Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
From: cyber_surfer@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Cyber Surfer)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!uhog.mit.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gatech!swrinde!pipex!demon!wildcard.demon.co.uk!cyber_surfer
Subject: Re: Lisp advocacy
References: <778584011snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk> <778955109snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk> <34n1kp$56d@news.doit.wisc.edu> <Cvx5EL.MsA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: The Wildcard Killer Butterfly Breeding Ground
Reply-To: cyber_surfer@wildcard.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 55
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 10:47:31 +0000
Message-ID: <779280451snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article <Cvx5EL.MsA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk "Jeff Dalton" writes:

> What complaints?  I don't complain about Lisp's "lack of
> popularity", and I've posted most of the "pro-Lisp" messages.

I didn't mean you. ;-) There are plenty of others, even Lisp programmers,
who don't seem to be happy. However, that's rather different from the
real "lisp bashing" that I'd like prefer an advocacy newsgroup for.

> So far as I'm concerned, BTW, there are perfectly good reasons to
> prefer C to Lisp and this whole discussion has nothing to do with
> whether Lisp is better than C or vice versa (for such comparisons
> make little sense).

Exactly. It isn't about that. It's about where to debate something
that will never be "settled". I wouldn't mind if anyone had anything
new or interesting (in my opinion (-; ) to say about it, but it
always seems to be the same.
 
> Some people either have mistaken ideas about Lisp or else post
> articles that will reinforce mistaken ideas.  I think it's
> entirely reasonable to want comp.lang.lisp, at least, to
> contain the truth about Lisp.

I agree, but where should the advocacy msgs go? Since this advocacy
will never end, is it really constructive? My reason for using Lisp
is simply that I can. I often get the feeling from reading these
advocacy threads that other people do the same. They just prefer to
justify it, and feel a need to _tell_me_ (or people who might disagree
with them) about it. If that's so, then they've missed the point.
 
> If you want a new newsgroup, have it be comp.lang.lisp.flames
> or alt.lang.lisp.sucks.sucks.sucks in which those who think it's
> really important to let everyone know how bad they think "Lisp"
> is for various applications can post whatever they like.

Why do they then post in comp.lang.lisp? Why are there advocacy
newsgroups for OS/2 and NT etc? I don't know, but I guess it could
be coz a positively named newsgroups is more attractive. I've no
wish to read negative msgs about Lisp, unless there's a damn good
point, and I call "Lisp bashing" pretty damn negative. Since I'm
looking for a newsgroup for constructive threads about Lisp, why
shouldn't I look at in a positive way, and ask for an advocacy
newsgroup? Anyway, the important thing, for me at least, would be
to take the "Lisp bashing" threads out of comp.lang.lisp.

Constructive criticism of Lisp is another matter. ;-) I just don't
get that impression from threads in which Lisp is being bashed by
C programmers who don't use Lisp.

Martin Rodgers
-- 
Future generations are relying on us
It's a world we've made - Incubus	
We're living on a knife edge, looking for the ground -- Hawkwind
