Subject: Re: self-hosting gc From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 12:41:18 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Matthias Blume <firstname.lastname@example.org> | I really recommend looking up some of the canonical references. Necula | and Lee is a good starting point. As far as I can see, this is the first time you have bothered to give anyone any indication or where they could learn about all the stuff you claim is true, somewhat ironically without proof or evidence. I have read your messages with what I find to be increasingly wild claims on a lacking foundation. You may think you are right, but there is nothing in what you have written which communicates _how_ and _why_ to anybody else, unless they already agree with you, in which case it is rather pointless. You have also not credibly argued why any of these things are any better than what we have today, not in any technical sense on your own premises, of course, but in the sociological sense that the world would be better with this technology, that it would actually matter, and that people would go along with it. Nor have you argued for a way of getting there from here or how to determine whether what you want to prove (in society) has succeeded or failed. So far, it all looks like the kind of hope for a better world that I associate with cults and bad religions and really bad political ideologies, who all would probably work wonderfully -- provided that human diversity does not get in the way, i.e., if everybody understood the theory, agreed to all of the tacit as well as explicit premises, and practiced it faithfully. I think you should have realized that the arguments you have received are not about the merits of the technology, but about its desirability and its premises. This is the question of _why_ we do things, not _that_ we can do them. /// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.