Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Lisp advocacy (Was Re: another take on "C is faster than lisp")
Message-ID: <Cwsz39.F8C@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <779659921snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk> <CwFvtH.LAt@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <780157281snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 19:21:09 GMT
Lines: 79

In article <780157281snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk> cyber_surfer@wildcard.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article <CwFvtH.LAt@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk "Jeff Dalton" writes:
>
>> >Is that a justification of endless "X vs Y" debates? 
>> 
>> No, it's just a reply to one point against such debates.
>
>Ok, that's fine with me. I'm more concerned about _where_ these
>debates might take place.

>[...]

>I'm someone who doesn't need convincing. That's why I question
>the need for advocacy in comp.lang.lisp. It would be possible
>to redirect people to the comp.lang.lisp.advocacy newsgroup, if
>it existed.

It's true (I think) that I haven't said explicitly what (if anything)
I have against an advocacy group.

In part, I don't like the name.  It sounds like a place for people
who want to convince the skeptical that Lisp is great, and I don't
see much demand for that.  I'm not sure who the Lisp advocates would
be or indeed whether calling someone an advocate in this sense is
a positive remark.

Moreover, the name suggests that advocating Lisp -- but not
attacking it -- is out of bounds for Comp.lang.lisp.  That's 
why I suggested (but not seriously) comp.lang.lisp.flames or
alt.lang.lisp.sucks.sucks.sucks as alternatives.

>> My understanding of "religious wars" was that they involved
>> opinions presented as facts.
>
>Exactly. People who join them usually have already decided what
>to believe, and refuse to change. Have you seen any advocate
>threads involving comp.lang.lisp which include such religious
>arguments? 

Probably.  But the recent debates have not been particularly
religious, to my mind.  (Comp.lang.scheme may currently be
experienceing something religious, though.)

>I've seen a few in the last two years that suggested
>that to me. I don't see any point in me joining such debates,
>as I don't believe that such people will ever change their view,
>or realise that their view makes no difference to many of us.

I think it's useful to discover that people have such views
and what they base them on and to show that other views are
possible and can be based on "good reasons".  But I suspect
a newsgroup for debarting Lisp will be read only by people
who want to fight it out and not by people who just want
to learn something.

>> In any case, I have little interest in arguing whether Lisp is
>> better or worse than something else.  I do have some interest
>> in people reaching conclusions about Lisp (and about particular
>> Lisp-family languages and implementations) for good reasons
>> rather than bad ones.  But a good reason could be something
>> like "I can program well in C and I know it will be suffficiently
>> efficient" (if, of course, C really can be suffficiently efficient).
>
>You have yet to explain why such threads should be in comp.lang.lisp
>and not comp.lang.lisp.advocacy, if it existed. I don't disagree
>with you, I merely feel that an advocacy newsgroup would leave
>comp.lang.lisp newsgroup free of such debates. You could read and
>participate in both newsgroups, while I would only use this one.

I don't have much interest in advocating Lisp, and I don't
think what I've been doing *is* advocating Lisp.  But perhaps
I don't really understand what you mean by "advocacy".

In any case, comp.lang.lisp.advocacy sounds like a group I
would want to avoid, especially if it's a dumping ground
for religious discussions (which some of what you've said
might imply).

-- jeff
