net>...
> >> ab@cable.netlux.org (Alexander Baranovsky) writes:
> >>
> >> > My remark has been related to the word "includes". The Lisps cannot be
> >> > a match for such imperative languages as C, Basic or Pascal in view of
> >> > effectivity of programming, compile-time type checking, clean
> >> > algol-liked syntax and readability, huge number of libraries, big
> >> > number of IDEs, huge number of applications, huge amount of
> >> > investments and huge number of users.
> >>
> >> Ok, worse. You're now a complete moron, as you insist on believing your
> >> fantasy and convincing me that it has any relation to the world that
> >> exists outside of your head.
> >>
> >
> > "Tis dangerous when the baser nature comes
> > Between the pass and fell incensed points
> > Of mighty opposites."
>
> Since it appears that you know Shakespeare better than you
> know Lisp, maybe you should go to rec.arts.* instead?

Perhaps

comp.lang.general.no-fans

would be more preferable, indeed.

A.