Subject: Re: type safety in LISP
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 09 Dec 2002 13:55:31 +0000
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Pascal Costanza
| Why do you make things more complicated than they are?

  I do not.  I have asked you to state unequivocally what you would
  be happy that I called the languages I want to talk about so that
  we can rid the world of the abomination that is your incessant
  abuse of this forum with your personal problems.

  You refuse to answer.

  This must mean that you want this forum to be about your personal
  problems and your incessant whining about them and that you by far
  prefer not to be happy, but to complain, complain, complain.  This
  is consistent with the demand you make on others, but evidently not
  on yourself, to be nice -- or else!

| It's actually extremely simple: When you have a consistent
| terminology, just name it.  If you don't name it, what should one
| assume?  If you are not willing to admit that you don't have a
| consistent terminoloy, then at least just shut up.

  Then why do /you/ not simply answer the question?

  I am so tired of people who cannot accept responsibility for their
  own actions and emotions.  You demand something of me, when /you/
  come out of nowhere with your moronic complaints, and when asked
  what would make /you/ happy so we could be relieved of your moronic
  complaints, you do such a cowardly act as demanding of those /you/
  have arrested for what /you/ think is misuse to come up with what
  you obviously cannot deliver yourself.  The intellectual dishonesty
  you display defy words.

| I haven't seen any real refutation of my arguments yet.  You have
| made a mistake.  Why don't you just admit it?

  What!?  The /gall/! You really /do/ suffer from serious delusions
  of being the only one to have the right answer in this world.

  Your mistake here is to believe there is a contradiction.  What has
  kept you from admitting that?  I know -- puerile notions of pride,
  notions of "honor" that belong in cultures known to stone people
  who abuse the name of their prophet.

| This is getting boring. Just read
| -
| everything's sorted out in that paper.

  That explains what somebody else would want to call it.  I ask
  /you/ what /you/ would call it, because /you/ storm in here and
  make your stupid complaints and derail discussions when your petty
  personal concerns are disturbed.  And you won't quit, either!

| There's no "Pascal Costanza terminology" with regard to type
| systems.  This is ridiculous.

  I want to know what would make /you/ happy and quit complaining.
  This is not complicated.  You refuse to answer, however.  That
  speaks volumes about your /real/ intentions in this forum: To stir
  up trouble when people do not do precisely what you want.  I have
  suspected as much when you started a war over /other/ people not
  being nice while you obviously could run the whole gamut from bad
  to downright evil.

  /You/ have complained.  /You/ get to explain what /you/ want other
  people to do.  Explicitly, no complications.  Just present us with
  the term Pascal Costanza wants everybody else to use for statically
  typed programming languages that makes it possible to talk about
  them without having Pascal Costanza complaining incessantly about
  misuse of terminology and dragging in irrelevant complications and
  moronic "contradictions" that are figments of your imagination.

  Is it /possible/ to talk about deficiencies of languages like C++,
  Java, and C# without having moronic complaints from Pascal Costanza?
  So far, it does not look like it.  If it is not possible, I shall
  have to append a disclaimer to every message I post that readers be
  advised to ignore the rants that inevitably will result from your
  mental hangup with terminology and your refusal to be explicit
  about what you want others to use instead.

  So, to repeat the very simple request: What would it /take/ for you
  to refrain from mentioning Haskell when deficiencies of statically
  typed programming languages are discussed?  Name it!

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.