Subject: Re: Why Lisp is not popular. No GUI?
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 02 Dec 2002 07:26:47 +0000
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Pratibha
| I assume that we do not want to surface a raw REPL (i.e., a Lisp's
| default REPL) [or a raw Unix shell] because that would allow the end-user
| to type arbitrary Lisp forms [Unix commands], which would be giving too
| much power and potential for damage.

  Oh, so you give preference to issues of too much power and potential for
  damage.  That explains a lot of your stubborn resistance.

| I assume that an app-specific REPL [or shell] would be surfaced under
| control of Lisp, just not *the* raw Lisp REPL [Unix shell].

  What the hell is *the* raw Lisp REPL?

| Aside from too much power, there is the question of whether we would want
| to surface Lisp syntax to the end-user.

  Oh, Christ.  You have made up your mind about so much that communication
  with you is a waste of time.  Will you /please/ cut down on the assumptions
  and your belief that you have already grasped everything there is to grasp
  and just /listen/ to other people for a while?  I refuse to shoe-horn what
  I talk about into the pre-existing concepts of people who have not thought
  about what I talk about.  /THINK/ about something that is new to you, do
  /not/ try to make it the same as you think everything else is, because if
  it /were/, the opinions expressed by other people would be /redundant/
  and by the law of relevance in communication, we try to communicate what
  is the most important at all times, and that means at this time that you
  have to stop believing that you have figured this out, already, when you
  have not in fact grasped even the core principle.

| Actually, I agree in principle - in theory - in the abstract.

  No, you do not yet understand.  Cut this agreement crap and /think/.

| I just wanted to know if there are any existing *end-user* applications
| that could be pointed to as practical examples or models...that would
| qualify in your view as having an intelligently designed CLI.

  Giving practical examples to people who do not think yields too much
  potential for damage, and with can't have that.

| In my limited experience as *end-user* the only example I could think of
| is the CLI of AutoCAD.  Does that qualify?

  WTF is this nonsense about *end-user*?

  Are you unable to grasp what I have said about letting the GUI talk a
  /protocol/ to the rest of the application?  Is that why you keep harping
  on the same tired old strings?  Is all that you can imagine a "CLI" that
  talks to *end-users*?  THEN WAKE UP!  This is not what I am talking about.
  I talk about something that you have obviously never thought about.  If
  you want to take part in the communication, then /think/ and /listen/ and
  try to grasp things you have not already grasped.

| > E.g., are you knowledgeable of how the Emacs command loop works?
| No, I do not know the details.

  "E.g." /means/ exampli gratia, and would have been a practical example if
  you had been able to /listen/.  Go read the documentation that comes for
  free with Emacs about how a key is translated to a function call.  Read
  about the `interactive´ declaration in Emacs Lisp.  Understand how this
  declaration is related to the function's argument list.  Be enlightened.

| Would an emacs buffer tied to an inferior Lisp process and surfacing an
| app-specific REPL (not the raw Lisp REPL) be a good way to implement an
| intelligently designed CLI for an *end-user*?

  *NO*    Will you cut down on emphasizing *end-user* and /think/?

| Could intelligently designed CLI be done through a web browser?

  *NO*    But intelligently designed Web interfaces could communicate with
  the same protocol that a systems user (since you are so goddamn stubborn
  about "end-users") would.

  Damnit, will you please try to think about what it means for something to
  be a /protocol/?  Or do I have to return to the very basics and explain
  this to you in novice terms?  Please let me know what you already grasp
  so I do not waste my time trying to communicate to someone who stubbornly
  believes that what he hears is just like something he already believes.
  You have consistently refused to answer any question that would shed
  light on your present state of understanding.  Why do you do this and
  keep arguing against something you do not grasp?

  And WTF am I wasting time on you?  Give me a reason to continue.

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.