Re: Seeking computer-programming job (Sunnyvale, CA)

[Seamus MacRae]

Pillsy wrote: [...]
Your lucid writing

Thanks

almost makes up for your hypocrisy and willful ignorance.

But no thanks. None of that's true of course.

OK, fine: your crappy writing does nothing to make up for your
hypocrisy and willful ignorance.

I'd find it touching that you find it amusing to see people viciously
attacking each other, if I happened to be a sadistic psychopath reading
this from in a prison library. And then when I got out I might track you
down and do things to you.

How fortunate for you that I'm not, and the only thing I'm likely to do
in response to this sort of silliness is think "the lot of you are a
bunch of stupid assholes" and take nothing you write very seriously ever
again.

 

[Seamus MacRae]

Do a field named foo and a method named foo in the same class collide
in Java? No.

Because they reside in different namespaces. Java doesn't just consider
them both "symbols" and throw them together into a single namespace;
instead, it creates separate ones within the class for fields and for
methods.

However, an earlier poster said that Common Lisp just considers method
names and the like to be "symbols" and throws them all together into a
single namespace per package.

If that earlier poster was incorrect, take it up with him. Attacking me
for simply quoting him is pointless, rude, and should make you feel
guilty now that you realize the attack was aimed at the wrong target and
you just smacked an innocent bystander for someone else's offense.

My example was meant to show all the possible combinations, not
suggest they usually are all used.

Well, I was simply considering the possibility that they ARE all used,
and it seems that using two of them causes problems.

See the parameter name - it's transaction-manager.

What parameter name? All I see is a list of arguments. A
transaction-manager and a picture-library might conceivably both be
arguments to the same call.

The "natural encapsulation" is only natural in Java, C++ and languages
with a similar kind of OO. It's not the only possibility. In Lisp, the
natural encapsulation is at the package level

My point was that Lisp's encapsulation granularity is much fucking
coarser!! Are you fucking dense?

Sure, this is a possible problem.

Thank you for admitting the truth at last.

I know you probably won't believe me, but it does not happen frequently
Ridiculous.

no more than it happens in Java with two classes of the same name.

There are only a few class collisions in Java's standard library. I've
mentioned javax.sql.Date and java.util.Date before.

If methods could collide, there'd be 17,392 collisions of them (counting
N of the same name as N^2 collisions; if N-1, it's "only" a couple
thousand; in neither case counting polymorphic overrides as colliding
with the overridden version(s)). The names "close", "dispose", "next",
"readResolve", and "writeExternal" are particular culprits.

Stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

T is the canonical way to represent true. Historically it has also
been used to designate the root of the type hierarchy - the type of
all objects - and naturally it has been used to designate the root of
the class hierarchy, too. Don't ask me why. Surely it does no harm

This is what lack of a REAL type system gets you: one object doing
triple, quadruple, even quintuple duty. Jack of all trades, master of
none. (This last can also be a criticism of emacs.)

No comment.

As damning as when the same line is spoken on TV by a politician.

Heh, Graphics2D is really an example of what I was saying it has
drawPolygon, drawOval, drawText, and a few other drawSomething. What
if I wanted it to draw the cool chart generated by my favourite
library?

The chart would be an instance of some class, say Chart, implementing
the other interface, the one with a drawOn(Graphics2D) method specified.
The drawOn() method would call the Graphics2D methods. Code that wanted
to draw a chart on a Graphics2D would call the chart's drawOn() method
with the appropriate parameter. Different chart instances would produce
different drawings.

But if you confuse your personal preference with objective
truth, and write that "truth" in public, I - we - feel the need to
correct your claims.
That statement makes several insulting and false insinuations about me.
I'm sorry, but I genuinely think [repeats insults]

Think what you want, but please restrain the urge to blurt out uncivil
things in public. Weren't you taught any manners as a child?

I don't think

That needs rectifying right away, then.

If I write MY:frobnobdicate specialized on YOUR:quux, I'm not altering
the behavior of MY:frobnobdicate specialized on other objects.

Cop-out. Are you or are you not altering MY:frobnobdicate?

I'm adding a possibility, not changing behavior.

