From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c406e0c4a6eb74ed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail
Sender: jsa@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request
References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com>
 <slrncj0nmf.hl6.adi@ppc201.mipool.uni-jena.de>
 <cgppvn$t4m$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <6F2Yc.848$8d1.621@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <m3isb2ey3w.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <hMnYc.1759$w%6.1486@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <m3656vfgmf.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <vpblkhspuA9F@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <e749549b.0409051449.574ec9ce@posting.google.com>
 <vS8%c.69$xA1.4@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1094529422.982635@yasure>
 <_xl%c.431$xA1.301@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <m3d60xdcpu.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <m3vfep90v7.fsf@0x5358ceb2.boanxx18.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk>
From: jayessay <nospam@foo.com>
Organization: Tangible
Date: 08 Sep 2004 11:36:37 -0400
Message-ID: <m3zn40bwmy.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: 
 DXC=8XNT489MOgZoiIeoEZ=P\T0R]m=BkYWIW:6bU3OT9S9ZD@JeS^:[G6P^aM2i8keRm]7k7O1P3T<nP
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3486
Date: 2004-09-08T11:36:37-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Mark Lorenzen <mark.lorenzen@ofir.dk> writes:

> jayessay <nospam@foo.com> writes:
> > This, OTOH is just implicitly cast FUD, presumably intended to imply
> > that something like Common Lisp would not "work well" here.  I will
> > absolutely make the claim that such an offering would be every bit as
> > robust and "correct" as anything fielded.  It is likely it would also
> > be rather more maintainable.
> 
> More maintainable?

Yes, but I don't expect you to realize this as you clearly haven't
used the concepts behind it.


> The pieces of LISP code you have shown so far are even less readable
> than French.

Wow.  I wonder what French speakers would say.


> It does not communicate any information about the problem domain to
> the reader, it is just a clever hack used to save some keystrokes.

Snippets _have_ no domain except the vague one of "example for
discussion".  Sheesh!  Give a snippet out of context in _any_ thing and
it won't communicate anything about any "domain".


> Why oh why do they continue to teach LISP in the US? They should
> teach ML instead.

In general, neither is taught.  As for ML, why choose that??  Haskell
would be a better choice if you are a formal static type fanatic.


/Jon

-- 
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com