Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!ludemann
From: ludemann@netcom.com (Peter Ludemann)
Subject: Re: Why is Lisp inactive compared to Perl et al?
Message-ID: <ludemannD8DoCz.Kqx@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <20030.larso171@maroon.tc.umn.edu> <19950506T105623Z.enag@naggum.no> <1995May8.235404.23513@netlabs.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 19:48:35 GMT
Lines: 13
Sender: ludemann@netcom9.netcom.com

In article <1995May8.235404.23513@netlabs.com>,
Larry Wall <lwall@netlabs.com> wrote:
>You've inadvertently hit the nail on the head.  Most ordinary folks feel
>that abstraction just gets in the way of their getting practical work done.

Yeah.  Right now I'm cleaning up the mess left by a programmer who
thought that abstraction just gets in the way.  The attitude of "most
ordinary folks" is a great way of creating a lot of work.

Reminds me of what somebody told me when I mentioned proving programs
correct: "I don't want my programs to be correct; I just want them to work."
-- 
Peter Ludemann                      ludemann@netcom.com