You are changing behavior. Suppose I had code that passed a quux
superclass object around, gotten from somewhere, and called
MY:frobnobdicate on it? Add the quux class and pass one to my code, and
its behavior changes. Not because you subclassed my class to make quux
and put a polymorphic method in YOUR:quux but because you subclassed by
class to make quux and put a polymorphic method in MY:frobnobdicate!

See the difference? In Java you put the method in your own class. In
Lisp you put it in MY generic function. Mine, I tell you, mine!

This seems a minor wart. Until you have experience working in a large
development effort with many many people involved, and this inability to
fence off parts of things goes from wart to colossal headache.

In pseudo-Java:

[snip]

Poor analogy. Once again, you are subclassing under a new name instead
of changing the original. Because that's what Java does. It supports
exactly the kind of modularization and localization of code changes that
Lisp doesn't.

Viewing one as a list and the other as a tree (class hierarchy)

A simple strategy: when an apples-to-apples comparison makes your side
look bad, rebut by comparing apples to oranges instead!

there's-only-one-way-and-it-is-not-optimal is a real possibility, too.

That's why it's better to find a happy middle:

too few ways too many ways
BASIC FORTRAN Pascal Java C++ Lisp perl

defgeneric DEFines a GENERIC function.
cl is shorthand for common-lisp, and foo... well, it's foo

I know this. The point is, the names are less SELF-explanatory. (And you
omitted to state what the #: bit is for the latter.)

I had been being sarcastic about code readability.

[quite a lot of untrimmed-but-unused quoted material now trimmed]

Mind you, I usually refrain from saying something is absolutely
"superior" because there are really many dimensions to be considered

Good good.

but

Ah, there's always a "but", isn't there?

I do think [subjective opinions and stuff]

Which I'm sure are absolutely fascinating, but which prove nothing in
this debate.

I also think Java has a lot of nice features which probably many
lispers don't know about. Built-in serialization is one of those, for
example, as is the nice integration of URLs into the language, the
collections framework, ...

The URLs leave a thing or two to be desired. For one thing they're not
integrated, there's just a standard library class for 'em, and OOTB it
only works with HTTP and one or two other things, one their own
Java-specific jar: protocol.

I don't think they should be integrated more than that, mind you, but
there's some warts, like MalformedURLException's handling (and more
generally, illegal argument exceptions should not be checked
exceptions!) and some awkwardness with certain patterns of use. Just
constructing a URL triggers some behavior beyond mere construction,
unlike a File abstract pathname object, which I disagree with.
Constructors that do more than construct are evil.

Maybe that's the reason I'm using, and sometimes contributing to, a
Lisp implementation running on the JVM...

Clojure?

 

[Seamus MacRae]

It appears to me, admittedly after only cursory examination, that this
subthread is quickly devolving into Great SWT Program Redux.

What?

*google google*

Oh God, I hope not.

On further inspection, that thread does not seem to be about Lisp. I
guess we're safe then.

Cheers,
Bent D

Why does that now look familiar?

Oh, wait -- on yet more inspection, it looks like that thread got to be
the way it did because two particularly mulish participants would not
agree to disagree, nor could either sway the other. One of them appears
not to be here but the other one is ...

you.

Oh, shit, there goes the neighborhood.

 

[Seamus MacRae]

A - indefinite article : not any particular or certain one of a
class or group.

Oh for Christ's sake. I meant, what I don't have is a Lisp text. So
"there is nothing for you to have or not have" was wrong. Who wrote that
anyway? Oh, you did.

Stop being intentionally dense, admit it, and move on already.

But there is no one to convert.

Then you might as well quit arguing!

Whether or not you are involved in the discussion is not within my
control.

More intentional density. I meant, of course, that if your disagreement
is really with gugamilare or any other non-me person, then you can
express that in replies to their posts and leave my name out of it!

Hope that helps,

Tom

Is this a way of saying "no comment" without actually saying "no
comment", which has acquired a connotation of "guilty but not admitting
it" after decades of scandal-embroiled politicians using it?

 

[Seamus MacRae]

You don't have Internet access?

No, a Lisp text, silly! (How the hell did you make that error? The
preceding text doesn't mention the Internet, and it's fairly obvious
that I DO have internet access. Really, the referent of my "don't have
one" should have been quite obvious. I can't help suspecting you're
being intentionally obtuse.)

How do you post?

