From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus" Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 08:12:46 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <85vew0t60k.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: Alan Mackenzie NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138783576 25169 80.91.229.2 (1 Feb 2006 08:46:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 08:46:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jyavner@member.fsf.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 01 09:46:12 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4DYb-0006uc-Qo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:41:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4Dbc-0007Je-Gs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:44:49 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F4DAM-0006hP-Bd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:16:38 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F4DAJ-0006h5-TW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:16:37 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4DAI-0006gx-AY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:16:34 -0500 Original-Received: from [193.149.49.134] (helo=acm.acm) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1F4D8i-0006jp-UH; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:14:58 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (root@localhost) by acm.acm (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA00561; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 08:12:47 GMT X-Sender: root@acm.acm Original-To: David Kastrup In-Reply-To: <85vew0t60k.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:49867 Archived-At: Hi, David! On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, David Kastrup wrote: >"Richard M. Stallman" writes: >> As you can see, practically all meanings involve surviving into >> the present time. So I stand by my point that "archaic" and >> "dead" are not synonymous. >> Archaic does not imply "dead", but it does imply "not very much >> alive". Anyway, the relevant point is "archaic" is a smear term. >"Archaic life forms" are those that have survived basically unchanged >for millions of years, that were so well-adapted to their ecological >niche that natural selection has not weeded them out or made them >undergo significant changes. That's not really a "smear term". David, "archaic" _is_ a smear term in this context. There are ways of expressing things in English (and in German) where what is said is literally true, yet at the same time has strong derogatory overtones. For example, "workmanlike" is complimentary if you so describe your new fitted kitchen. But if you call a musical performance "workmanlike", you're saying "they played all the right notes", implying that deeper musical finesse was lacking. "Archaic" is like this. "More archaic Lisps, such as Emacs Lisp, ...." is saying "Emacs Lisp is a relic of history, caught in a time warp. It is so old, that it's utterly lacking in efficient modern language features, and the people who use it are old crusty hackers who are unable to adapt to slick new practices.". >It does imply "strange to behold as holding its own in modern times >where lots of things have changed utterly in comparison". But that is >indeed something that I don't consider an unfitting sentiment when >confronted with Emacs. Though TeX fits the bill even better. Of course, the real truth is that it's taken other commonly used languages (like C++, Java, ....) decades to catch up with Lisp. :-) >David Kastrup -- Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)