I forgot this: Graham basically accuses programmers who don't find LISP
as attractive (or powerful, as he puts it) as he does of living on
lower planes of existence from which the "heavens above" of functional
(or only LISP) programming seem incomprehensible. He writes/speaks
persuasively, he's a successful businessman, but is he also an honest
debater?
and here i don't see an argument at all.
I was trying to say the same thing about Paul Graham's view of people who
don't like, or "grok," LISP. That he doesn't argue the point--he presents
it as a fact.
i'd love to argue this factually, but my knowledge isn't
that extensive. i think you'll find in the wiki entry for
Computer that much of what we take for granted today
was not obvious at the time. stored program computers
with branching didn't come along until about 1948
(einiac). i hope someone will fill in the gaps here.
i think it's worth appreciating how great these early
discoveries were.
I agree with your point about non-triviality of much about computers that's
taken for trivial today. However, I happened to have consulted this book
couple of years ago:
<http://books.google.com/books?id=nDWPW9uwZPAC&dq=%22the+first+computers%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=Z_Kegt6Rwn&sig=zrlQEVkK8z7fAmBtXsW2lx754Zo&hl=en&ei=uPqiSsDVKY-GmwPkncjAAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=branching&f=false>
(This is Google Books search inside the book with the term "conditional
branching.")
I wasn't, in this case at least, implying something not backed by firm
evidence. Conditional branching embodied in actual computers goes back to
Plankalkuel on Z3. The idea is as early as Babbage. It comes as natural
even to first-timers, following much more difficult conception of a notion
of control flow, that there must be a manner of conditionally passing it
around.
--On Saturday, September 05, 2009 14:26 -0400 erik quanstrom
<quans...@quanstro.net> wrote:
i'm not a lisp fan. but it's discouraging to see
such lack of substance as the following (collected
from a few posts):
Oh, yay, a Xah Lee quote, he's surely a trusted source on all things
Lisp. Didja read his page about hiring a prostitute in Las Vegas? Or
the one about how he lives in a car in the Bay Area because he's too
crazy to get hired?
surely an ad hominum attack like this neither furthers an
argument nor informs anyone.
I forgot this: Graham basically accuses programmers who don't find LISP
as attractive (or powerful, as he puts it) as he does of living on
lower planes of existence from which the "heavens above" of functional
(or only LISP) programming seem incomprehensible. He writes/speaks
persuasively, he's a successful businessman, but is he also an honest
debater?
and here i don't see an argument at all.
I just read in Wikipedia that, "Lisp's original conditional operator,
cond, is the precursor to later if-then-else structures," without any
citations. Assuming that to be true conditional branching is a
fundamental element of control flow and it has existed in machine
languages ever since early days. There's really very little to brag
about it.
i'd love to argue this factually, but my knowledge isn't
that extensive. i think you'll find in the wiki entry for
Computer that much of what we take for granted today
was not obvious at the time. stored program computers
with branching didn't come along until about 1948
(einiac). i hope someone will fill in the gaps here.
i think it's worth appreciating how great these early
discoveries were.
in the same vein, i don't know anything much about file
systems that i didn't steal from ken thompson.
- erik
