From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: Are macros really a neccessity, or a coverup of language      deficiencies?
Date: 2000/04/28
Message-ID: <3165947477983371@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 616958809
References: <390371F0.36455F4E@makif.omer.k12.il> <3165647335532305@naggum.no> <3907660B.CCA3ECD2@yahoo.com> <1e9pulo.1ueryh2128131kN%bparsia@email.unc.edu> <3907FD4A.D138F88D@yahoo.com> <ymihfcntpjo.fsf@sevak.isi.edu> <3908D64D.C42DCE6E@yahoo.com> <3165894081922447@naggum.no> <3909FE18.F1CBE25C@yahoo.com>
mail-copies-to: never
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no
X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 956958900 26709 195.0.192.66 (28 Apr 2000 21:55:00 GMT)
Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Apr 2000 21:55:00 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Peaker <GNUPeaker@yahoo.com>
| You do have to deal with some complexity with any type of interface,
| but interfaces built of infix operation definitions, and object
| models, tend to make things simpler, and end up exporting less
| complexity.

  simpler?  simpler than what?  it has been pretty obvious for a while
  that you don't really understand alternatives to your own one view.
  that means you are _unable_ to make comparisons with any merits.

  the people you argue against typically know dozens of languages.
  Common Lisp has more than 40 years of history behind it.  it's quite
  amazing that you think you can beat that with arguments from
  ignorance of what has been done and without making comparisons of
  languages each on their _own_ merits.

  I'm sorry to say so, but you're an annoying waste of time when you
  don't want to respect the past and the knowledge and the decisions
  of this community, before you want to impose your own desires from a
  different community at best.

#:Erik