Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!uupsi!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: The powerlessness of Lisp
Message-ID: <3633:Mar2821:04:1791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 91 21:04:17 GMT
References: <1991Mar26.165516.13035@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <26146:Mar2804:56:5791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Mar28.164024.21829@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Followup-To: misc.test,alt.stupidity.doug
Organization: IR
Lines: 21

Beautiful, Doug. You repeatedly say that my compose() doesn't nest, you
post some sort of final challenge, you accuse me of evasion, I repost
the articles in question, and now you try to escape humiliation by
perverting the issue into whether compose() can be polymorphic in C.

That last bit is evasion, Douglas. Sorry, but it won't work. The issue
back then was function composition, NOT dynamic typing. You repeatedly
shot from the hip on the issue of whether the available implementations
of compose() in C could nest. Now I've called you on it, I've quoted
articles where you made a fool of yourself, and you won't be able to
pretend that you were saying something else.

In this last article, you claim that my reposted compose() routine was
in response to your points about dynamic typing. That claim is a lie.
Since you're obviously so desperate to avoid embarassment, I can
understand your perversions; that doesn't make them the truth.

You also seem to be confusing dynamic typing with various other issues,
including function allocation. I invite you to learn Forth.

---Dan