From ... Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!129.240.148.23!uio.no!Norway.EU.net!127.0.0.1!nobody From: Erik Naggum Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: On comparing apples and oranges (was: Q: on hashes and counting) Date: 21 Oct 2000 01:55:03 +0000 Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 800 35477; gsm: +47 93 256 360; fax: +47 93 270 868; http://naggum.no; http://naggum.net Lines: 95 Message-ID: <3181082103927197@naggum.net> References: <8sl58e$ivq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8snsfg$pre$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8spidj$3c9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3181049804953878@naggum.net> <87aebzfaj3.fsf@qiwi.uncommon-sense.net> <3181075728435884@naggum.net> <39F0E72F.57C20C8B@onlinehome.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 972103641 1986 195.0.192.66 (21 Oct 2000 04:47:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Oct 2000 04:47:21 GMT mail-copies-to: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.lisp:2496 * Dirk Zoller | Following your argumentation would mean that it is only due to | "(relative) idiot"s that we are not still programming in Assembler | or FortranIV. That would be "missing the point and wandering off into the mist", not "following my argumentation". | (If you think you're on the safe side as a Lisp user here, you are | not. Since where is the difference between extending and changing a | language and inventing a new one? You must ask yourself why you're | not programming in some ancient Lisp? Due to idiots which were | unable to express themselves in those dialects, obviously.) Could you please calm down and _think_ before you try this again? If you don't have to build a new compiler and runtime system and support tools just because you had a new idea, you don't have a new language. That's where the difference lies. This is pretty obvious if you aren't dead set on disagreeing with everything I say just because you feel obliged to spout some trivially obvious | It takes some repeated reconsideration and starting over again and | again from scratch while trying to keep the good stuff, get rid of | the bad and invent a few new bits. Really? Is that how it works? | Where what's "good" or "bad" or "desirable new stuff" is to a great | deal a matter of taste and therefore in the big picture -- random. | Some languages survive, most die as experiments. Looks like sheer | darwinism. Nature has achieved a lot by such mechanisms. Nature is a murderer, not a nurturer. Nature does not achieve, it destroys. Nature is what keeps each species from over-populating their habitat. Natural selection doesn't mean the survival of the fit, it means the death of the unfit. Whatever survives isn't fit, either, it just wasn't unfit enough to die, and thus grow diversity that may some time in the future determine fit and unfit. Whatever Nature has done, it's sheer _accident_ heavily slanted towards death and misery. Poverty and hunger is the natural condition. This goes against a lot of mumbo-jumbo new-age mystic crap and those fools who think there is a God figure holding a hand over them to make Nature _not_ kill them at random and for no reason whatsoever. To Nature, humanity is an over-populating pest. We have to _fight_ Nature all the time to survive, because Nature is what comes up with Ebola and AIDS and all kinds of diseaes and death. Human beings come up with medicine and a reasonably decent way to organize society in order to reduce, minimize, or remove the effects of Nature, like letting people live long, rewarding lives in the blistering heat of Texas (except those that George W. Bush ignores completely or executes, also at random and for no good reason -- he's the Natural President) or the death-trap cold of places like Norway. Those who believe Nature is benevolent are insane. The benevolence lies solely in the human capacities for compassion and intelligence which we use to predict the course of Nature and shelter each other from it, and to exploit the course of Nature and let each other benefit from it. It's because we beat down Darwinism tha have the kinds of societies we have. Social Darwinism means plunging all 6 billion people into disease-ridden poverty and a life expectance of about 25 years at birth, so that a few could have a 50-year life and heaps and heaps of whining little kids, about 90% of which would die. Don't fucking talk to me about Darwinism, you undead misfit. | > There are people who have to design their own alphabets or spellings | > in order to feel able to express themselves, but I think we label | > them "insane" rather than applaud them as "language designers". | | People are different. People express themselves in various ways. Thank you, Dirk. I really had _no_ idea we weren't all identical. Here I thought I could just ramble and rant and everybody would of course agree with everything and nobody would for a second think of coming up and tell me the Truth about People. But, Whoa! We're, like, _not_ identical! Christ on a tricycle, I can't just assume that everybody are _exactly_ like me? Man, that sucks. Really, what would I _do_ without you to tell me these Important Truths? What worries me most is actually that you think you have a point. | Some discuss in newsgroups, others paint, some design programming | languages. People experiment. This does not mean they're insane, | nor stupid, nor incompetent idiots, nor does any other of Naggum's | most frequently used attributes apply. No, but they still apply to you. Thank you for demonstrating that. Go play in traffic and be naturally selected, now. Thank you. #:Erik -- I agree with everything you say, but I would attack to death your right to say it. -- Tom Stoppard