3 ms·

> which you have obviously not even bothered to look at Again, you presume my ignorance because the only alternative is that I understand you and still think y

> which you have obviously not even bothered to look at Again, you presume my ignorance because the only alternative is that I understand you and still think you are wrong. How do you think I knew about the contents of your article if I didn't read it? Half the reason I noticed the HTML elements is because they gave me a syntax error why I tried to evaluate your code. > I'd be surprised if you could find even one that did not reference McCarthy's original Lisp paper. Well that's quite interesting. So the fact that some text books reference one specific paper is proof of thousands of hours of research across hundreds of people, all of whom would be insulted by my claim that lists aren't a very good processing primitive? Honestly, I suspect most of them would agree with me that they're better as syntax. You seem quite obsessed with lambda calculus yourself based on your articles and talks and you utterly despise all the list-based stuff from Del. Given that you always seem to write the lambdas with list syntax, you seem to agree with me in every point. So why are you looking for people to be offended by something that we both seem to believe?

lisper 2y ago
> you presume my ignorance No, I presume nothing. I conclude your ignorance because you continually supply me with evidence for it. > the fact that some text books reference one specific paper is proof of thousands of hours of research across hundreds of people No, it is not proof of anything. It is evidence that your claim that "People like to say that lisp had a much greater influence than it actually did" is wrong.
- James_K 2y ago
  > No, I presume nothing. So what is the word for when you say I haven't looked at your website based on no evidence and in the presence of evidence to the contrary? I would say "presume" fits the bill. And that is something. So it does seem that you have presumed something. And that is the exact thing I was saying you presumed. It's a pretty basic fact and it's written down. But you will still dispute it and claim I'm being stupid. > It is evidence that your claim that "People like to say that lisp had a much greater influence than it actually did" is wrong. I thought we were discussing the "hundreds of people" that my previous assumption apparently denigrates. But if you want to talk about inflating lisp's reputation, a good example would be talking about how a single paper on list being cited in _lisp_ text-books is evidence that it is "the foundation of all modern programming languages".
  - lisper 2y ago
    EOPL is not a lisp text book. It is a textbook about programming languages in general. (Which you would know if you had bothered to look at it.)
    - James_K 2y ago
      Would you say there are properties of this textbook that make it more related to lisp and lisp interpreters than the average textbook, and hence more likely to reference the early material about lisp and lisp interpreters?
      - lisper 2y ago
        What would you consider the "average textbook"?
        James_K 2y ago
        Can you really not answer a question that simple? Every textbook has a certain amount of lisp in it. Take the average of all of those amounts (the mean, lets say), and you will get the amount of lisp in the average textbook. This is a substantially smaller amount than the one you just picked. Can you really not work that out of your own accord? Can you think of any definition of the average textbook that means it has as much lisp as the one you just picked out? No. I think you are just being obtuse.

lisper 2y ago

> you presume my ignorance No, I presume nothing. I conclude your ignorance because you continually supply me with evidence for it. > the fact that some text books reference one specific paper is proof of thousands of hours of research across hundreds of people No, it is not proof of anything. It is evidence that your claim that "People like to say that lisp had a much greater influence than it actually did" is wrong.

James_K 2y ago
> No, I presume nothing. So what is the word for when you say I haven't looked at your website based on no evidence and in the presence of evidence to the contrary? I would say "presume" fits the bill. And that is something. So it does seem that you have presumed something. And that is the exact thing I was saying you presumed. It's a pretty basic fact and it's written down. But you will still dispute it and claim I'm being stupid. > It is evidence that your claim that "People like to say that lisp had a much greater influence than it actually did" is wrong. I thought we were discussing the "hundreds of people" that my previous assumption apparently denigrates. But if you want to talk about inflating lisp's reputation, a good example would be talking about how a single paper on list being cited in _lisp_ text-books is evidence that it is "the foundation of all modern programming languages".
- lisper 2y ago
  EOPL is not a lisp text book. It is a textbook about programming languages in general. (Which you would know if you had bothered to look at it.)
  - James_K 2y ago
    Would you say there are properties of this textbook that make it more related to lisp and lisp interpreters than the average textbook, and hence more likely to reference the early material about lisp and lisp interpreters?
    - lisper 2y ago
      What would you consider the "average textbook"?
      - James_K 2y ago
        Can you really not answer a question that simple? Every textbook has a certain amount of lisp in it. Take the average of all of those amounts (the mean, lets say), and you will get the amount of lisp in the average textbook. This is a substantially smaller amount than the one you just picked. Can you really not work that out of your own accord? Can you think of any definition of the average textbook that means it has as much lisp as the one you just picked out? No. I think you are just being obtuse.