Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #206560 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-03-25 05:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2019-03-30 12:20 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 118 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
text editors mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-03-25 05:40 +0100
Re: text editors Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-25 06:00 +0100
Re: text editors Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2019-03-25 06:10 +0100
Re: text editors Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-03-25 06:40 +0100
Re: text editors mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-03-25 09:00 +0100
Re: text editors Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-03-25 11:20 +0100
Re: text editors mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-03-25 11:40 +0100
Re: text editors Dan Hitt <dan.hitt@gmail.com> - 2019-03-25 07:00 +0100
Re: text editors john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2019-03-25 07:40 +0100
Re: text editors <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-03-25 12:10 +0100
Re: text editors rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-03-25 12:50 +0100
Re: text editors rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-03-25 13:10 +0100
Re: text editors Étienne Mollier <etienne.mollier@mailoo.org> - 2019-03-25 21:20 +0100
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-25 22:10 +0100
Re: text editors Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2019-03-25 13:30 +0100
Re: text editors mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-03-26 08:40 +0100
Re: text editors Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2019-03-26 16:50 +0100
Re: text editors John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-03-26 18:00 +0100
Re: text editors Håkon Alstadheim <hakon@alstadheim.priv.no> - 2019-03-26 21:20 +0100
Re: text editors Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-03-27 03:30 +0100
Re: text editors rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-03-27 13:10 +0100
Re: text editors <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-03-27 14:30 +0100
Re: text editors John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-03-27 15:10 +0100
Re: text editors <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-03-27 15:40 +0100
Re: text editors rlharris@oplink.net - 2019-03-27 17:30 +0100
Re: text editors rlharris@oplink.net - 2019-03-28 18:40 +0100
keyboard macros (was: Re: text editors) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-03-28 19:00 +0100
Re: keyboard macros John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-03-28 19:30 +0100
Re: keyboard macros Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-28 20:00 +0100
Re: keyboard macros rlharris@oplink.net - 2019-03-28 19:50 +0100
Re: keyboard macros John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-03-28 20:10 +0100
xfce launchers rlharris@oplink.net - 2019-04-03 18:40 +0200
Re: xfce launchers Mike Kupfer <mkupfer@alum.berkeley.edu> - 2019-04-04 07:20 +0200
Re: xfce launchers rlharris@oplink.net - 2019-04-04 07:40 +0200
Re: text editors Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-03-29 06:20 +0100
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-28 03:40 +0100
Re: text editors John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-03-28 03:50 +0100
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-28 08:00 +0100
Re: text editors <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-03-28 09:20 +0100
Re: text editors <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-03-28 10:40 +0100
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-28 21:10 +0100
Emacs without knowing any Lisp (was: text editors) Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2019-03-29 02:50 +0100
Re: Emacs without knowing any Lisp (was: text editors) Bill Wood <william.wood3@comcast.net> - 2019-03-29 06:50 +0100
Re: text editors John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-03-28 14:10 +0100
Re: text editors <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-03-28 14:50 +0100
Re: text editors David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-03-28 14:30 +0100
Re: text editors John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-03-28 15:20 +0100
Re: text editors <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-03-28 15:30 +0100
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-28 21:30 +0100
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-29 00:40 +0100
Re: text editors Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-03-29 06:30 +0100
Re: text editors Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2019-03-29 09:00 +0100
Re: text editors Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-03-29 10:20 +0100
Re: text editors Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-03-29 12:40 +0100
Re: text editors Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2019-03-29 18:00 +0100
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-29 19:50 +0100
Re: text editors John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-03-29 20:10 +0100
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-30 00:10 +0100
Re: text editors Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-03-30 00:30 +0100
Re: text editors John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-03-30 01:20 +0100
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-30 01:40 +0100
Re: text editors David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-03-30 04:30 +0100
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-30 09:30 +0100
What does all this mean? was Re: text editors David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-03-30 17:20 +0100
Re: text editors Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-03-30 05:30 +0100
