Raffy's Karma [was Re: [ANN] Filtered functions]
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: NY Times
Next: complex symmetric matrices
From: Nicolas Neuss on 10 Dec 2009 10:19 Pascal Costanza <pc(a)p-cos.net> writes: > 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. Please note: I am no idiot and noticed that myself. > 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. Yes, thank you very much also for your many contributions as CloserMOP, ContextL and filtered functions. I have noted those, and hope to remember them when I need it. > What this has to do with Cells or dataflow programming is beyond me. Please note, that it was not me who started to compare Kenny Tilton's with your contributions. You should have replied in this sense immediately to Raffael. Nicolas
From: Pascal Costanza on 10 Dec 2009 11:02 On 10/12/2009 16:19, Nicolas Neuss wrote: > Pascal Costanza<pc(a)p-cos.net> writes: > >> 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. > > Please note: I am no idiot and noticed that myself. It wasn't obvious from your posting that you noticed this yourself. It gave a different appearance. (Of course, I _don't_ think you're an idiot, and I am sorry if my post suggested otherwise.) >> What this has to do with Cells or dataflow programming is beyond me. > > Please note, that it was not me who started to compare Kenny Tilton's > with your contributions. You should have replied in this sense > immediately to Raffael. It wasn't Raffael either, it was actually Kenny who started this kind of nonsensical comparison (once again). Both Raffael and I replied in this sense to Kenny. It's Kenny who cannot deal with the consequences of his inappropriate postings. (Raffael actually didn't only avoid to create a competition between dataflow programming and filtered functions, but even tried to point out a potential synergy between the two.) 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 11:05 Pascal Costanza wrote: > 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. Note that I changed the subject to Raffy's Karma. Damn, all those degrees and you can't read? Did you go to an American school? kt
From: Kenneth Tilton on 10 Dec 2009 11:38 Pascal Costanza wrote: > It's Kenny who cannot deal with the consequences of his > inappropriate postings. <sob> Yes, I am tormented by having caused a Usenet thread to branch, <sniffle><honk> by having made a comparison. <sob> I haven't had this much fun in a while on c.l.l, tho I must say it is getting a little old not getting any support on the cleverness side from my antagonists. Where's that famous Italian sense of humor?
From: Ron Garret on 10 Dec 2009 12:38
In article <4b20f062$0$4987$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dataflow's a blast. It even makes OO better, by delivering on the > promise of reuse. If that were true it would be a major breakthrough. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? rg |