Raffy's Karma [was Re: [ANN] Filtered functions]
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: NY Times
Next: complex symmetric matrices
From: Nicolas Neuss on 10 Dec 2009 04:00 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > On 2009-12-09 10:54:58 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> said: > >> My OED still has just "resentful disparagement of something one cannot >> personnally acquire". > > And, for the 5th time now, that which you, ken tilton, cannot personally > acquire is acceptance of *your* library, cells, as a publication quality, > well documented, extension to clos. > > So when Pascal C. announces the release of a publication quality, well > documented, extension to clos, you disparage it as a "stupid clos trick," > i.e., being the author of an extension to clos is something not worth > having. > > This is sour grapes - you disparage something you can't have - > acceptance of your clos extension by the lisp community - as something not > worth having. I don't think that that you are wrong, but please note: 1. In contrast to Kenny Tilton, Pascal Costanza is (as an academic, arguably) paid for providing high-quality and well-documented code. Thus, IMO this comparison is very unfair. Thanks to Ken for providing Cells! 2. You omit that Ken may have a valid point in his rant. Although I like CLOS very much, I am in doubt if it would not be more profitable for me to learn using dataflow programming correctly (maybe even with Cells) compared with learning yet another CLOS enhancement. Nicolas
From: Kenneth Tilton on 10 Dec 2009 06:55 Ron Garret wrote: > In article <4b1fc852$0$5016$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, > Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ron Garret wrote: >>> In article <4b1f0e8f$0$4982$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, >>> Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> OK, now it's my turn. >>>> >>>> Raffael Cavallaro wrote: >>>>> On 2009-12-06 07:54:13 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> said: >>>>> >>>>>> The more you thrash about trying to find some grapes the sillier you >>>>>> look. >>>>> Only in your head does your failure to understand a perfectly simple >>>>> metaphor make someone else look silly. >>>> Look, you used it wrong, get over it. My joke about your English was >>>> just a joke and you have now magnified your ignorance wonderfully. Your >>>> mad search for grapes gone sour was fun, though. >>>> >>>>> Your attempted to misdirect >>>>> readers from your jealous spite of Pascal C. is weak. >>>> And I hope you know sour grapes is not about jealousy. >>> Of course sour grapes is about jealousy: >> Oh, goody! Let's try redefining the phrase!(But I thought you wanted to >> be a writer!)... >> >>> http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en%7Cen&hl=en&q=jealousy >>> >>> "Jealousy is the feeling of anger or BITTERNESS which someone has when >>> they wish that they could have the qualities or possessions that another >>> person has." >>> >>> The first synonym listed is "envy". >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes >>> >>> "Sour grapes is an expression originating from the Aesop Fable The Fox >>> and the Grapes. It always refers to an unattainable goal and human >>> reaction to it. It can mean to deny desire for the unattainable item. >>> More often, it refers to the nature of humans to rationalize why they >>> wouldn't want it anyway. The phrase has come to be synonymous with >>> BITTERNESS in most modern contexts." >>> >>> (Emphasis added.) >> "The phrase HAS COME TO BE..." emphasis added. > > "... in most modern contexts." That's funny, you did not respond to the other post about your only supporting source being clearly wrong on the phrase. Oh, wait...it's Erann!!! kt
From: Pascal Costanza on 10 Dec 2009 07:36 On 10/12/2009 10:00, Nicolas Neuss wrote: > Raffael Cavallaro<raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> > writes: > >> On 2009-12-09 10:54:58 -0500, Kenneth Tilton<kentilton(a)gmail.com> said: >> >>> My OED still has just "resentful disparagement of something one cannot >>> personnally acquire". >> >> And, for the 5th time now, that which you, ken tilton, cannot personally >> acquire is acceptance of *your* library, cells, as a publication quality, >> well documented, extension to clos. >> >> So when Pascal C. announces the release of a publication quality, well >> documented, extension to clos, you disparage it as a "stupid clos trick," >> i.e., being the author of an extension to clos is something not worth >> having. >> >> This is sour grapes - you disparage something you can't have - >> acceptance of your clos extension by the lisp community - as something not >> worth having. > > I don't think that that you are wrong, but please note: > > 1. In contrast to Kenny Tilton, Pascal Costanza is (as an academic, > arguably) paid for providing high-quality and well-documented code. > Thus, IMO this comparison is very unfair. Thanks to Ken for > providing Cells! > > 2. You omit that Ken may have a valid point in his rant. Although I > like CLOS very much, I am in doubt if it would not be more profitable > for me to learn using dataflow programming correctly (maybe even with > Cells) compared with learning yet another CLOS enhancement. Without noticing it yourself, you're actually hinting here at an underlying issue: There is no opposition between (variations of) dataflow programming approaches and (variations of) object-oriented programming approaches. The only reason why there seems to be an opposition is because Kenny always shoots at CLOS whenever possible, and abuses unrelated threads to push his particular dataflow programming approach to the fore. If he wouldn't do that, there would never be a discussion whether "either" is better than the other, or any such nonsense. I am offering filtered functions as a library, because people at my lab and I myself found them useful in some contexts, and it seems that other people find them useful as well. At least, I got a surprising number of responses from people who want to try them. If you want to use them, that's fine with me. If you don't want to use them, that's also fine with me. I am not trying to advocate or sell anything here. What this has to do with Cells or dataflow programming is beyond me. Pascal -- My website: http://p-cos.net Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