Motzarella. ISP stopped carrying newsgroups, the fuckers.

I don't have any Java book on my shelf, but before posting anything about Java,
I check my facts in _The Java Language Specification_ and other sources
online.

Is this intended to be a veiled insult?

It doesn't help your case that you apparently feel the need to resort to
such tactics instead of putting forth cogent, rational arguments to
support your cause.

Not everyone cares about converts. The fewer people program in Lisp, the
better.

So now you've actually been convinced by our side? Then can we stop
fighting now?

Idiots of the world, stick to wearing your bear skins and carving with stone
knives.

I guess not. How disappointing. Although I'll have you know my IQ tested
in the 120-130 range in high school.

Statement 2 and the last line contradict each other, and both came from
the Lisp side (same parity of nesting depth, with a paragraph by me in
between). My statement assumes Statement 2 to be the correct one of the
two; if it's not, the error lies with Statement 2's author, and I am to
be held blameless for it.

Package use doesn't change package membership. Symbol import does.

This sounds consistent with Statement 2 again though.

Visibility does mean that that if package foo has an external symbol sym, then
you can now use my-package::sym.

As does this.

The facts, from the Common Lisp HyperSpec are this: the use of one package by
another causes the exported symbols of the used package to be /accessible/
through the one which is using it.

As does this.

[A rather large Excedrin headache deleted]

Not all people in comp.lang.lisp are language lawyers, let alone about the
intricacy of packages.

But apparently to understand the intricacies of your coworkers' code
you'll need to become one. At least you have the consolation of knowing
that if Novartis someday decides to give some sort of free stuff to
their one billionth customer, you've got excellent odds of claiming the
prize.

 

[Seamus MacRae]

Seamus MacRae wrote:

You're right though about the productivity of this debate. It's like
evolutionists vs. creationists: one side has logic and evidence on its
side, the other unshakable faith, and neither will budge. We'll never
give up our logic and evidence and apparently you'll never give up
your faith. And since there are no important public policy issues at
stake, your continuing to argue is pointless.
It's ironic, really, that when you write something which seems to make
sense, you have got it exactly backwards: You are obviously the one
arguing from faith and faulty reasoning. [& further personal attacks]

Who are you, and what is the point of this unprovoked drive-by flaming?

You should ask yourself ``what am I doing to provoke drive-by flaming''?

I already did, and the answer was "nothing".

Well, not quite. I am apparently arguing against the unprovable,
probably-wrong, but deeply cherished religious beliefs of some people of
faith, which does tend to get some such people angry.

But it's also not wrong. I'd also not hesitate to teach evolution in a
Bible Belt state. So sue me.

 

[Seamus MacRae]

Seamus MacRae wrote:

You're right though about the productivity of this debate. It's like
evolutionists vs. creationists: one side has logic and evidence on
its side, the other unshakable faith, and neither will budge. We'll
never give up our logic and evidence and apparently you'll never
give up your faith. And since there are no important public policy
issues at stake, your continuing to argue is pointless.

It's ironic, really, that when you write something which seems to
make sense, you have got it exactly backwards: You are obviously the
one arguing from faith and faulty reasoning. [& further personal
attacks]

Who are you, and what is the point of this unprovoked drive-by flaming?

The point is to expose you as a fraud.

Such an effort is doomed to failure, since I'm not one. Your time is
therefore better spent elsewhere.

And unless you really are a schizo, you know me through your other
aliases: Twisted, Jerry Gerrone, etc, etc.

Are you barvy? I have no such aliases.

It must be hard work to keep pretending to be so many different persons.

Statement assumes a premise that's not accepted as true. It may as well
be ignored.

 

[Seamus MacRae]

If someone can not learn to use an editor, then the code would
not be much worth anyway.

Who said anything about not being able to learn to use an editor?
Certainly not I. In fact I've learned to use several, and having done
so, noticed that some of them get out of my way and let me work on my
code much more readily than others do. I'm sure all of us have made
similar observations.

 

[Seamus MacRae]

Yes, someone jumps at an opening to attack you. You. Do you think about why
/you/?

Because I've argued against their cherished faith-based beliefs.

You're brilliant and well-informed, but unknown, and so people hate you
and attack you.

No, I'm fairly ordinary.