Re: text editors Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2019-03-30 02:20 +0100
Re: text editors John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-03-30 02:30 +0100
Re: text editors David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-03-30 01:50 +0100
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-04-01 12:10 +0200
Re: text editors <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-04-01 12:10 +0200
Re: text editors Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-04-01 12:50 +0200
Re: text editors David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-04-01 16:40 +0200
Re: text editors Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2019-04-01 16:00 +0200
Re: text editors "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2019-04-01 16:30 +0200
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-04-01 16:50 +0200
Re: text editors Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-04-01 17:40 +0200
Re: text editors Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2019-04-01 18:20 +0200
Re: text editors "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2019-04-01 19:50 +0200
Re: text editors John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-04-01 18:40 +0200
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-04-01 16:50 +0200
Re: text editors <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-04-01 17:10 +0200
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-29 11:00 +0100
Re: text editors John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-03-29 13:00 +0100
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-28 21:20 +0100
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-29 10:50 +0100
Re: text editors Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-03-29 11:50 +0100
Re: text editors David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-03-28 17:20 +0100
Re: text editors John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-03-28 17:50 +0100
Re: text editors Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-03-28 18:20 +0100
Re: text editors Dekks Herton <dekkzz78@gmail.com> - 2019-03-29 10:40 +0100
Re: text editors David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-03-29 20:30 +0100
Re: text editors Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2019-03-30 03:20 +0100
Re: text editors David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-04-01 18:40 +0200
Re: text editors Dekks Herton <dekkzz78@gmail.com> - 2019-03-29 10:40 +0100
Re: text editors Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2019-03-27 20:40 +0100
Re: text editors Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2019-03-28 01:30 +0100
Re: text editors Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2019-03-27 12:10 +0100
Re: text editors Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2019-03-28 07:30 +0100
Re: text editors <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-03-28 11:40 +0100
Re: text editors "tomas@tuxteam.de" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-03-28 12:30 +0100
Re: text editors "tomas@tuxteam.de" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-03-28 13:00 +0100
Re: text editors Pierre Fourès <pierre.foures@gmail.com> - 2019-03-28 17:50 +0100
Re: text editors deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-28 21:40 +0100
Re: text editors mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-03-27 10:00 +0100
Re: text editors Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-03-27 11:20 +0100
Re: text editors Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2019-03-27 16:50 +0100
Understanding (some) Lisp (was: Re: text editors) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-03-28 17:10 +0100
Re: Understanding (some) Lisp Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2019-03-28 17:20 +0100
Re: text editors Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2019-03-26 03:30 +0100
Re: text editors Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2019-03-26 06:30 +0100
Re: text editors Tony Rowe <ay986@chebucto.ns.ca> - 2019-03-26 23:40 +0100
Re: text editors Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2019-03-28 01:30 +0100
Re: text editors John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-03-28 03:00 +0100
Re: text editors <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-03-28 09:20 +0100
Re: text editors mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-03-27 12:10 +0100
Re: text editors Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-03-29 07:30 +0100
Re: text editors Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-03-29 09:30 +0100
Re: text editors mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-03-30 12:20 +0100
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-30 01:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xHacp-1cl-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206791 |
John Hasler wrote: > I'm not trying to persuade anyone to use Emacs. I am trying to convince > people not to be deterred from trying it because of myths such as "You > can't use Emacs if you can't program in Lisp". Sorry John, but all of this is obsolete, if you are pragmatic enough, you would admit it. Just take a step back and have a look from the other side. What I am trying to say is that it is not worth investing time in learning it - learning not lisp, but the whole emacs stuff and partially lisp, because as someone said sooner or later you need this or that - finally this is THE feature of emacs. If you do not take advantage of lisp, then why not use any other editor. Sorry!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-30 04:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xHcQV-2UL-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206792 |
