Subject: Re: MS Win32 CommonLisp
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 02:20:11 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* "David L. Greene" <>
> I have been trying to find a real MSWin editor that uses lisp the way GNU
> Emacs or XEmacs does.  These to editors are arcane and completely out of
> date.

  Um, this indicates a certain lack of investment in effort on your part.
  You have indicated up front (thank you) that you are committed to the
  Microsoft Weltanschauung, but the part of that commitment that I will not
  accept or respect is that the rest of the world is wrong or that just
  because it requires new investment on your part, that it is misdesigned.
  You have _had_ to invest a tremendous amount of effort to grow into the
  Microsoft Weltanschauung, but going about it like a Borg discovering Unix
  is not conducive to your own development and happiness with Common Lisp.

> I can't remember when I had to use dir *.* to find a file. Which appears
> to be the way *Emacs works.

  The keyword here is "appears".  Just because you see a directory listing
  does not mean your old scars have to be reopened and the Borg implants
  have to be inserted all over again.

> Never mind the whacky file dialog.

  I am quite sure that our excellent hospitality does not suffer from this.
  You are quite welcome to insult what you do not know in order to ask for
  help in becoming more used to it.  Why, lots of tourists behave that way.
  Few of them stay, but that is mostly because they really never left home.

> I realize that these may be fighting words in this group but, as much as
> I will probably be screamed at for saying it.

  Well, contrary to your premature, prejudicial, and counterproductive
  opinionating, _lots_ of Common Lisp people work with Windows these days.
  You are not addressing a frigging "group", you are addressing _people_.
  I realize that this may be hard for you Microsoft Borgs, but outside of
  Redmond, WA, there is this thing called "individuals" that you can talk
  to one on on one and who are not linked with the whole bloody Collective.

> It is a fact these apps are arcane and out of date.

  Oh, Christ, you do not even know the difference between your own value
  judgements and facts.  Well, no wonder you are a Microsoft drone.

> If UNIX users and programmers feel that MSWin should rightly be ignored
> as a viable and real OS then ignore this message.

  People who actually know how to use a system productively actually manage
  to use it productively.  Did that trivial fact shock you?  It should not,
  but it sounds like you needed to hear the obvious.  You see, your lack of
  knowledge is no match for their superior skills when to comes to making
  statements about suitability.

> For all intents and purposes LISP is nonexistent in MSWin and therefore
> difficult to support.

  Well, well, well.  The tourist certainly knows a lot!  Why, is he really
  here to ask questions and perhaps learn something?  No, no, no!  _Our_
  excellent tourist is here to complain about the food and drop his
  cigarette butts on the street and he thinks every girl he sees is
  included in the package-deal with the cheap hotel he also dislikes.



  I think that line would sound great in one of those televised diaper ads,
  but that is probably because I think those ads are secretly funded by
  population control centers, abortion clinics, and companies who sell

> From what I have used of it it blows away all other languages.

  Yes, it does.  Lisp even makes it possible for _individuals_ who are not
  part of the Borg Collective to enter the world of Microsoft and still be
  productive, although working at about half their normal speed even after
  a year of "assimilation".  It would have been impossible for _me_ to
  survive working with Windows if it were not for Common Lisp, but once I
  got it installed, and Emacs, too, I was actually able to work with much
  the same productivity as on real computers.  (You _asked_ for this snide
  remark, if you are not quite fully aware of your own behavior, OK?)

> What is out there that is a real MSWin app that I can write apps in LISP?

  Oh, man!  He says "app", but at least his spelling is reasonabaly OK.

> UNIX users will have no idea what I'm talking about, and I know this
> message will get me screamed at.

  It is your insulting, demeaning, idiotic assumption that Unix users will
  have no idea what you are talking about that that gets you screamed at,
  if anything.  Unix users _are_ much smarter than Windows users, so they
  know both worlds.  (They sort of have to, consider the massive lack of
  skills and intelligence in the Windows world.)  Just because _you_ know
  only one world does not mean that anyone else suffers from the same
  mental retardation and slow uptake of contrary information that you do.

> I hope that someone is listening.

  To what?  Another pathetic tourist who cannot figure out which way to
  hold the map?  Gimme a break.  Here, let me show you the wonderful Egress.

> The only reason that I'm not running a UNIX pc now is because of the UNIX
> world bickering about a shrink wrap version in the early '90's when IBM,
> Microsoft, Various UNIX vendors were in a horse race to get a 32bit
> shrink wrap OS to market At that time Microsoft had NO advantage.

  Oh, Christ, take it up with your shrink and get over it.

> MSWin won.

  Right.  There was but a _single_ race for all the computing needs of all
  of mankind.  It has been completed and the results are in.  There are to
  be no more races, no evolving computing needs, no more development and --
  what was that word, again? -- no more innovation.

