Subject: Re: Is LISP dying? From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 1999/07/25 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * firstname.lastname@example.org (Christopher R. Barry) | I expected as much from you. of course you did. you _did_ realize that poking people in the eye generally has predictable results. I'm sure that in your perverted ethics it is also the victim's fault when you poke them in the eye. | Less than 24 hours ago you wrote in <email@example.com>: | | and quality suffers much more from competition from splinter groups than | mere quantity. e.g., MULE would not have been as braindamaged had it not | been for XEmacs. | | So I'm not the one "inventing" anything here. yes, you are, and like the raving paranoid, of course you don't see that you're matching your hallucinations up with the scantiest piece of fact. the above is not blaming the MULEshit in Emacs on XEmacs per se, but on the _competition_ from XEmacs that led to the perceived need to have a feature that the competition did, and the quality thus suffered. the problem isn't XEmacs, it is the perceived need to compete with it. this need is not causally linked t XEmacs at all -- XEmacs just exposes it. _any_ similar competition would have caused Richard Stallman to jump too soon and add immature features for no other reason than to try to keep up with the competition -- MULE happened this way, and numerous other really bad decisions have been made in the name of competition. but making this into _blaming_ them on XEmacs is so deranged only you could have thought it up. now, do you want me to spell it out for you and spoonfeed you with the obvious context that your hallucinations made you "overlook", or are you able to understand what I'm saying without more hallucinations? #:Erik -- suppose we blasted all politicians into space. would the SETI project find even one of them?