You have developed an elaborate chain of inferences from a hypothesis
that was wrong. Smarter would have been to simply ask me, rather than
make a (wrong) guess and then spend ages writing a whole bunch of stuff
that turned out to be pure nonsense.

 

[Seamus MacRae]

Shame on Seamus.
No.

If you're drawing on Star Wars metaphors, let me quote this to you:
"Why do you persist, Mr Anderson?"

That was not from Star Wars, it was from The Matrix.

Do you expect me to take you seriously when you can't even get *that* right?

 

[Seamus MacRae]

Narrowed it down for ya. The Lisp language I am talking about in this
thread is Common Lisp.

Let me quote Seamus himself, in a message which you can view here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/ac9c8f90557a0bb7?hl=en

[irrelevant quote snipped]

Why are you responding essentially at random, instead of by addressing
what I've said?

By the way, Seamus, the fact that you /complain/ about how it's bad
that CLOS could be hacked-up independantly shows that you don't know
enough about Common Lisp to criticize it.

No, the fact that you /complain/ about the above shows that you don't
know enough about me to criticize me.

I never said that it was "bad" that CLOS could be hacked up
independently. I said that it was incompatible with type checking and
some kinds of compiler optimizations that would be possible if the
compiler could make stronger assumptions about the object system the way
Java's can. That's a different statement than that it's "bad".

The whole idea of Common
Lisp is that ANYTHING other than the 32 "axioms" of Lisp (QUOTE, ATOM,
EQ, CONS, CAR, CDR, COND, and the 25 special operators such as
TAGBODY, GO, CATCH, THROW, EVAL-WHEN, etc) can be hacked up on your
own. That is the whole mindset of CL.

If you're going to get into a language-core-simplicity pissing match,
Brainfuck has only eight operators and nothing else and is Turing complete.

Smalltalk only has about 12 and is actually taken seriously as a
programming language.

PS -- I don't see a qualifier in front of your name yet; are you sure
that you're :USEing :COMMON-LISP?

This is a newsgroup post, not a Common Lisp source file.

 

[Seamus MacRae]

The point being missed here is that if you make a class foo, and a
subclass bar, foo and bar do NOT join this set. They are not put on an
equal footing with rationals and conses and symbols, so "rationals and
conses and symbols and foos" would be a sensible grouping. Not like how
Java makes Foo and Bar have an equal footing with String and Integer
and, more importantly, have the uniformity in the type system that the
same basic rules apply to all reference types. And most importantly of
all, the compiler is free to REASON about Foos and Bars instead of only
being able to reason about Objects.

[calls me a liar]

This is getting tiresome.

Come on Seamus, please recognize some humor.

I didn't find anything about that thrice-damned incitement to be
humorous in the least, so if it was meant as such, you'll forgive me for
not recognizing it.

Next time, I recommend that your humor actually be funny -- then it's
less likely to go unidentified.

I realize that you can't see my face or hear my tone of thought as I
type posts, but please try and take everything with a grain of salt.

Rest assured that I have been doing so for quite a while now. And I now
qualify for a bulk discount from my supplier too.

Also, note that you cut off my quote mid-sentance -- something that
you got a bit ticked-off about when somebody did that to you only a
few posts ago.

The difference being that the instance that ticked me off did so in such
a manner as to misrepresent what I'd said.

 

[Adlai]

Because they reside in different namespaces. Java doesn't just consider
them both "symbols" and throw them together into a single namespace;
instead, it creates separate ones within the class for fields and for
methods.

By saying that, you reveal your ignorance of Common Lisp.

Each symbol could have any number of things associated with it:
- A function OR a special form OR a macro OR a generic fn (and thus,
methods) (when the symbol is used as a function/macro/etc)
- A value (when the symbol is used as a variable)
- A home package
- A name (every symbol has this)
- A plist -- this is more of a dumping-ground for implementation-
dependant stuff
- A type (for example, the symbol FIXNUM has the type information for
the fixnum type associated with it)

However, an earlier poster said that Common Lisp just considers method
names and the like to be "symbols" and throws them all together into a
single namespace per package.

If that earlier poster was incorrect, take it up with him. Attacking me
for simply quoting him is pointless, rude, and should make you feel
guilty now that you realize the attack was aimed at the wrong target and
you just smacked an innocent bystander for someone else's offense.

