Subject: Re: source access vs dynamism
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1999/09/07
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Erik Naggum
| it's enough to change the habits of a few people at first.

* William Tanksley
| The last sentance there is very important to me.  Why should an increase
| in the utility of static software be an overall negative?

  because it makes it harder to change the habits of more people over time.

| All we have to do is change the habits of a few people -- merely keep
| dynamic software alive.

  it stays alive through the people who don't leave, but there has to be a
  positive momentum.  I'm not sure the momentum is _sufficiently_ positive
  now, as witness the people who are looking at Lisp and don't see _enough_
  movement to refrain from thinking it's dead.  obviously, a lot happens,
  but to peple who are used to a caffeine-overdosed frenzy with people who
  rush around and have no clue what they're doing and no time to find out,
  Common Lisp doesn't look too stimulating to them.  it's like people who
  think watching a talk-show with a few authors and philosophers, who
  condense, say, 100 combined years of thinking into an hour and which may
  give yourself stuff to think about for a long time, is boring.

| People will continue finding local rather than global minima, but at
| least the global minimum is out there and available.

  for all practical purposes, it isn't to people who don't know about it.

  save the children: just say NO to sex with pro-lifers