On Sat 30 Mar 2019 at 01:29:48 (+0100), deloptes wrote: > John Hasler wrote: > > > I'm not trying to persuade anyone to use Emacs. I am trying to convince > > people not to be deterred from trying it because of myths such as "You > > can't use Emacs if you can't program in Lisp". > > Sorry John, but all of this is obsolete, if you are pragmatic enough, you > would admit it. Just take a step back and have a look from the other side. I'm finding it very difficult to follow your argument. What, exactly, is obsolete. Using emacs, or the myth. If this thing is obsolete, when was it current and when did it become obsolete? And what do you mean by the other side? The side of the persuader, or the side of the persuaded, or something else entirely. > What I am trying to say is that it is not worth investing time in learning > it - learning not lisp, but the whole emacs stuff and partially lisp, > because as someone said sooner or later you need this or that - finally > this is THE feature of emacs. If you do not take advantage of lisp, then > why not use any other editor. Sorry! Emacs has a huge repertoire of functionality accessible through its commands, without any requirement to know or use *lisp. You sometimes see some lisp-ish stuff on the screen when, say, using its help system, but it can be ignored if you don't understand it. Just keep feeding it files and commands. People buy cars and drive them around without understanding what's going on under the bonnet. Yes, you could learn to be a mechanic and improve their performance but it's certainly not necessary. It would be ridiculous to suggest that people shouldn't bother to learn to drive unless they take courses in mechanics, and if they refuse, to ask them why they didn't use uber instead. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-30 09:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xHhxh-5L5-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206799 |
David Wright wrote: > Emacs has a huge repertoire of functionality accessible through its > commands, without any requirement to know or use *lisp. You sometimes > see some lisp-ish stuff on the screen when, say, using its help > system, but it can be ignored if you don't understand it. Just keep > feeding it files and commands. > The true religion behind Linux reveals!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-30 17:20 +0100 |
| Subject | What does all this mean? was Re: text editors |
| Message-ID | <xHoS5-1Q9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206803 |
On Sat 30 Mar 2019 at 09:27:46 (+0100), deloptes wrote: > David Wright wrote: > > > Emacs has a huge repertoire of functionality accessible through its > > commands, without any requirement to know or use *lisp. You sometimes > > see some lisp-ish stuff on the screen when, say, using its help > > system, but it can be ignored if you don't understand it. Just keep > > feeding it files and commands. > > > > The true religion behind Linux reveals! Holier Linux believer ate thug's dinner! Eighth nubile toiler reveres Linux! And … ? Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-30 05:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xHdN0-3tk-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206792 |
On 30.03.19 01:29, deloptes wrote: > John Hasler wrote: > > > I'm not trying to persuade anyone to use Emacs. I am trying to convince > > people not to be deterred from trying it because of myths such as "You > > can't use Emacs if you can't program in Lisp". > > Sorry John, but all of this is obsolete, if you are pragmatic enough, you > would admit it. Just take a step back and have a look from the other side. > What I am trying to say is that it is not worth investing time in learning > it - learning not lisp, but the whole emacs stuff and partially lisp, > because as someone said sooner or later you need this or that - finally > this is THE feature of emacs. If you do not take advantage of lisp, then > why not use any other editor. Sorry! As a 30 year vim/vi veteran, I'm not wildly predisposed to emacs, but some of its users might prefer 3-key chords to vim's modality - having to remember whether you're in normal or insert mode for minutes at the time. (Unless you turn on an indicator. I change the cursor colour as well as having mode displayed in the status line. Over-65s may be granted that dispensation, perhaps.) The only other editor I've used is the line editor, CREDIT. (Yes, everything was in capitals only, IIRC.) That was 1981, and it was on the Intel "Blue Box" MDS, complete with 8" floppy drives. (Harddrives were only know on mainframes and top end minicomputers back then.) Erik
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-30 02:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xHaP7-1EF-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206791 |
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019, John Hasler wrote: > I am trying to convince people not to be deterred from > trying it because of myths such as "You can't use Emacs > if you can't program in Lisp". That last claim is really, really far from the truth. I know one of the old LISP programmers from the Kendall Square, Cambridge days, and he hates to use emacs. :) -- Fraught with portent
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-30 02:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xHaYN-1HU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206794 |
I wrote: > I am trying to convince people not to be deterred from trying it > because of myths such as "You can't use Emacs if you can't program in > Lisp". Bob Bernstein writes: > That last claim is really, really far from the truth. I know one of > the old LISP programmers from the Kendall Square, Cambridge days, and > he hates to use emacs. I don't think anyone ever asserted that you must use Emacs if you do program in Lisp. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-30 01:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xHam5-1fA-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206789 |
