Re: Lisp article at IBM
- From: Tim X <timx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:02:20 +1100
"Juan R." <juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Feb 17, 2:25 pm, Pascal Bourguignon <p...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
A physicist using quantum gravity for falling apples would be
considered a bad physicist. Classical newtonian theory _is_ enough
there. It is not pragmatism, it is science. Same may be applied to
LISP community to TeX or to any other community claiming smartness...
Well, i'm no quantum physicists, but has any one tried to apply
quantum gravity to falling apples? Perhaps he could discover a way to
have them fall directly in my fruit basket at home? ;-)
Irony apart, i do not know such one bad physicist doing that.
The remark was on LISP (as in TeX) community tendency to promote LISP
(or TeX) as the only approach to problems.
LISP people dismish PHP, Perl somewhat as TeX people dismish Word. But
if PHP and Word are by far more popular than LISP and Word is because
are rather fine for the tasks they were designed to do.
The criticism is constructive. LISP deserves more credit than usual
but postings as that of Tim X trying to present people do not using
LISP as a kind of stupids disliking "elegance" (a term of course
matching Tim X favourite measure of it) may not help to LISP promotion
(despite being a false argument).
I'm not sure I even understand exactly what you are saying. To make any
statement regarding what is or is not my favorite term after a single post is
rediculous and you have totally misrepresented (or misunderstood) what I was
arguing - in fact, you pretty much have it backwards. My post had absolutely
nothing to do with why people should or should not use CL or LISP. In fact, the
post was about debates wtihin c.l.l on lisp and CL and why these debates seldom
come to any real conclusion or progress further than descending into circular
arguement which is often based on theoretical rather than practicle issues. I
wasn't even making any claims, but rather presenting some observations for
Now your just trying to be both offensive and deliberately misrepresent what I
was posting. At no point did I mention other languages or claim that anyone not
using lisp was an idiot. What I said was that I liked CL and GNU Linux and I
believe they are great languages/platforms (even superior), but I also said I
don't care what anyone else uses. I also said that if others didn't agree, well
as far as I'm concerned thats their loss. I made no value judgement concerning
what other people use and explicitly made the point I have absolutely no
interest in trying to convert others etc. however, all of this is actually
quite irrelevant to the main point of what I was saying, which actually
concerned some thoughts I had regarding the types of debate in c.l.l compared
to debates in other languages. Unfortunately, you were so intent on trying to
attack me, you concentrated on my use of terms such as 'smart', and 'elegant',
which you took out of context and attempt to twist into something else. At no
point did you actually try to address the main thrust of my post. As others did
understand it, I don't believe it was because I didn't make this clear enough.
Possibly its a language barrier or possibly I just didn't
express myself clearly enough, but in the end its quite irrelevant. I do wonder
if its related to our earlier debate in another thread. If so, it is
unfortunate you were unable to separate the two and avoid what must have caused
an emotional issue for you. I have no problem with you taking me to task over
anything I post, but I would prefer a debate on the argument rather than
a pseudo dig based on judicious snipping designed to misrepresent my point of
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
- Re: Lisp article at IBM
- From: Juan R.
- Re: Lisp article at IBM
- Prev by Date: Re: Switch from SBCL to Erlang backend due to scalability issues(GC).
- Next by Date: [OT] Computer architecture (was Re: Switch from SBCL to Erlang...)
- Previous by thread: Re: Lisp article at IBM
- Next by thread: Re: Lisp article at IBM