Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta,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!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!demon!wildcard.demon.co.uk!cyber_surfer
Subject: Re: Comparison: Beta - Lisp
References: <34pfea$6ee@belfort.daimi.aau.dk> <354q47$60i@belfort.daimi.aau.dk> <MAFM.94Sep16133030@wambenger.cs.uwa.edu.au> <CwFqwr.IK2@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: 67
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 14:01:06 +0000
Message-ID: <780156066snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.beta:102 comp.lang.lisp:14783

In article <CwFqwr.IK2@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk "Jeff Dalton" writes:

> I hope we don't add a misleading "Lisp advocate" stereotype
> to the already misleading "Lisp" stereotype.

Is that a reference to the thread about a newsgroup for Lisp advocacy?
I'm not sure, but this looks like you've misunderstood the issue,
which was about the need, or not, for a comp.lang.lisp.advocacy
newsgroup, and not the nature and/or worth of Lisp advocacy, which
is another matter. My point was merely that at the moment, there's
no choice, except to add such advocacy threads to a killfile, which
is not ideal.

I hope I've misunderstood your comment, in which case I apologise.
However, I'm not aware of any stereotype being the problem. Perhaps
you're refering to some other thread, perhaps in another newsgroup,
but I don't know. So I'll just add that _my_ thread (the one I started)
was about the location of such advocacy threads, bot about their
worth. I'd like to have a choice about what I read, which is a purely
personal thing.

It just happens that we see these threads in comp.lang.lisp, and I'm
not aware of a Lisp newsgroup that might cover the same subjects but
without the advocacy threads. If you can suggest one, then I'll happily
leave comp.lang.lisp and go and read it.

Meanwhile, I've been enjoying this particular thread, as I felt it
had some interesting things to say about implementation and design
of languages. I hadn't thought of it in the same way as "C vs Lisp"
threads. Should I?

As I said above, if I've misunderstood your comment, then I'm sorry.
I wish well with your Lisp advocacy, whether I read it or not. If
I've ever suggested or implied that you _shouldn't_ advocate Lisp,
then I'm sorry for that, too. It could only have been because of
an misunderstanding. I've seen some extreme advocacy of Pascal
vs C, and itwas ugly. That rather colours my feelings! I didn't
mean to imply that you were included in that group of advocates,
as I've always found your posts worth reading.

The comp.lang.visual newsgroup is in need of another kind of advocacy,
simply because so many users of VB and VC++ have yet to discover the
wider world of "visual" programming that Microsoft have yet to support.
That goes way beyond "X vs Y" debates, and into the power of marketing
over the power (or lack of it) of other media, such as UseNet. You
can read the comp.lang.visual FAQ for the details, if you want to
know more about that problem. It'll explain why some people believe
that c.l.v should become a moderated newsgroup.

I'm glad that Lisp hasn't reached that point, and I hope that it
never will. After all, the name Lisp still refers to Lisp, and not
a Microsoft product that looks nothing like Lisp. Ouch.

Well, ok. That's my c.l.v advocacy over with for today. ;-)

> (I have seen Lisp code that looked like FORTRAN, BTW.  Imagine
> lots of PROGs and GOs.  But not for many years.)

Yeah, me too. I used to write Basic code like that. Then I switched
to Forth, and never used an exlicit GOTO again. Now I just write
compilers and macros that can do it for me. ;-)

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
