Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!ma183say
From: ma183say@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Lee Fountain)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Language Wars
Message-ID: <3868@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>
Date: Tue, 21-Apr-87 11:21:39 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcc3.3868
Posted: Tue Apr 21 11:21:39 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Apr-87 04:46:16 EST
References: <8704210744.AA10632@ingres.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: ma183say@sdcc3.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Lee Fountain)
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 84

>Mike is speaking from an abstract point of view. You do not appear to
>understand the difference between that and a worms-eye view of a language.

(*Picture->SteveMartin)WellExcuuuuuuuseMe, but I think I do.  Not
*ABSTRACT* but *GENERIC*.  You see, anyone can claim that a shallow
generalistic statement that does not really say anything one way or
the other is *ABSTRACT*! HA! What a >lame<, passive excuse.  Clearly
when this approach is used, qualification of the facts is not
necessary.  I have written interpreters (compilers->TimeHaveINot)
and completely understand how one could *say* that the worms-eye
view of two languages are similar, but f_cking-A, the machines
are all the *same* at the core level, so this line of reasoning is
total b_ullshit. (please excuse my French).
  The point was the *ABILITY* or method used to achieved possibly
same ends (C/M2), but h_ll, you could say that driving from Ca to
New York is the same in a VW or a Porsche. (I, for one, would rather
the Porsche).  But the point is, if someone is more comfortable and
productive using a particular method, then they should use that
method. (C/M2).

>The kind of differences that you point out are pretty obvious, for one
>thing, and for another, they are at the level where *all* languages are
>different. Thus you trivialize Mike's comments, which actually were
>quite valid whether you agree with the editorial side of them or not.

  If the points are so obvious, then why must you *point out* that
fact!  As per my above, Mike's comments are not useful, nor
persuasive, and thus not productive.  Recuerda, por favor, that the
*WHOLE* ideology of these interplays has been in *USAGE*, not theory
(but Mike statements would not support *any* theory...).

  Don't be such an idiot in defending something that you don't
  wholistically understand.  I, for one, am getting sick and tired
  of people who *think* that they see flaws in one thing or another,
  and go on rambling how they are so right, blah blah blah.
  Clarify, don't exemplify with rubbish. (Although this letter is
  pretty heated, the message is intrinsic).
>
>To an average programmer, every language and dialect is importantly
>different than all others.

  Oh, so I am an average programmer? Why thank you for the deaming,
  *GOD*!
>
>To a language designer, most languages look more similar than different,
>because he considers more abstract issues. For example, although Modula-2
>is more strongly typed than C, the really important issue is that neither
>language allows you to manipulate types as conveniently as you can data.
>This is a horrible inconsistency from a highly abstract point of view.
>
>For pragmatic reasons, C and Modula-2 can both be good languages to
>implement things in. For theoretical reasons, languages like Smalltalk
>and FP are much cleaner.
>	Doug Merritt	ucbvax!ingres!hatcher

  Sh_t! FP? Who the h_ll uses FP? Backus' dusty old language is of
  use in the classroom,(you sound like a comp-prog instructer
  idealist), but not in the real world. (*Picture->SamKinnisen: 
  That is were we *live* you big f_cking idiot).  Currently, I don't
  know anyone who lives in AbstractoLand.(But I'll keep my eyes
  peeled).

  Golly gosh darn, Lisp can be totally functional, but the option is
  up to the programmer.  Shoot, Lisp is about the best thing since
  sliced air.  Smalltalk? Ni.  If I wanted Smalltalk, I'd implement
  it in Lisp.

  Well Doug, I don't know what your Merritts are, but you must be
  one hell of a pragmatic theoretical theoretician language designer
  theorist.  

  Gosh, thanks for pointing out so sharply my shallow, simplistic
  thinking, and for God's sake, for not getting caught up in what
  really matters. 


  Sorry about the afterburners, grandma, but they got me *so* riled.

  I have but one thing to say about all of this:

  Pshhhhaw

  John
  7OHN