Newsgroups: alt.lang.design,comp.lang.lisp
From: cyber_surfer@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Cyber Surfer)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!hudson.lm.com!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!demon!wildcard.demon.co.uk!cyber_surfer
Subject: Re: C++ vs Lisp flamewar considered unconstructive (Was: Re: Comparing productivity)
References: <19941231.180912.425222.NETNEWS@UICVM.UIC.EDU> <D1r5zA.K4D@world.std.com>
Organization: The Wildcard Killer Butterfly Breeding Ground
Reply-To: cyber_surfer@wildcard.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 58
X-Posting-Host: wildcard.demon.co.uk
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 20:16:36 +0000
Message-ID: <789164196snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

I missed your post, as I recently added comp.lang.c++ to my killfile.
I'm guessing, from the subject, that you don't consider this C++
vs Lisp thread to be constructive. I agree with you, but I've made
that point myself, the last time this happened. I've noticed that
this is a regular event, and a pretty boring one - for me, at least.

I suggested a comp.lang.lisp.advocacy newsgroup, so that newsgroup
might attract that kind of thread. Sadly, it wasn't a popular idea.
So, here we are again. <sigh> I don't believe that this will ever
change. There are people like Jeff Dalton who can effectively
debate in favour of Lisp, and without demonstrating the lack of
compiler theory that some C++ programmers show. Altho I don't want
to criticise his efforts, I don't feel that they help at all.

This problem, in my humble opinion, has little to do with Lisp.
It has far more to do with a desire that some individuals have
to prove that their choice of tools are superior to the tools
chosen by others. I first noticed this as rivalry between users
of machines with Z-80 an and 6502 CPUs in them, and I eventually
began to suspect that the arguments in favour of each CPU had
nothing to do with their choice of machine. It was the other way
around! Could it be the same with programming languages?

I don't know. How many C++ programmers can choose the language they
use? I only know that I can choose mine. If I choose to use Lisp,
then it's because _I can_. I'll give no other reason! I don't see
why any other reason is needed, for me. I use it coz I can.

Even if there are performance differences, so what? I once had to
use a (native code) Pascal compiler that produced slower code than
a C compiler for the same machine, but that didn't suggest to me
that one language was faster than the other. These were compiler
differences, and in this case, only relevant to programs that made
a lot of procedure/function calls.

I'm still relatively new to Lisp, and I have more experience with
C. However, that simply encourages me to write a Lisp compiler that
can produce C code as good as I can write myself. Since I write
my C code in "cliches", this shouldn't be hard. It's one of the
many reasons why Lisp began to interest me in the mid-80s.

So, I'm content to use Lisp. If a minority of C++ programmers can't
accept that, then I'm happy to keep comp.lang.c++ in my killfile. I
won't miss their posts, as I only ever see the  anti Lisp, pro C++
posts. Also, when I see posts from C/C++ programmers who appear to
know less about computer science and compiler theory than I do (which
is not as much as most people in comp.lang.lisp), then I worry. These
people could be writing apps that I'll use, and I'd hope they can
do a better job of it than I could.

Curiously, it's the Lisp people who give me more confidence in their
code. Of course, that's purely based on what I read on UseNet. I
don't know enough programmers (in "real life") in either camp in order
to make fair comparisons.
-- 
CommUnity: http://www.demon.co.uk/community/index.html
CommUnity: ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/archives/community
Me: http://cyber.sfgate.com/examiner/people/surfer.html
