another frustrating learner question, CLOS
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Anybody mind to translate this Felleisen quote from German to English
Next: Macros and anonymous functions
From: ccc31807 on 26 Feb 2010 15:06 On Feb 26, 12:04 pm, Tamas K Papp <tkp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It is a coherent and well-reasoned (if emotional) piece of writing > about an important issue. You may not agree with its conclusion, but > calling it non-sensical just because you don't appear to understand it > is certainly not justified. I read it twice, read the replies, and scanned some of the other posts in the thread. My understanding of what he said was that there is One True Religion, Lisp, one Anti-Christ, Perl, and a whole bunch of paganisms. Yes, each part was coherent and well reasoned. Yes, the issue is probably important. I actually agreed with much of it. However, it seemed to me AS A WHOLE to be unreasoned and incoherent. But maybe you can help me -- what was the 'important issue' he addressed? CC
From: Tamas K Papp on 26 Feb 2010 15:41 On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:06:39 -0800, ccc31807 wrote: > On Feb 26, 12:04 pm, Tamas K Papp <tkp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> It is a coherent and well-reasoned (if emotional) piece of writing >> about an important issue. You may not agree with its conclusion, but >> calling it non-sensical just because you don't appear to understand it >> is certainly not justified. > > I read it twice, read the replies, and scanned some of the other posts > in the thread. > > My understanding of what he said was that there is One True Religion, > Lisp, one Anti-Christ, Perl, and a whole bunch of paganisms. He makes no such statements. I wonder if we are reading the same text? I am talking about Erik Naggum's post [1]. Below, I will assume that you are, too, even though this seems unlikely considering the things you write. [1] http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/fc76ebab1cb2f863 > Yes, each part was coherent and well reasoned. Yes, the issue is > probably important. I actually agreed with much of it. > > However, it seemed to me AS A WHOLE to be unreasoned and incoherent. But I don't really understand you. This is a very short article, so distinguishing "parts" from the "whole" is quite pointless. I don't see how you can claim, at the same time, that "each part was coherent and well reasoned" and "AS A WHOLE to be unreasoned and incoherent". You propose no arguments to support the latter claim. > maybe you can help me -- what was the 'important issue' he addressed? For me, the most important point is how Perl rewards quick & dirty solutions, but this is more costly in the long run and encourages bad habits. Again, you may disagree with this, but dismissing the article as meaningless, unreasoned and incoherent is, in my opinion, unjustified. Tamas
From: Zach Beane on 26 Feb 2010 15:43 ccc31807 <cartercc(a)gmail.com> writes: > My understanding of what he said was that there is One True Religion, > Lisp, one Anti-Christ, Perl, and a whole bunch of paganisms. Ascribing religious motivation to a technical discussion is about as helpful as blaming gods for computer problems. Zach
From: ccc31807 on 26 Feb 2010 17:36 On Feb 26, 3:43 pm, Zach Beane <x...(a)xach.com> wrote: > Ascribing religious motivation to a technical discussion is about as > helpful as blaming gods for computer problems. Hey, it's called sarcasm, and it's intended to poke fun. I don't really blame the gods for computer problems, and I don't say that Naggum was really arguing about religion. In part, what I was saying is that the error I got and the seemingly miraculous recovery seemed as supernatural and other-worldly as some religious mystery, and that Naggum was presenting something as subjective and emotional as some religious evangelism. CC.
From: Futu Ranon on 26 Feb 2010 17:54
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:36:26 -0500, ccc31807 <cartercc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 3:43 pm, Zach Beane <x...(a)xach.com> wrote: >> Ascribing religious motivation to a technical discussion is about as >> helpful as blaming gods for computer problems. > > Hey, it's called sarcasm, and it's intended to poke fun. > > I don't really blame the gods for computer problems, and I don't say > that Naggum was really arguing about religion. In part, what I was > saying is that the error I got and the seemingly miraculous recovery > seemed as supernatural and other-worldly as some religious mystery, > and that Naggum was presenting something as subjective and emotional > as some religious evangelism. Are you calling the topic of discussion or Erik's presentation subjective and emotional? > > CC. |