Who were the opponents of Lisp?
in [Lisp]
|
From: His kennyness on 9 Apr 2010 19:07 Peter Keller wrote: > Xah Lee <xahlee(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> These motherfucking idiotic scumbags. > > It is really tragic that the knowledge you are able to contribute to > humanity is diluted by your vitriol. > > People are not going to remember you for the things you did. > > They are going to remember you for the things you said. Yep, him and John Lennon. And I do not think you have seen how long is Xah's hair. kt
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 10 Apr 2010 06:10 m_mommer(a)yahoo.com (Mario S. Mommer) writes: > Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> writes: >> On 2010-04-09 06:16:49 +0100, Vassil Nikolov said: >> >>> I think it is a rather interesting question whether and how >>> mathematical notation will evolve in a different direction now >>> "under the pressure" of keyboard use. >> >> So do I. I suspect it won't because there are other reasons why >> people handwrite maths, but I may well be wrong. > > In my experience, writing directly to TeX or anything similar is asking > for trouble unless you are doing simple things. The source is not all > that readable, and the hardcopy looks too good. The result is that you > do not see the mistakes and the holes in the arguments. Taking a draft > on paper and cleaning it up by copying the non-strike-out to new a paper > draft is the only really good way to make sure you are really really > really going over every detail again. > > When I write maths, I do it on paper. When it is ready, I write it in > LaTeX, and that draft is already pretty close to the final product. > > Restructuring a decently sized latex document through copy and paste is > problematic, because there is no compiler (nor will there ever be) to > tell you that the semantics do not fit any longer. What about if you merged LaTeX with an automatic proof checker? -- __Pascal Bourguignon__
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 10 Apr 2010 06:37 Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche(a)math.ntnu.no> writes: > + His kennyness <kentilton(a)gmail.com>: > >> Aha! jsMath!! You just changed my life. > > Then take a look at its successor-to-be: http://www.mathjax.org/ Yes, that's the problem with all these "nice" "intuitive" GUI tools: they always have a successor, so you are always switching and learning a new one. Those who are not left with much time prefer to stick with efficient stable tools, such as emacs or lisp which have been basically the same for 30 years, so that we can concentrate on _our_ work, not on the job of making another software enterpreneur rich or flattered. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__
From: His kennyness on 10 Apr 2010 07:18 Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: > Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche(a)math.ntnu.no> writes: > >> + His kennyness <kentilton(a)gmail.com>: >> >>> Aha! jsMath!! You just changed my life. >> Then take a look at its successor-to-be: http://www.mathjax.org/ > > Yes, that's the problem with all these "nice" "intuitive" GUI tools: > they always have a successor, so you are always switching and learning a > new one. Go back to bed. We'll wake you when the world is perfect. > > Those who are not left with much time prefer to stick with efficient > stable tools, such as emacs or lisp which have been basically the same > for 30 years, so that we can concentrate on _our_ work, not on the job > of making another software enterpreneur rich or flattered. > I gather you are not concentrating on doing math on the Web. kt
From: Mario S. Mommer on 10 Apr 2010 08:53
pjb(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes: > m_mommer(a)yahoo.com (Mario S. Mommer) writes: >> Restructuring a decently sized latex document through copy and paste is >> problematic, because there is no compiler (nor will there ever be) to >> tell you that the semantics do not fit any longer. > > What about if you merged LaTeX with an automatic proof checker? That would have to be one hell of a proof checker! It would have to understand natural language, and know what can be "safely assumed" as being implicit, given the audience. It has to be that way because a maths paper written like a formal spec of something is not going far, because of its intrinsic wetware incompatibility. The referees will absolutely hate you for it. And then you get the "way too technical" rejection. Which is a good thing, because if such a paper were accepted, nobody would read it. In short, that automatic proof checker has to be a really damn good AI, of the type Lisp was originally concieved to make happen. I mean, I'm all for such a program, but I'm a tiny bit skeptical :-) |