On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:23:26AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > > On Jun 20, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Kenneth R Westerback > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:06:14AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > >>On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 03:06:26PM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote: > >>>On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 07:57:29AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > >>>>You guys should just use scrotwm ;-) > >>> > >>>Guess what WM I'm using on my non-{i386,amd64} machines ;-) > >>> > >>>>Then there is no need to learn another language and you can > >>>>continue on > >>>>lisping ;-) > >>> > >>>And now let's start a flame war about weak vs. strong typing, and > >>>a second one about lazy (non-strict) vs. strict evaluation. > >> > >>I'll play :-) > >> > >>C has the right semantics for operating system code. > >> > >>The rest is magic. > > > >Thus proving Arthur C. Clarke correct again, assuming Marco is > >admitting that modern languages are sufficiently advanced technology. > >:-). > > They are complex for complexity's sake so yes. > > Earlier I was really refering to you Ken. > > Et tu, Ken?
Language bigotry pops up in the most unexpected places! I know of at least one person who was convinced he could write an OS in APL. He may now be a client at my place of work of course. 'Advanced' languages are like outsourcing. Getting someone else to do the work you are no longer interested in doing. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. Not that I have a bitter outsourcing experience that I brood about excessively. .... Ken > > > > >.... Ken > > > >> > >>> > >>>Ciao, > >>> Kili > >>> > >>>ps: funny enough, I never used lisp very much. A little bit scheme, > >>>but almost no lisp. > >>> > >