From: Kenneth Tilton on 10 Dec 2009 07:58 Nicolas Neuss wrote: > Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> > writes: > >> On 2009-12-09 10:54:58 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> said: >> >>> My OED still has just "resentful disparagement of something one cannot >>> personnally acquire". >> And, for the 5th time now, that which you, ken tilton, cannot personally >> acquire is acceptance of *your* library, cells, as a publication quality, >> well documented, extension to clos. >> >> So when Pascal C. announces the release of a publication quality, well >> documented, extension to clos, you disparage it as a "stupid clos trick," >> i.e., being the author of an extension to clos is something not worth >> having. >> >> This is sour grapes - you disparage something you can't have - >> acceptance of your clos extension by the lisp community - as something not >> worth having. > > I don't think that that you are wrong, but please note: > > 1. In contrast to Kenny Tilton, Pascal Costanza is (as an academic, > arguably) paid for providing high-quality and well-documented code. > Thus, IMO this comparison is very unfair. Thanks to Ken for > providing Cells! > > 2. You omit that Ken may have a valid point in his rant. Although I > like CLOS very much, I am in doubt if it would not be more profitable > for me to learn using dataflow programming correctly (maybe even with > Cells) compared with learning yet another CLOS enhancement. > Yes, OO and CLOS in particular are excellent tools to have lying about but not magic bullets like dataflow so give the latter a try, whether it be with Cells or one of the many alternatives out there or one you write yourself. Dataflow's a blast. It even makes OO better, by delivering on the promise of reuse. I happen to be playing these days with some software I use to run the comedy open mic mentioned in my sig and am reminded again how much damn fun is programming this way. The declarative thing utterly rocks. Speaking of which, this guy is the latest to "discover" dataflow: http://coherence-lang.org/Onward09.pdf On a blog somewhere he whines about the cold reception that paper got and quoted one of the peer reviewers as saying something to the effect that manually managing the dataflow is not all that hard and "programmers do it every day". The funny thing being the unspoken questions: at what cost in time and drudgery, and how reliably? Suddenly this reviewer is living in a universe where software development is going just great. But I understand the reviewer's problem. Programmers have indeed always managed dataflow manually and, never having programmed using dataflow (as is clearly the case with this reviewer), they have no idea how much of their work goes into manual dataflow management. kt -- http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf
From: Pascal Costanza on 10 Dec 2009 10:01
On 10/12/2009 13:58, Kenneth Tilton wrote: > Nicolas Neuss wrote: >> Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> >> writes: >> >>> On 2009-12-09 10:54:58 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> said: >>> >>>> My OED still has just "resentful disparagement of something one cannot >>>> personnally acquire". >>> And, for the 5th time now, that which you, ken tilton, cannot personally >>> acquire is acceptance of *your* library, cells, as a publication >>> quality, >>> well documented, extension to clos. >>> >>> So when Pascal C. announces the release of a publication quality, well >>> documented, extension to clos, you disparage it as a "stupid clos >>> trick," >>> i.e., being the author of an extension to clos is something not worth >>> having. >>> >>> This is sour grapes - you disparage something you can't have - >>> acceptance of your clos extension by the lisp community - as >>> something not >>> worth having. >> >> I don't think that that you are wrong, but please note: >> >> 1. In contrast to Kenny Tilton, Pascal Costanza is (as an academic, >> arguably) paid for providing high-quality and well-documented code. >> Thus, IMO this comparison is very unfair. Thanks to Ken for >> providing Cells! >> >> 2. You omit that Ken may have a valid point in his rant. Although I >> like CLOS very much, I am in doubt if it would not be more profitable >> for me to learn using dataflow programming correctly (maybe even with >> Cells) compared with learning yet another CLOS enhancement. >> > > Yes, OO and CLOS in particular are excellent tools to have lying about > but not magic bullets like dataflow so give the latter a try, whether it > be with Cells or one of the many alternatives out there or one you write > yourself. > > Dataflow's a blast. It even makes OO better, by delivering on the > promise of reuse. I happen to be playing these days with some software I > use to run the comedy open mic mentioned in my sig and am reminded again > how much damn fun is programming this way. The declarative thing utterly > rocks. Speaking of which, this guy is the latest to "discover" dataflow: > > http://coherence-lang.org/Onward09.pdf > > On a blog somewhere he whines about the cold reception that paper got > and quoted one of the peer reviewers as saying something to the effect > that manually managing the dataflow is not all that hard and > "programmers do it every day". The funny thing being the unspoken > questions: at what cost in time and drudgery, and how reliably? Suddenly > this reviewer is living in a universe where software development is > going just great. > > But I understand the reviewer's problem. Programmers have indeed always > managed dataflow manually and, never having programmed using dataflow > (as is clearly the case with this reviewer), they have no idea how much > of their work goes into manual dataflow management. > > kt Note how Kenny posts a whole article about dataflow programming under a subject about filtered functions, while he could have opened a new thread as well. Pascal -- My website: http://p-cos.net Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/ |