From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus" Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:52:45 +0100 Message-ID: <85hd7jsboi.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138787310 7714 80.91.229.2 (1 Feb 2006 09:48:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 09:48:30 +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 10:48:28 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 1F4ENW-0006VN-8P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 10:34:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4EPw-00008M-Tl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:36:49 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F4Dmb-0004MU-0o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:56:09 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F4DmZ-0004Ly-Fs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:56:07 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4DmY-0004Ln-PN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:56:06 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1F4Dl7-00033N-JF; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:54:37 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1F4DiO-0002rk-OE; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:51:49 -0500 Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id E195D1C00382; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 09:52:46 +0100 (CET) Original-To: Alan Mackenzie In-Reply-To: (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Wed, 1 Feb 2006 08:12:46 +0000 (GMT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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:49868 Archived-At: Alan Mackenzie writes: > 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. Proper smear terms would be "obsolescent", "obsolete", "retarded". While I agree that "archaic" might be intended to smear here, it is applied because of a lack of a significant reason. It is similar to the use of "liberal" in U.S. circles. >>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. :-) Not at all. There is no catching up here that I can see: completely different ecological niches. Humans didn't evolve due to playing catch up with duck-billed platypuses. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum