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!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!demon!wildcard.demon.co.uk!cyber_surfer
Subject: Re: Lisp advocacy (Was Re: another take on "C is faster than lisp")
References: <779659921snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk> <CwFvtH.LAt@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <780157281snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk> <Cwsz39.F8C@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: 80
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 21:18:36 +0000
Message-ID: <780787116snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article <Cwsz39.F8C@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk "Jeff Dalton" writes:

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

Well, I only suggested that name in order to be consistant with
the other advocacy newsgroups. It's only a suggestion.
 
> 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.

I don't know wither, and I don't care. If anyone wants to "advocate"
a language, in the sense that OS/2, Windows, Unix etc are "advocated",
then perhaps they should have such a newsgroup, but you'd have to
look in those newsgroups to see why.

> 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.

Ahh, now I see! Yes, such names would attract the "Lisp-haters".
I just wonder why OS/2, Windows, Unix etc don't also have groups
with names like that? Perhaps because we don't need such names
to attract those kinds of people? I dunno.

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

That's suhjective. I've seen some non-religious threads recently,
but I can easily think back a few months, and recall threads that
left me with some doubt. The TCL/Perl/etc thread was one example
that immediately springs to mind. I didn't find anything positive
or constructive in there.

> 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.

I have no problem with that, as I find that people with open
minds are no problem. Do we see Lisp people trying to "convert"
C/C++ programmers? I'm not sure. However, everytime I mention
that I programme in Lisp, I'm asked (and expected to try) to
justify my choice. As I've said, my answer is very short:

      "Because I _can_."

That argument is always very short, as they have to prove that
I _can't_ use Lisp, which is pretty tough! I don't have to prove
that Lisp meets their "standards", only mine. Naturally, they
don't understand what I'm talking about...

> 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".

Ok, here's one definition: any comparison of two or more languages,
and esp one that tries to show that one is superior to the others.
I may be interested in a comparison of features, strengths and
weaknesses, but when I sense something less constructive, that's
when I lose interest. Life is too short to try to meet someone
else's standards, esp if there's no material gain.

> 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).

Exactly. We'd both like to avoid it. That sounds like a great
reason for it to exist. There's an obvious demand for it. :-)

-- 
http://cyber.sfgate.com/examiner/people/surfer.html