On Fri 29 Mar 2019 at 19:22:47 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 29 March 2019 19:08:20 deloptes wrote: > > John Hasler wrote: > > > deloptes writes: > > >> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until now > > >> I have not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this. > > > > > > The results of ignoring it are evident all over the Web. > > > > this is true, unfortunately. It was 2009 when I finally gave up. If > > found out that in every single are of science there is the mainstream > > and the good stream, but the mainstream supressing the good stream ... > > I was dreaming of applications programmed in PL, but found out that it > > is not desired, so it is laughable how today everybody is talking of > > AI. WTF! It's screwed at the base and unless things change there, > > nothing will change else where. > > This is crap and this whole discussion around emacs and lisp is > > laughable as well - overblown text editor for what ... to write text > > files?! Give me a break, pls! > > +10 deloptes I'm glad you understood it. Perhaps you could gloss it for me in a private email. > The editor is a personal choice. What I care about is what comes out of > it. Of course you do. So do I. With a few exceptions, most of the work I have done on computers has been the production of text files (about which deloptes appears to be dismissive). As a consequence, the text editor is one of the most important tools, and what workperson doesn't care about their tools, seeking to improve them, and to improve their ability to use them. I've already learnt a couple of new things about emacs and, in another forum, I recently learnt a few things about vi and its server (or daemon) mode. But we all have to make choices about what we can spend time on. Unfortunately, at the moment, any lisp dialect is well down the list. Even if I had the time, my focus would be on the dialect scheme and, in particular, guile. How much help that would be for my use of emacs, I don't know. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-01 12:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xI237-HI-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206785 |
Gian Uberto Lauri wrote: > d> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until now > d> I have not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this. I have > d> worked with PL and prolog for a while ... unfortunately I think in > d> coming years or decades it all will be declared dead ... when the > d> true AI from China will take over :D :D :D > > I think that Lisp was used in AI because it was the best language you > could find to code smart algorithms on... Figure implementing mapcar > in assembler or FORTRAN :) I think also, but no one uses it except for emacs or some niche programming. Do not understand me wrong - I think it is a pity that it is not used more widely, but ... this is also my point. Few years ago I did some research where Prolog is used ... guess what - very limitted domains. Perhaps you do a research where lisp is used and share results. regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-01 12:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xI238-HI-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206861 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:03:13PM +0200, deloptes wrote: > Gian Uberto Lauri wrote: > > > d> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until now > > d> I have not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this. I have > > d> worked with PL and prolog for a while ... unfortunately I think in > > d> coming years or decades it all will be declared dead ... when the > > d> true AI from China will take over :D :D :D > > > > I think that Lisp was used in AI because it was the best language you > > could find to code smart algorithms on... Figure implementing mapcar > > in assembler or FORTRAN :) > > I think also, but no one uses it except for emacs or some niche programming. Do your reading before spewing nonsense: https://leanpub.com/lisphackers/read (and this is /only/ Common Lisp. There's Racket, Guile and the new kid on the block, Clojure, each one with its own, quite interesting projects -- check out Guix for Guile's current hot-spot). Sorry, that sounds harsh, but that's how fake news are born. You've got the tendency to state things as if they were true: then you've got the damned duty to do some research before. Furrfu. Cheers -- t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-01 12:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xI2FQ-Uq-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206862 |
On Monday 01 April 2019 06:08:17 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:03:13PM +0200, deloptes wrote: > > Gian Uberto Lauri wrote: > > > d> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until > > > now d> I have not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this. I > > > have d> worked with PL and prolog for a while ... unfortunately I > > > think in d> coming years or decades it all will be declared dead > > > ... when the d> true AI from China will take over :D :D :D > > > > > > I think that Lisp was used in AI because it was the best language > > > you could find to code smart algorithms on... Figure implementing > > > mapcar in assembler or FORTRAN :) > > > > I think also, but no one uses it except for emacs or some niche > > programming. > > Do your reading before spewing nonsense: > > https://leanpub.com/lisphackers/read > This would be a great read, if 90% of the text wasn't 90% white. What the hell is wrong with good old black text? That said, mention lisp and I think of the Amiga's where the preferred scripting language was lisp. And it was fast. But I never got hugely productive in it, bash was easier to bang up something quick and dirty to get the job done, or better yet, ARexx. Compiled ARexx was also very fast, we wrote WDTV-5's first web page in ARexx, long