  You know, or, well, of course you don't, but this is a true story about
  marketing, so you might learn something about marketing and winning wars.
  Pepsi once figured out that people consistently liked small sips of Pepsi
  better than they liked small sips of Coca-Cola.  Now, Pepsi is of course
  so sweet and yucky that you could kill with it, but you never notice that
  if you only drink small sips of it.  Coca-Cola had long ago figured out
  that the best way to keep their customers is to make them want another
  bottle when they finish the one they started out with.  Pepsi did not
  have a chance, because once people taste the Real Thing, you simply do
  not switch to some oversugared syrupy gunk.  The question before the Borg
  of Marketing (or vice versa) is now: How to lie about this convincingly?
  It was brilliant!  Stage tasting competitions.  When your mouth is full
  of all sorts of weird stuff, a dose of extra sweet-tasting sugar does you
  well.  That is, after all, why people eat candy.  So if you gave people a
  choice between a slightly bitter, great-tasting elixir and some candy on
  a bottle, they would say the candy tasted better.  Of course it did, and
  it is in fact true.  A small plastic cup of Coca-Cola does nobody any
  good, but apparently, a small plastic cup of Pepsi does.  The giant lie
  was that people who liked small plastic cups of liquid candy would not
  want to buy a 32-pack of 16oz bottles of the great elixir and guzzle it
  down with lasting satisfaction and increased loyalty.  This was a hard
  lie to fight, because it was true: People preferred liquid candy in small
  doses, but then again, it would not be all that smart marketing to tell
  people that Coca-Cola had optimized _heavily_ for repeat purchase -- that
  is the kind of thing that gets nicotine pushers into serious trouble.
  Pepsi won on the meta-level: They removed focus from how great the _last_
  drop out of your bottle tastes to how great the _first_ drop out of your
  bottle testes.  Setting the stage, they could make people believe in
  their lie.  The proof of that was that to fight this lie, Coca-Cola tried
  to come up with something that would win on the stage set by Pepsi, and
  taste better in small plastic cups to people who liked liquid candy.  As
  we all know, it was a _major_ disaster.  Fully optimized for that first-
  drop experience, where it did fare much better, it was godawful and you
  could barely keep from recycling the bottle contents faster than the
  bottle if you tried to down it all.  They lost their loyal following on
  phony Pepsi's stage, but recanted and brought back the real thing amidst
  much furor and sense of betrayal, but what people remember is not what
  they _should_ remember: the _Pepsi_ people are bastards, not for tricking
  Coca-Cola into losing lots of money, but for being such a shallow bunch
  that they actually thought first impressions would be _all_ that anyone
  would ever care about.  Now, there is much success to be had in the first
  impressions business.  Microsoft has built virtually its entire world
  dominance (heehee) on first impressions, or actually _future_ first
  impressions -- it is your _next_ first impression of the _next_ version
  of Microsoft Fraud 8.0 that will be so massively great you wish you had a
  whole pint of cold Coke to get rid of the bad taste of oversweetness.

  If _all_ you are into is first impressions, you will remain a tourist no
  matter where you go and no matter what you do.  If you are interested in
  settling down with anything at all, building loyalty or communities or 

> Like it or hate it they won.

  What Microsoft "won" was your personal integrity.  You actually _believe_
  that there was a fight, that everybody took part in it, that Microsoft
  came out on top, and that everybody else are now losers.  Microsoft "won"
  a war of _unbelievably_ dirty marketing where the idea was not to win
  anything at all in the actual fights, but to set the stage so they could
  trick people, just like Pepsi did, into believing that _other_ companies
  should be competing about _their_ first-impressions charade.

  Microsoft has won exactly nothing.  They are really good at marketing.
  If their great teacher, Joseph Goebbels, had been able to learn from them
  instead of the other way around, the world would have a slightly more
  sinister ruler today than Bill Gates.  Microsoft is under really serious
  threat from Linux, which in my opinion has as its main impetus the vision
  of the fall of Microsoft in the near future.  Nobody in their right mind
  would donate so much effort for free if it did not have a very tangible
  reward in front of them.  Microsoft has, through its massively fraudulent
  practices and its evil, rivaling both the Evil Empire and the Third Reich
  in propaganda and self-serving misinformation, set itself up as The Great
  Enemy.  Bill Gates, the neurotic nerd, is so hysterically paranoid in his
  competitiveness that his only self-defense mechanism is to grab ever
  _more_ control over other people instead of trying to grow a clue and get
  the very simple idea that that is precisely why he is _losing_.

