Subject: Re: Newbie - 2 MORE Small problems? From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 03:02:11 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Bruce Hoult <firstname.lastname@example.org> | You confuse information and comparison with unthinking advocacy. I wish I did. If I want to learn about D*lan, I read comp.lang.dylan. If I wish to learn about Scheme, I read comp.lang.scheme. If I do not wish to learn about either, I do not read these newsgroup, but thanks to people who have no concept of what other people would like to discuss where, I have to wade through one "comparison" after another and much more "information" about Scheme freaks and their preferences than I would like to suffer. | I've looked for it but in fact you are the *only* person I've ever seen | who has expressed such hostility. This is sheer nonsense. | Quite the contrary, there are a number of obvious examples of people who | are or have been active in multiple languages. You cannot portray a city as "safe" by pointing to how many nice people live in it, and it is quite amazing that you have to go on such a stupid propaganda trip. | The creator of Scheme had a hand in the definition of Common Lisp. Kent | Pitman has done work with both. Many D*lan people have been prominent in | Common Lisp and I can think of several who post here fairly regularly. This proves exactly nothing. | There does, on the other hand, seem to be a lot of lingering hostility | from those in the CL community who think that the effort would have been | better spent on developing CL itself, rather than dividing efforts. Perhaps you would arrive at a less self-serving conclusion if you could try to remember how D*lan dropped its sensible syntax? | This is very visible even today, with the recent denouncement from | several quarters of a Common Lisp stalwart such as Paul Graham. Paul Graham is a Common Lisp _stalwart_? He has spent lots of time and effort telling the world he does _not_ like Common Lisp, why loop is bad and wrong, and done a remarkable job of re-creating Scheme in Common Lisp. | It's not a question of *want*. These languages *are* closely related | members of the same family -- far more closely related to each other | than any of them is to any other language. | | What is it that makes you *want* to deny that? Their remarkably important differences. | You're welcome to your opinion, but I believe it to be false. Of course you do. /// -- 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.