before php and apache were written to do much of that in a std format on linux. Circa 1996 IIRC. ARexx had hooks into every OS call, so unlike REXX or Regina, both of which isolated you from the OS, there wasn't anything you couldn't do with ARexx. The only REAL cron ever written for the Amiga was ezcron, compiled, it ran on about .001% of the CPU. And Jim and I wrote it in ARexx. > (and this is /only/ Common Lisp. There's Racket, Guile and the new > kid on the block, Clojure, each one with its own, quite interesting > projects -- check out Guix for Guile's current hot-spot). > > Sorry, that sounds harsh, but that's how fake news are born. You've > got the tendency to state things as if they were true: then you've got > the damned duty to do some research before. > > Furrfu. > > Cheers > -- t Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-01 16:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xI6gp-3a9-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206864 |
On Mon 01 Apr 2019 at 06:46:09 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 01 April 2019 06:08:17 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:03:13PM +0200, deloptes wrote: > > > Gian Uberto Lauri wrote: > > > > d> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until > > > > now d> I have not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this. I > > > > have d> worked with PL and prolog for a while ... unfortunately I > > > > think in d> coming years or decades it all will be declared dead > > > > ... when the d> true AI from China will take over :D :D :D > > > > > > > > I think that Lisp was used in AI because it was the best language > > > > you could find to code smart algorithms on... Figure implementing > > > > mapcar in assembler or FORTRAN :) > > > > > > I think also, but no one uses it except for emacs or some niche > > > programming. > > > > Do your reading before spewing nonsense: > > > > https://leanpub.com/lisphackers/read > > > This would be a great read, if 90% of the text wasn't 90% white. What the > hell is wrong with good old black text? Yes, to think of all the time wasted by so-called web designers when all I do with a page like that is press Ctrl-A Ctrl-C and paste it all into an emacs buffer with Shft-Insert. That way, I get to read it in *my* choice of font etc. If the page looks interesting and worth keeping, then I press Shft-Ctrl-% ! which doubles every Newline, and Escape 9999 Ctrl-Home which then runs fill-region on every paragraph before saving it. (These last two are the results of my "programming" ability in this over-blown editor, ie my ability to cut and paste other people's scraps. AFAIK no one, least of all User Services, was hurt in the production of this code.) Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-01 16:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xI5DI-2GF-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206862 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 5:53 AM Gian Uberto Lauri <saint@eng.it> wrote: > .....Yet Lisp gave me something useful on my work, and that is not > just being used to functional programming, but also being ready to > accept that "Ok, guys, here is a place where you have to start > thinking _very_ differently from where you were used to"; and > understanding why elegance is so good in coding: a piece of elegant > code is a piece of code that you actually "feel" is good code, its > correctness being almos blatant :). > In other words, lisp and prolog (and clojure and guile and scheme....) give the "feeling" that "elegant code" can be the best software representation "in coding". Why? Because "the correctness is almost blatant", as stated. In other words, semantics collapses to syntax. As in mathematics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-01 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xI66J-370-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206873 |
Hi, Nicholas Geovanis wrote: > semantics collapses to syntax. As in mathematics. This view is outdated since nearly 90 years. The attempt to create a language where semantical correctness results from syntactical correctness was killed by Goedel's incompleteness theorem. The insight was not new then. Paul the Apostle wrote about Epimenides: "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies." Have a nice day :) Thomas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-01 16:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xI6q5-3dL-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206874 |
Thomas Schmitt wrote: > This view is outdated since nearly 90 years. The attempt to create a > language where semantical correctness results from syntactical correctness > was killed by Goedel's incompleteness theorem. > > The insight was not new then. Paul the Apostle wrote about Epimenides: > "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are > alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies." The true believers speaks. BTW Thank you all - I feel like I needed a refresh for free.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-01 17:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xI7ct-3K8-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206874 |
On 2019-04-01, Thomas Schmitt <scdbackup@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi, > > Nicholas Geovanis wrote: >> semantics collapses to syntax. As in mathematics. > > This view is outdated since nearly 90 years. The attempt to create a > language where semantical correctness results from syntactical correctness > was killed by Goedel's incompleteness theorem. > > The insight was not new then. Paul the Apostle wrote about Epimenides: > "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are > alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies." The old, recursive, self-referential dragons eating their own tails (here in the form of oft-told tales), as it were. > Have a nice day :) > > Thomas > > -- “Let us again pretend that life is a solid substance, shaped like a globe, which we turn about in our fingers. Let us pretend that we can make out a plain and logical story, so that when one matter is despatched--love for instance-- we go on, in an orderly manner, to the next.” - Virginia Woolf, The Waves
