Comments on: Yegge Doesn’t Like Lisp http://curiousprogrammer.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/yegge-doesnt-like-lisp/ Leveraging Perl and Emacs Tue, 07 May 2013 11:25:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Richard http://curiousprogrammer.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/yegge-doesnt-like-lisp/#comment-9157 Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:16:00 +0000 http://curiousprogrammer.wordpress.com/?p=1202#comment-9157 @joe-random
This is old hat by now, but all Seibel did was post a single two-sentence comment which was basically the equivalent of “why did you write all that about a thing you don’t like? oh right, because you think you know better (you don’t, heh).”

His comment in full:
“I was trying to figure out why on earth you spent so much time writing about something that you apparently don’t like. Then it hit me: HCGS. So thanks for your help.” -Peter

Seibel pretty much came out looking like a sad douche who thinks his shit doesn’t stink. Costanza on the other hand, actually engaged Yegge like an adult.

]]> By: Jared http://curiousprogrammer.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/yegge-doesnt-like-lisp/#comment-8251 Tue, 03 Aug 2010 19:57:30 +0000 http://curiousprogrammer.wordpress.com/?p=1202#comment-8251 @joe-random – comments are probably the reason why some of these a-listers are valuable. They provide better content than the main article.

And I used his js2 mode briefly. I wasn’t that impressed: due to his view that indenting was too hard too implement, it was painful to use, *and* it locked up from time to time. It’s nice to see someone using emacs lisp as a proper language though, to implement something like a parser.

@Anonymous -

    ”Reframe it so you don’t repeat the frame.”

You’re right, I should have said that Ruby is merely an inferior version of Perl ;) I kid, I kid, ruby-lovers (although to be honest I don’t really know Ruby well enough to say that, and I don’t really care *that* much)

    ”Can you figure out a way to say this such that the two concepts are not truly connected?”

Other than saying “Ruby is a slow, heteroiconic 90s language without macros”, not off the top of my head I’m afraid…

For Perl, I don’t think that saying it is alive or dead helps or hinders. The guys making the decisions on whether or not to use it for new projects aren’t reading our blogs.

And I hadn’t even thought of Tcl for ages, but yes. It is much closer to Lisp than Ruby. I guess it is as close as you can get without sexprs.

]]> By: Anonymous http://curiousprogrammer.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/yegge-doesnt-like-lisp/#comment-8250 Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:53:19 +0000 http://curiousprogrammer.wordpress.com/?p=1202#comment-8250 Reframe it so you don’t repeat the frame.

Ruby is not LISP or Ruby is LISP or Ruby is a LISP or Ruby is not a LISP re-enforces the that idea that Ruby is related to LISP based on “Acceptable lisp”.

Can you figure out a way to say this such that the two concepts are not truly connected?

The perl community had a similar problem, people said perl was dead (far from it) and then others responded to say perl was not dead. This did the same thing. Perl is alive is related but doesn’t restate the frame of perl is dead. I prefer PERL LIVES in a Frankenstien monster sense because that makes perfect perl sense.

TCL is closer to an acceptable lisp than ruby is. Ruby is incapable of LISP?

What do you think.

]]> By: (setq joe-random t) http://curiousprogrammer.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/yegge-doesnt-like-lisp/#comment-8249 Tue, 03 Aug 2010 07:46:03 +0000 http://curiousprogrammer.wordpress.com/?p=1202#comment-8249 You said it my man.
The comment thread in yegge’s piece is also quite instructive. Seibel and Costanza and others tried to illuminate him (to what avail? Who knows, but he did proceed to write his js2 thingie in elisp, so maybe it worked).
And enough of this madness with the “I want to be lisp when I grow up” languages…

]]>