Subject: Re: contra graham From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.net> Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 23:16:01 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3232480542642559@naggum.net> YOU DO _NOT_ SEND UNSOLICITED COPIES OF POSTED ARTICLES BY MAIL WITHOUT MARKING THEM AS SUCH, OK? HOW HARD CAN THIS BE TO UNDERSTAND? * Tim Daly, Jr. | That's the first paragraph. The article explicitly disclaims any | pretensions of being an academic attack on the Java language. To | criticize it in that light is therefore both misdirected and misleading. An academic attack? How misguided can you _get_? You have divulged that you "agree" with this immature cretin's misplaced, prejudicial ranting, whatever it means to "agree" with something so devoid of content and meaning apart from the pure destructiveness that emanates, if not reeks, from this pile of shit, and therefore do not see it as a validation of the most base, most unevolved of human emotive responses, of what you so aptly called "herd thinking", but it is precisely because this septic tank overflow is dressed up in the formal wear of an academic attack, a nicely published form by a supposed non- nutcase, that it is so vile. Had it been written on public bathroom stalls with creativ spelling like "JAVA STINX!" it would have been more less dishonorable. There is nothing wrong in gathering a bunch of your sophomoric friends to laugh at how something somebody else has done "stinks" and at Ada and the DoD and whatnot (lowlives who could not program in Ada if it would save their lives generally dislike it because they are too randomly wired to accomplish anything useful) in order to have the most fun before you run out of moonshine. It could be quite an enjoyable party, too. Publishing a transcript of this party, however, is not a good idea. Allowing others to use your party comments as the basis for their _judgment_ about Java, simply indicates a seriously vindictive and destructive personality -- it has turned from drunken party fun to published opinion. Out of all the useless newbies who have opinions on things they do not know, we should get Paul Graham to stand up and speak for the clueless anti-intellectual. Even if he had chosen to attack Scheme or Perl, a whiff of either is sufficient to call for backup, would this have been seriously misguided. Validating idiotic prejudice is bad for all parties involved. After all, what better argument do people who think Java (or, hypothetically, Scheme or Perl) might be a good idea need to avoid Common Lisp than to point to this raving lunatic and his ad hominem-style to show that Common Lisp has a jerk who actually believes that you should judge a language by those who seem to argue in favor of it. Luckily, Paul Graham also hates Common Lisp, so at least we get rid of any guilt by association if anyone should notice his various ranting. So not only is this childish stunt hurtful because is _approves_ of the worst human flaw, the tendency for people to _want_ to turn off their brains, and give into fear and emotion and become no smarter than sheep, it is _directly_ damaging to Common Lisp. Of course, if you are the same kind of lamebrained herd animal that really care what others feel before you make up your mind about something, why are you using Common Lisp? Just because someone has done something good and decent in the past, does not mean that they should continue to be treated as an authority after that if they do something fantastically stupid and destructive to the community that respected them. The irrational attacks on Common Lisp and the "loop" coverage in his book are fairly strong clues about uninformed opinionating and confusion of personal and professional opinions, of which this "Java Cover" stunt was an amazingly atrocious example. -- 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. 70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process.