From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 01:05:30 +0100 From: Eris Discordia To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [9fans] nice quote Topicbox-Message-UUID: 65c01870-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 >> I forgot this: Graham basically accuses programmers who don't find LISP >> as attractive (or powerful, as he puts it) as he does of living on >> lower planes of existence from which the "heavens above" of functional >> (or only LISP) programming seem incomprehensible. He writes/speaks >> persuasively, he's a successful businessman, but is he also an honest >> debater? > > and here i don't see an argument at all. I was trying to say the same thing about Paul Graham's view of people who don't like, or "grok," LISP. That he doesn't argue the point--he presents it as a fact. > i'd love to argue this factually, but my knowledge isn't > that extensive. i think you'll find in the wiki entry for > Computer that much of what we take for granted today > was not obvious at the time. stored program computers > with branching didn't come along until about 1948 > (einiac). i hope someone will fill in the gaps here. > i think it's worth appreciating how great these early > discoveries were. I agree with your point about non-triviality of much about computers that's taken for trivial today. However, I happened to have consulted this book couple of years ago: (This is Google Books search inside the book with the term "conditional branching.") I wasn't, in this case at least, implying something not backed by firm evidence. Conditional branching embodied in actual computers goes back to Plankalkuel on Z3. The idea is as early as Babbage. It comes as natural even to first-timers, following much more difficult conception of a notion of control flow, that there must be a manner of conditionally passing it around. --On Saturday, September 05, 2009 14:26 -0400 erik quanstrom wrote: > i'm not a lisp fan. but it's discouraging to see > such lack of substance as the following (collected > from a few posts): > >> Oh, yay, a Xah Lee quote, he's surely a trusted source on all things >> Lisp. Didja read his page about hiring a prostitute in Las Vegas? Or >> the one about how he lives in a car in the Bay Area because he's too >> crazy to get hired? > > surely an ad hominum attack like this neither furthers an > argument nor informs anyone. > >> I forgot this: Graham basically accuses programmers who don't find LISP >> as attractive (or powerful, as he puts it) as he does of living on >> lower planes of existence from which the "heavens above" of functional >> (or only LISP) programming seem incomprehensible. He writes/speaks >> persuasively, he's a successful businessman, but is he also an honest >> debater? > > and here i don't see an argument at all. > >> I just read in Wikipedia that, "Lisp's original conditional operator, >> cond, is the precursor to later if-then-else structures," without any >> citations. Assuming that to be true conditional branching is a >> fundamental element of control flow and it has existed in machine >> languages ever since early days. There's really very little to brag >> about it. > > i'd love to argue this factually, but my knowledge isn't > that extensive. i think you'll find in the wiki entry for > Computer that much of what we take for granted today > was not obvious at the time. stored program computers > with branching didn't come along until about 1948 > (einiac). i hope someone will fill in the gaps here. > i think it's worth appreciating how great these early > discoveries were. > > in the same vein, i don't know anything much about file > systems that i didn't steal from ken thompson. > > - erik >