Subject: Re: Java vs lisp (was: Re: Prolog vs. Lisp) From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1997/04/21 Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Henry Baker | Just peer into the standardization processes going on in the networking | and high-definition television communities. This is hard-ball marketing | in its rawest form. Henry, really, we can all find examples of evils, but it is your claim that such _is_ standardization and that standardization _usually_ works this way that is ridiculous. it's just like the IRS is perceived by some as Evil incarnate because of their experience with its tentacles, but the rest of the population can't relate to any of the horror stories. it does you no good to scream and shout that the IRS is out to destroy the whole nation when you have a problem with their treatment of you or people you know. it really behooves you to investigate whether there are other culprits than standardization in the crimes to humanity that you so strongly object to. I think you will find that standardization has added insignificantly to the evils of the world, and has actually alleviated quite a few ills. it is no guarantee against human errors, of course, but just like the saying goes: that to err is human but it takes computers to screw up big time; to make _really_ costly errors, you need a standard -- or the free market. but to _avoid_ really costly errors, you _also_ need a standard, only you don't know whether a standard will save you a lot or cost you a lot until way after it has been completed. this is no different from anything else with a moderate to long time span, so I also fail to see the point in rubbing the standardized nose in the flops. #\Erik -- Bastard Sex Therapist from Hell: "Read the F*cking Manual!"