Subject: Re: Some more misc. Lisp queries
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 11:06:16 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* (Immanuel Litzroth)
> I like lisp.

  Great.  I like people who respond to whole sentences and keep the context.

> Several double blind studies would be nice, with different aspects of
> programming languages studied (by different research groups preferably
> not linked to a major computer corporation).

  Yeah!  Having a billion dollars of spare cash would be nice, too.

> Given the amount of money that is spend on computing, studies like this
> by experimental psychology departments might not be such a bad idea.

  Use some of your spare billion to fund them.

> Everybody is claiming their product, favorite language or development
> enviroment will "boost levels of productivity" but nobody offers any
> evidence towards this.

  Yes, they do.  Your problem is that your requirements for accepting any
  of the evidence constitutes a prima facie rejection of all evidence.

> People should be aware that the evidence of "their senses" is not in any
> way proof of increased programmer productivity.

  "People" should be aware that the productivity of programmers vary by
  three orders of magnitude within the same language.  "People" should be
  aware that some languages speak to programmers who think in them much
  better than other languages.  "People" should be aware that some people
  do not stop to consider that _struggling_ and _pain_ are strong signals
  from their environment to change theirs ways and means.

  I predict that you will never see any difference at all in language or
  programmer productivity because you have set your mind that the rules of
  admission of evidence precludes what the industry can currently provide.
  This "hunch" is why I asked you to explain your "requirements", which are
  quite ridiculous given the world you actually ask to fulfill them.