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-01 18:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xI7Pb-4d2-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206874 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:22 AM Thomas Schmitt <scdbackup@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi, > > Nicholas Geovanis wrote: > > semantics collapses to syntax. As in mathematics. > > This view is outdated since nearly 90 years. The attempt to create a > language where semantical correctness results from syntactical correctness > was killed by Goedel's incompleteness theorem. > Thomas, Guten Morgen. That is correct in the correct context/Das ist ja richtig, aber im richtigen Kontext: I used the phrase "collapses to". I shunned the word "attains". Does that make sense? <<Erreichung>> statt << Zusammenbruch >>. In other words, a process not an achievement. The insight was not new then. Paul the Apostle wrote about Epimenides: > "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are > alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies." > Yet at the very least Aristotle began the development of modal and temporal logics. This is well recognized today. From the beginning of classical formal logic, there also began the development of "non-classical" logics :-) The automation of logics of belief and contingency is underway for some time. This is particularly strong in the Chicago area due to Argonne National Laboratory in the southwestern suburbs, where Robinson worked after his PhD. Also Overbeek, Wos, Winker (who I knew at uni), usw. > Have a nice day :) > Gruß Gott ;-) Nikko Geovanis/Τζοβανeσ > Thomas > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-01 19:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xI9ej-4Xr-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206886 |
Hi, Nicholas Geovanis wrote: > > > In other words, lisp and prolog (and clojure and guile and scheme....) give > > > the "feeling" that "elegant code" can be the best software representation > > > "in coding". Why? Because "the correctness is almost blatant", as stated. In > > > other words, semantics collapses to syntax. As in mathematics. I wrote (mainly towards the last sentence about math): > > The attempt to create a language where semantical correctness results > > from syntactical correctness was killed by Goedel's incompleteness > > theorem. > That is correct in the correct context [...] > I used the phrase "collapses to". I shunned the word "attains". So you hope for approximation of programming languages to a situation where they enforce correct semantics ? Well, my conclusion from model theory and Goedel was that you can either have it certain or interesting, not both. I became the C type of a programmer. Implementing straight ahead. Always trusting the ability to solve the detail problems. Bad hair days included. gdb and valgrind are my friends. I cannot see much clarity of expression in Lisp or C++. Java seemed better until i got in contact with the spaghetti inheritence of its class libraries. In general i object the idea of separating model from implementation and then hiding the latter. John Hasler wrote: > I think that you confound soundness and completeness. The liar paradox is not sound. It demonstrates the fundamental risk that a fine looking syntactical contraption turns out to be utter nonsense with undefined consequences. (What Goedel did was to link that kind of paradox to the properties of natural numbers and to math being performable by countable many finite sentences composed from a countable alphabet. So if you want numbers and math books, you also get Epimenides, the most credible of all cretians.) Have a nice day :) Thomas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-01 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xI88x-4jQ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206874 |
Nicholas Geovanis wrote: > semantics collapses to syntax. As in mathematics. Thomas Schmitt writes: > This view is outdated since nearly 90 years. The attempt to create a > language where semantical correctness results from syntactical > correctness was killed by Goedel's incompleteness theorem. I think that you confound soundness and completeness. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-01 16:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xI6q5-3dL-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #206862 |
tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > Do your reading before spewing nonsense: > > https://leanpub.com/lisphackers/read > > (and this is /only/ Common Lisp. There's Racket, Guile and the new > kid on the block, Clojure, each one with its own, quite interesting > projects -- check out Guix for Guile's current hot-spot). > > Sorry, that sounds harsh, but that's how fake news are born. You've got > the tendency to state things as if they were true: then you've got the > damned duty to do some research before. No problem at all - I have not done research recently - I stopped dealing with this 12y ago gave up finally 10y ago. What I mean is I have not heard anything significant, but the reading you point out looks interesting - will follow up later. I had a state of the art theoretical model - approved by two universities, but for lack of funding I gave all this crap up. might someone else dig further. This is best example how ignorance kills science. Lets hope someone else goes the way to the end ... like Copernicus, Bruno and others did over 200years. Amen! :D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web