I'm not attacking you, I'm saying that you didn't understand a key
feature of Common Lisp which caused you to misinterpret what Alessio
said. That's a statement of fact.

What parameter name? All I see is a list of arguments. A
transaction-manager and a picture-library might conceivably both be
arguments to the same call.

Where it says transaction-manager in the quoted code is the class
specifier for the argument picture-library.

But if you confuse your personal preference with objective
truth, and write that "truth" in public, I - we - feel the need to
correct your claims.
That statement makes several insulting and false insinuations about me.
I'm sorry, but I genuinely think [repeats insults]
Think what you want, but please restrain the urge to blurt out uncivil
things in public. Weren't you taught any manners as a child?

I don't think

That needs rectifying right away, then.

You complained earlier about people mincing up your messages before
replying to them. Don't do that to others. Weren't YOU ever taught the
Golden Rule as a child?

I know this. The point is, the names are less SELF-explanatory. (And you
omitted to state what the #: bit is for the latter.)

It's a read-macro -- Common Lisp's equivalent of syntax. Your question
is like asking what the ; is for in "import foo;"

- Adlai

 

[Adlai]

No, a Lisp text, silly! (How the hell did you make that error? The
preceding text doesn't mention the Internet, and it's fairly obvious
that I DO have internet access. Really, the referent of my "don't have
one" should have been quite obvious. I can't help suspecting you're
being intentionally obtuse.)

Having Internet access IS having access to a Lisp text.

Google "Practical Common Lisp". Seriously. It's free and teaches you
how to do all sorts of neat shit.

- Adlai

 

[Jerry Gerrone]

I V wrote:
Series Expansion wrote:
Well, your suggestion that because a certain terminal-oriented editor's
internal scripting language is a dialect of Lisp, you can write a script
Nobody's talking about a terminal-oriented editor. They're talking about
Emacs, which has been a window-based application since the mid-1980s.
Paul is infamous for [calls Paul a liar]

Paul Foley has written little, if anything, in this thread about
emacs. No other Pauls are in evidence. This remark seems to be
confused.

Read the thread more careful and you would see that he is referring
to Paul Derbyshire.

As explained previously, I find it necessary to assume that all
insults aimed at "Paul D." here are actually intended for me, and
respond in both of our defense. To set the record straight:

* I am not Paul.
* None of the nasty things that you have said or implied are
true of me.
* I don't know whether the insults are true of Paul, but I
very much doubt that he'd appreciate you insulting him behind
his back.

[rest deleted]

 

[Jerry Gerrone]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
You're right though about the productivity of this debate. It's like
evolutionists vs. creationists: one side has logic and evidence on
its side, the other unshakable faith, and neither will budge. We'll
never give up our logic and evidence and apparently you'll never give
up your faith. And since there are no important public policy issues
at stake, your continuing to argue is pointless.
It's ironic, really, that when you write something which seems to make
sense, [numerous insults deleted]

Who are you, and what is the point of this unprovoked drive-by flaming?

The point is to expose you as a [insult deleted].
And unless you really are a schizo, you know me through your other
aliases: Twisted, Jerry Gerrone, etc, etc.

No. Seamus is not me and none of the nasty things that you have said
or implied about me are at all true.

 

[Jerry Gerrone]

Lars Enderin wrote:
Seamus MacRae wrote:
You're right though about the productivity of this debate. It's like
evolutionists vs. creationists: one side has logic and evidence on
its side, the other unshakable faith, and neither will budge. We'll
never give up our logic and evidence and apparently you'll never
give up your faith. And since there are no important public policy
issues at stake, your continuing to argue is pointless.
It's ironic, really, that when you write something which seems to
make sense, [numerous insults deleted]
Who are you, and what is the point of this unprovoked drive-by flaming?

The point is to expose you as a [insult deleted].

Such an effort is doomed to failure, since I'm not one. Your time is
therefore better spent elsewhere.

And unless you really are a [insult deleted], you know me through your
other aliases: Twisted, Jerry Gerrone, etc, etc.

No. Seamus is not me and none of the nasty things that Lars has said
or implied about me are at all true.

[calls me a liar]

No, Lars is the liar.

None of the nasty things that Lars has said or implied about me are at
all true.

