Subject: Re: Why I can't use Lisp. From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 05 Aug 2002 14:44:31 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Andreas Bogk | I suspect most people asking for a Lisp compiler are really asking for a | compiler that gives them all the features they've heard Lisp would have. In | other words, more "Lisp the family" than Common Lisp. Your suspicions are wrong. Someone who comes asking for a Lisp compiler does /not/ want Scheme or Dylan. They know how to ask for Scheme and Dylan if they want it. Really. Trust me. Nobody /ever/ comes to comp.lang.lisp to field their inquiries into Dylan and accidentally happen to call it "Lisp". That is one real test of whether something is or is not a Lisp. However, your disgracefully disrespectful attitude that you are right about this and everybody else, especially seasoned users of the language in the community you disrespect, is really annoying. You think you know better than every single living Lisp programmer. What gall! What immeasurable arrogance! What utter cluelessness! | No, Common Lisp is an instance of Lisp, which is a subclass of "dynamically | typed language". Look, we have multiple inheritance here, and no one superclass is /defining/. | If you look at the history of Dylan, you will see that the roots of it are in | the Lisp community. Which you *abandoned* because you no longer wanted to support Lisp! What we in the Lisp community, if I may be so bold as to speak for the numerous people who take exception to your classification, and who and whose learned opinions you dismiss out of hand and purposefully ignore, do not consider Dylan a Lisp. Deal with it. Stop annoying people so much. Listen to what people tell you. Figure it out. Sheesh, dude, this is /not/ hard. | The very same people who brougt you the Common Lisp standard, CLIM, CMU CL, | and a lot of other things worked on Dylan, and it was supposed to be the next | big thing after Common Lisp, and an improvement over it. But you chucked the syntax, you frigging dimwit! You /left/ the Lisp community with that choice. You are not competing with Common Lisp, you are not at all "improving" on Common Lisp by taking away something that many people really, really value in Common Lisp. That you think so and are apparently unable to back down from your religious belief is so amazingly annoying that I wish I could slap your stupid face and hope you snap out of it. Sadly, you have demonstrated such amazing cluelessness and the arrogance to go with it that the impression here, if I may again interpret the /massive/ rejection of your claims to be a consensus, is that Dylan is the language of choice for people who are /utterly/ unable to deal with counter-information. You and that other bozo from the Dylan camp keep arguing /here/ in order to /convince/ people who have no interest in your language whatsoever that it is somehow a Lisp, when /one look/ at Dylan will reveal that it /lifted/ a number of concepts from real Lisps, /spit/ on their syntax tradition and those who much prefer it over yeat another Algol-Pascal-whatever derivate, and then you people have the /chutzpah/ to tell people you disrespect and ridicule that your stolen lemon of a language is an "improvement" over Common Lisp! Sure, you think so, and you can think so as much as you like in comp.lang.dylan.advocacy, but if you have to go running like a missionary to convert the heathens to your belief, you tell everybody that Dylan is the kind of language that is used by people who have no working brain, it is for /believers/ and /non-thinkers/ who accept your bogus claims at face value. "Yeah, it really is a Lisp because Andreas Borg says so", but resistance is not futile. We /shall not/ be assimilated. Appealing to authority by imputing similarity between different products just because the same people worked on them is such a ridiculous denigration of their intelligence and their work ethics that I am almost speechless. How /dare/ you assume that people choose Common Lisp because persons X, Y, and Z worked on it? How /dare/ you imply that persons X, Y, and Z are unable to accomplish more than one useful thing in their entire life, so if they do two things, they must somehow be the same? How /dare/ you implicitly indicate that persons X, Y, and Z are unable to change direction in their life at will? Jesus, idiots like you make me /angry/! And now that I had taken nearly a month off the newsgroup because I found that more than anything else, I wrote articles to clarify my own thinking instead of wanting to help the morons who are never satisfied, anyway. I wrote and filed, but did not post, many a response, and it was so liberating to know that I would be relieved of the idiotic, hostile responses. Over the past week or so, I have posted what I believe to be more insightful than blabbering, but cretin like yourself really do make me realize that newsgroups are mostly for trolls and idiots. Look at how many responses you have received! And only because you are so blindingly stubborn and /wrong/. Be right about something, and nobody says a word, write something insightful that required much thought on your end, and you are guaranteed silence (but occasionally some uplifting mail). But say something utterly boneheaded that pisses people off simply because it is so stupid that people who make such rabid mistakes must be corrected, and you get to control the whole goddamn agenda in the newsgroup for a while. But people like you, Andreas Bogk, are truly incorrigible. You are a waste of time for anyone to respond to. You are unable to deal with contradictory information or opinions. Your purpose here is to annoy and /pester/ people with your retarded beliefs that you are certainly /not/ prepared to discard in the face of overwhelming rejection. | That's why I'm talking in terms of specific features. This does produce | something like a distance metric, and I can say things like "Dylan is much | more like Common Lisp than like Java". I like to see distance metrics graphically. |--------------------------------------------------------------------------| idiot ^ common lisp programmer you The fact is, your Dylan programs look like one of those rejected languages that did /not/ become that celebrated commercial success called "Ada". Grow a damn clue! Dylan proselytizing and marketing is /not/ welcome here, yet people flock to tell you this because you are so helplessly unintelligent that you stick to your beliefs no matter what people tell you. Why? Why do we all (me included) get so upset about such /fucking morons/ that we just /have/ to post some rebuttal? These people are positively /brimming/ with bovine excretions, yet neither putridity nor the methane deters people from trying to make it into something else. Get this: */they will never get it/*. USENET has been fertilized so heavily that it is no longer fecund. And all that that methane does on USENET is cause spontaneous combustion. See on you all August 15, provided you can stop responding to the nutjobs. -- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.