On Dec 8, 2007 8:32 PM, Waldemar Kornewald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, you're claiming that today's programmers are too stupid or > ignorant for developing in tomorrow's programming environments? Do you > feel so much superior? How miserable is that?
I've already explained my position on this. I don't see a point telling you anything since you apparently don't bother to read it. If you treat documentation this way it's small wonder that Lisp and Smalltalk (!!!) were so hard for you. > I'll ask again: why doesn't Lisp or Smalltalk force everyone to > advance? Why can an (according to you) "inferior" web framework based > on a slow language with (at that time) small popularity have a much > greater impact than those "more advanced" frameworks and languages? The places I have seen Lisp and/or Smalltalk used they have had a lot of impact (e.g. Viaweb, RawDog, my own company with a Smalltalk app that the company has wanted to decom for a decade now but no other languages we use can even provide limited functionality in the time the Smalltalk team is adding new features their clients need). The reason it hasn't had *more* impact? To be frank, largely due to people like yourself. > Can you explain that with more than just "non-technical issues"? I can't but I wont, the information is there, all over the place. And you don't seem to read what I write anyway. > So you understand it all? Then enlighten us. "It all"? What you appear not to understand is the languages you take pot shots at in every single mail. > What I understand is that artificially making a language unpopular is stupid. Much better to tie one's self down with extra complexities just so people who have been trained in awful programming languages will feel like they don't have to learn something new so we can achieve the most important goal in all of computer science: being popular. _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