(Why can't people in this particular newsgroup ever have an argument
without someone eventually dragging my name into it??!)

 

[Seamus MacRae]

By saying that, you reveal your ignorance

That's it. I've had enough of being insulted every time I open my mouth.

**** you!

The truly egregious thing here is that I quite clearly know a LOT more
about Java than you do, and you even attack me for my statements about Java.

I don't think you're here to debate Lisp anymore. You're here to flame
people and be generally boorish in public. The only question is: why?

It does not matter. I deserve to be treated with a modicum of respect.
People will stop criticizing me and confine their discussions to the
programming languages under discussion here. The subject "Seamus MacRae"
is off-topic. Got it?

I'm not attacking you

That's a laugh.

I'm saying that you didn't understand ... caused you to misinterpret ...
that's a ... fact.

No, it's another pack of vicious lies. What is the MATTER with you? Have
you gone off the deep end? Are you physically incapable of carrying out
a discussion without having to either agree with each other person or
else flame him/her? Does disagreeing *without* acrimony simply not
compute for you, or what?

Where it says transaction-manager in the quoted code is the class
specifier for the argument picture-library.

You're not making much sense. I see a method with a list of two
arguments here. Java would have "int foo, float bar" or the like, but
Lisp functions lack argument types so that would just become "foo, bar"
and Lisp list items are space-separated instead of comma-separated so
that would just become "(foo bar)".

But if you confuse your personal preference with objective
truth, and write that "truth" in public, I - we - feel the need to
correct your claims.
That statement makes several insulting and false insinuations about me.
I'm sorry, but I genuinely think [repeats insults]
Think what you want, but please restrain the urge to blurt out uncivil
things in public. Weren't you taught any manners as a child?
I don't think

That needs rectifying right away, then.

You complained earlier about people mincing up your messages before
replying to them. Don't do that to others. Weren't YOU ever taught the
Golden Rule as a child?

Yes, but I was also taught game theory, and "tit for tat" tends to be a
winning strategy. You do it to me enough times, I do it once to you as a
little reminder.

Now kindly return to the subject of Java and Lisp and stop discussing me
or your opinions of me in public. It is not on-topic in either
comp.lang.lisp or comp.lang.java.programmer and in fact so far as I am
aware there is no alt.fan.seamus-macrae newsgroup, so it's off-topic
everywhere.

Let it drop.

It's a read-macro -- Common Lisp's equivalent of syntax.

With syntax like that, who needs enemies?

Your question is like asking what the ; is for in "import foo;"

Not really. A statement separator is pretty obvious. Lisp just uses
spaces as separators, so the #: prefix (not used much of anywhere else)
remains mysterious.

 

[Seamus MacRae]

 

[Seamus MacRae]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
Lars Enderin wrote:
Seamus MacRae wrote:
You're right though about the productivity of this debate. It's like
evolutionists vs. creationists: one side has logic and evidence on
its side, the other unshakable faith, and neither will budge. We'll
never give up our logic and evidence and apparently you'll never
give up your faith. And since there are no important public policy
issues at stake, your continuing to argue is pointless.
It's ironic, really, that when you write something which seems to
make sense, [numerous insults deleted]
Who are you, and what is the point of this unprovoked drive-by flaming?
The point is to expose you as a [insult deleted].

Such an effort is doomed to failure, since I'm not one. Your time is
therefore better spent elsewhere.

And unless you really are a [insult deleted], you know me through your
other aliases: Twisted, Jerry Gerrone, etc, etc.

No. Seamus is not me and none of the nasty things that Lars has said
or implied about me are at all true.

[calls me a liar]

No, Lars is the liar.

None of the nasty things that Lars has said or implied about me are at
all true.

What the **** is all this about? My post already said Lars was off his
rocker. This seems rather redundant. And I'm not sure I care for the
vaguely admonishing tone, "no this, no that" as if I shouldn't have even
quoted Lars's stupidities. Though by doing so I do the world a service,
ensuring that his barvy meanderings will be preserved as a part of the
public record so everyone can see what a wacko he is, even if he cancels
his post and gets Google to delete it from their archive.

(Why can't people in this particular newsgroup ever have an argument
without someone eventually dragging my name into it??!)

I just want to know why they apparently can't have an argument without
getting nasty and making it personal!