  The key to relinquishing Microsoft's control over your life is to realize
  that you do not have to accept their paranoid competitiveness.  Companies
  do not "win" major fights the way Microsofts wants you to believe they
  do.  Everything survives and thrives for a while if it is good, and then
  it dies.  They key is to get more out of what you do than you put in,
  overall, but if you would not _accept_ 75% failure, you are quite simply
  insane, influenced beyond repair by the Borg of Marketing who have been
  pushing "success" and "winning" for decades.  To do well and stay sane,
  you need to make enough on the things you do well that you can afford not
  to do everything only sufficiently well to get by.  Microsoft's paranoid
  competitiveness is a result of a personal philosophy that mediocrity can
  "win" if it fights hard and long enough, but mediocrity can _never_ win.
  Only people who are willing and _able_ to fail can win big.  Bill Gates
  is so _personally_ mortally afraid of losing that he _had_ to become the
  most _brutal_ and most _dishonest_ leader in the world.  Read his boring
  yet revealing books -- not only does he not have more genuinely new ideas
  than my cat, he is a poster boy for mediocrity gone bad.  He is not that
  smart, either -- he is just out to compete with and screw people and he
  became _really_ good at it because it is not something good people want
  to become good at.  Bill Gates is what happens when a criminal, bad mind
  does not get into _enough_ trouble in its youth.

  Unfortunately, his exceptionally evil character is contagious.  People
  are no longer happy to make money, they must "win".  Instead of being
  good at what they do and better at it than their competition, they must
  instead beat their competition senseless with propaganda, false moves,
  ridiculous release schedules for vaporware, etc.  The result is that
  nobody who _could_ be really good at anything want to work with such
  people.  The computer business has become an arena for ridiculous hype
  much worse than the movie industry or the car industry.  It permeates
  every level, down to the lowly programmer who hates VB and feels that he
  has somehow "lost" because the behemoth has "won".  But it is simply not
  true.  So many computer people believe that in order to get work, they
  have to have skill X.  It is as if the world suddenly saw a need for
  plumbers and _everyone_ wanted to become a plumber.  The only way to make
  that happen would be to make a disastrously evil design in the public
  infrastructure so that you would _need_ a billion plumbers.  Now, who
  would do that?  What kind of person would want to create a world that was
  so broken that it needed fixing all the time?  The revengeful, hateful,
  paranoid, hyper-competitive nerd with more psychopathic and antisocial
  personality disorders than you could document in a lifetime: Bill Gates,
  and for what reason?  Nothing more than that he himself can make a buck
  on other people's misery.  Now, good people make money on other people's
  desire for something better, too, but there is a difference between he
  who profits on a misery he makes sure remains and he who profits on the
  misery the misery he removes.  The latter I can work with, and I would
  not care all that much if the misery was a lie, either -- getting out of
  any sort of misery is just great.  But the former -- the kind of person
  who makes sure that people _hope_ for something better they never get,
  who tell them that they _ought_ to live in misery but that he is making
  it "easier" for them (a.k.a. "computers are so hard to use, so you have
  to use this retarded GUI I have developed to make it harder and slow you
  down and never realize that I am lying through my teeth to you, but at
  least I tell you it will make it easier, and so do all these important
  people who also think computers are too hard for the idiot masses, as
  they would lose billions of dollars and lots of political power if a lot
  of people woke up"), who tell them that they cannot be _expected_ to deal
  with the real issues, but have to deal with some moron version, those are
  much better off dead.  Unfortunately, they know it.  Bad people _know_
  they are bad people.  It is good people who are always racked by doubt
  and personal problems.  Bad people are bad people because they do not
  care, and the one person who cares the least on this planet is Bill Gates.

  The worst part of Microsoft's marketing strategy, however, is, just like
  Pepsi's self-defeating first-impressions-only game (I am sure you will
  say that Coca-Cola has "won"), that we have reduced all evaluation of
  computer needs and solutions to first impressions and what some may
  consider "user-friendliness" but which is really "skill-defeating" to the
  point where _you_ have serious emotional issues with learning new tools,
  even though you want to get out of a situation you admit to hate.  What
  do you expect?  That somebody will magically change the world for you?
  If so, it is the attitude that made Microsoft possible.  Like a sweet
  first taste and impression, Microsoft lured you into drinking the whole
  bottle of Pepsi, and of course you are sick to your stomach from it, but
  since you think that first impressions are what counts, you cannot fathom
  that they do not count at all.

  Microsoft is not the answer.  Microsoft is the question.  NO! is the answer.

> Is LISP on the same road?


> Is it so tied to the OS that it can't cross over?

  *laugh*  Lisp has never been tied to any operating system.


  Awwww.  Give the man a Pepsi.

> We are still early in the overall history of what will be the
> WorldWideWeb.  LISP is HIGHLY appropriate for this medium, which is why I
> have a renewed interest, but it has to be EASILY(use, not the act of
> downloading) available in the LEADING OS in the industry.  Like that OS
> or hate it.

  Check out some other vendor than Microsoft.  Prepare to have your mind
  explode, as your incredibly perverted view of what the world looks like
  will probably be in for a really serious blow.  There are many serious
  offerings of really high-quality Common Lisp products for Windows.

  Now, let's sit back and see how you blow up.  This could be fun.  But
  surprise us all and show that you can actually _think_, and maybe some
  Lisp people will help you figure out what your _real_ needs are.