Subject: Re: Newbie - 2 MORE Small problems? From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 05:04:08 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG | Um, no, I think I once mentioned that I "require" call/cc to count as | a non-toy language as a jibe in response to your frequent claim that | Scheme is a toy. Yet you were insulted by and found my "jibe" strongly provocative. Something is clearly amiss here. | I think both Scheme and Common Lisp are good things; I have no clue | what would ever be gained if one were "proven" better than the other. The point is not which is better, which where people are allowed to believe so. Scheme freaks have comp.lnag.scheme as their haven of belief in Scheme's superiority, Common Lisp programmers have comp.lang.lisp, and D*lan users have comp.lnag.dylan. In _this_ newsgroup and _this_ community, we have a _right_ to think that what we use is the best of all possible things around, It is that right that is continually challenged by naysayers and fault-finders who come from D*lan and Scheme camps in particular. | > | You seem concerned that there are lots of Scheme people saying | > | "Scheme is the only thing worth considering", but I can't see any of | > | them. Nary a one. But what I *do* is you arguing, every chance you | > | get, that Common Lisp is the One True Lisp Dialect. | > | > Really? Where? Perhaps you can quote me on this? | | Um, perhaps because of your insistence that the only proper topic for | comp.lang.lisp is Common Lisp? So you admit that I have never actually said anything _like_ what you _lie_ about that I have done. You are intellectually dishonest, Thomas Bushnell. Your ability to draw conclusions does not give you any right to make claims about what _others_ have argued or said or meant or intended. Keep these apart, will you? Where is your philosophical training if you cannot even manage to distinguish your observations from your conclusions? | Um, no, I didn't say Scheme was "better" in the abstract. Scheme has | a nifty feature that Common Lisp lacks. Whether that makes Scheme | "better" or not is a foolish question, since both Scheme and Common | Lisp have strengths and weaknesses, and I don't have any particular | interest in which is "better". Why, then, do you keep posting about stuff that you know that people in this community have expressly rejected as less valuable or even as abject misfeatures? You are _trolling_, Thomas Bushnell. | Ah, no, I only compare Common Lisp to PL/I when Scheme is called a toy. Liar. | Part of that is because calling languages "toys" way predates you; | indeed, IIRC, the first people to adopt that charming little term were | PL/I users who thought Algol-like languages were mere toys, not useful | for any serious programming. Memory of past ills is _such_ a boon for responding to what is at hand. | I'm entirely happy to institute a new rule: nobody insults any other | language at all; I'll drop the PL/I reference, and you can drop the toy | reference. That would please me no end. Once again, we see how one person needs to try to control another person in order to behave wisely in his own terms. This is such a pattern with you losers who do something bad and refuse to accept responsiblity for it. I have no gripes with Scheme at all until and unless some Scheme freaks fires up his propaganda engine. I do not read comp.lang.scheme because I think Scheme really sucks as a language. I do not read comp.lang.perl because I thin perl is the suckiest language on the planet. I do not read comp.text.xml because those who work with XML are such uninspiring dorks. There is sufficient room here to vent frustration with loser languages like Perl and XML that nobody keeps telling anyone that both are "really" Lisps -- Perl has a lot of Lisp nature, and XML is basically only a highly elaborate s-expression syntax -- | > | Who is this "they"? Can we see names or Message-ID's or something? | > | > You, Thomas Bushnell. | | Let's see the Message-IDs now. Put up or shut up. This, after you have lied and misrepsented me to no end, and you could not even cough up a reference to your own claims about what I have said? Such gall! Such chutzpah! Get lost, troll. /// -- 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.