Subject: Re: RFC: Lisp/Scheme with less parentheses through Python-like significant  indentation?
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 2000/08/14
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* "felix" <>
| (Are we in a bad mood today, old friend?)

  Do I know you?  Whence this repulsive friendliness?

| The CL specification won't help you writing networking code, or
| graphics stuff.

  Neither do ANSI standards for steel qualities.  So what's your point?

| The fact that many implementations handle this differently to the
| exact words of the standard *can* be an indication for an
| insufficient specification.

  Well, regardless of what _might_ be, it isn't.

| >  The reason Scheme sucks, and it does, is that a beautiful standard
| >  is not enough.  A necessary condition, but not a sufficient one in
| >  any capacity at all.  If all the good stuff is extra-standard, the
| >  _language_ has serious problems.
| That depends largely on what you call "good" stuff.

  No, it doesn't.  It's an implication, the truth of which can very
  well be established without establishing or even agreeing on the
  truth of the premise.  But I guess you're as repulsively sloppy as
  you are repulsively friendly to strangers.  So why are you begging
  for small change on USENET?  Surely there must be a train station
  nearby where you can ingratiate yourself with and/or harrass some
  strangers in exchange for a few pennies?

  The language has serious problems even if only most of _whatever_
  counts as "the good stuff" is extra-standard.  Do you understand?

| I rather doubt that you can live without all those extras and
| goodies provided by the CL implementation you use, that are *not*
| mentioned in the ANSI spec.

  Look, the ANSI X3.226-1994 doesn't prescribe my nutrition, either.
  What's your point, other than spouting increasingly bland nonsense?

| I would not say that CL "sucks", just because it's specification
| doesn't cover all aspects of the language that are in use.

  Sad, because then you would _really_ be doing yourself a favor.

  Let's see if you can figure out where you lost track of what I said
  and this stupid notion cropped up that Scheme sucks "just because
  [its] specification doesn't cover all aspects of the language that
  are in use".  (Whoever talks about "all aspects of the langauge"?)

| Man, you defnitely have absolutely no sense of humor!

  That you don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
  That you don't laugh indicates that you take things too personally,
  as indeed you do, abuser and reducer of phrases like "old friend".

  Someone as ridiculous as yourself may be used to people laughing,
  but trust me on this: If they do, it is not because of good humor.

| P.S.: You sound rather aggressive, Erik, old pal.  Do you have a
| blood-pressure problem?  Are you consulting a doctor regularly?

  Take your disgustingly fake personal concern for me and stuff it up
  your ass!  If you want to get personal, you have chosen the wrong
  medium.  Try one of those dating hotlines, instead.  Remember to say
  you like to act friendly with strangers so they can connect you with
  a suitable perversion.

  If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.