Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:06:47 -0700 (PDT), Ali
<emailaliclark@gmail.com> wrote:

>Clearly ridiculous. Since intelligence is more or less the ability
>to solve new problems, you would need that same intelligence to be
>musically intelligent (solving problems in music).

There are no problems in music ... you could string random notes
together and be certain that some tone deaf segment of the population
would pay to listen to it.

"Popular" music today is barely more than that - throw in too much low
bass and some off-key incoherent yelling and there you go.

George

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:18:34 -0700, Don Geddis <don@geddis.org> wrote:

>"xahlee@gmail.com" <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>> [...] stupid and wrong? [...]
>> But you morons [...]
>> you guys [...] are completely idiotic.
>> [...] just hot air. [...] off topic drivel [...]
>> [...] newsgroup [...] doomed to be stupid drivels [...]
>> [...] you morons [...]
>> [...] morons in newsgroup just tried to fuck around. [...]
>> my REPEATED tries to be reasonable are often met with fucking morons [...]
>> Don't be a moron. [...]
>> [...] show me the degree of your moronicity [...]
>
>Hey, quick suggestion for you Xah: if you're actually trying to convince
>your audience of your point of view, you might have more success if you
>aren't so rude to them at the same time.
>
>Perhaps -- just perhaps -- you're generally ignored ... because you deserve
>to be.
>
>> the fundamental problems lisp as shown in my essay here:
>> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w..._problems.html
>> We can, itemize the essay, make it into precise statements, and we can
>> argue in detail. The statements can be made so that each is verifiable
>> and falsifiable, and most of us would agree that it is a reasonable
>> rephrasing from my essay. Then, we can argue in detail about which. Do
>> you want to do that??
>
>Ok. At least it will get the thread finally on-topic again.
>
>> Let me be more positive on this... since we don't have nothing to do.
>> Let me suggest, you pick some particular claim i made that you think
>> i'm stupid or wrong. Then, we can go on, with above guidelines perhaps
>> about precision of statement, verifiability, fasifiability, and any
>> other things about argument that make it a better one. Then, we can
>> argue in detail. So, in the end, we can see who's more right.
>
>Sure. Let's do it.
>
>Your first claimed "fundamental problem" of Lisp is:
>
> Lisp relies on a regular nested syntax. However, the lisp syntax has
> several irregularities, that reduces such syntax's power and confuses
> the language semantics. (i.e. those «' # ; ` ,» chars.)
>
>I'm aware that Lisp's reader, with the standard readtable, offers a
>syntax that includes the characters your mentioned. I happen to think
>they're convenient to the programmer, offer additional benefit, and cause
>no problems.
>
>Let me grant that the majority of Lisp has a "regular nested syntax".
>Let me grant that there are a few (deliberate!) "irregularities".
>
>The topics in dispute are:
>
>1. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
> "reduce the syntax's power".
>
>2. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
> "confuses the language semantics".
>
>3. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters,
> even if (hypothetically) agreed to be non-optimal, are they a "fundamental
> problem of Lisp"?
>
>You make all three claims. I disagree (strongly!) with all three.
>
>How can we resolve this? What process do you recommend, for eventually
>discovering whether you or I are in fact correct about this topic?
>
> -- Don

I recommend we follow established scientific protocol - the guy who
makes the claim has to prove it.

George

"joswig@corporate-world.lisp.de" <joswig@corporate-world.lisp.de> writes:
> Well, given that you seem to be unable to learn much Lisp beyond basic
> Emacs scripting,
> nobody here is impressed yet. Most of your posts show that you have a
> confused understanding of Lisp. comp.lang.lisp seems to be your
> favorite
> newsgroup now, but you are on a beginner level. If somebody
> shows you some basic Lisp code (like I showed you how to easily
> implement your Mathematica function with a better interface) you
> run away and can't find the post.
>
> I haven't seen any significant amount of Lisp code (remember, this
> is comp.lang.lisp) in all the years from you. All I saw is
> some basic code how to script Emacs. All I see is long
> text with often little information for this newsgroup. It's
> not that everybody needs to be a good programmer, but from
> you we have seen mostly zero.
>
> Maybe it is about time to actually learn the programming language you
> are
> writing so much about?

I think I know what lies behind the disconnect between the
outward manifestations pf Xah's intellect (code and "tutorials" posted
to c.l.l.), and his claim that his IQ is "fairly above average".

Xah has assumed that "average IQ" is about 50.

Raymond Wiker <raw@RawMBP.local> writes:
> I think I know what lies behind the disconnect between the
> outward manifestations pf Xah's intellect (code and "tutorials" posted
> to c.l.l.), and his claim that his IQ is "fairly above average".
>
> Xah has assumed that "average IQ" is about 50.

That would explain a lot, and not only about Xah! :-)


--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
The mighty hunter
Returns with gifts of plump birds,
Your foot just squashed one.

On Aug 16, 8:18 pm, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
> "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>
> > [...] stupid and wrong? [...]
> > But you morons [...]
> > you guys [...] are completely idiotic.
> > [...] just hot air. [...] off topic drivel [...]
> > [...] newsgroup [...] doomed to be stupid drivels [...]
> > [...] you morons [...]
> > [...] morons in newsgroup just tried to fuck around. [...]
> > my REPEATED tries to be reasonable are often met with fucking morons [....]
> > Don't be a moron. [...]
> > [...] show me the degree of your moronicity [...]
>
> Hey, quick suggestion for you Xah: if you're actually trying to convince
> your audience of your point of view, you might have more success if you
> aren't so rude to them at the same time.

You see, perhaps you don't know, but several have suggested this to me
in the past 10+ years.

of course, if my pure goal is education, then first of all, newsgroup
is the wrong medium. I LOL to think anyone should think i tried to be
a educator thru newsgroups.

as you know, newsgroup, judging from the posts on it, is rather a
playground.

you see, so for me, not only i want to teach, and have tech geeking
morons thank me, but, you know, i'm ambitious, so meanwhile i also
want to call morons morons, and fuckfaces fuckfaces, as truth and or
when they deserve it (n as u know, they deserve it). And, my writing
is to serve multi-purposes as a writting etude, relaxation, and thesis
drafting. Can you see, all the pieces fit together?

actually, surveying the results of my past decade of online writing, i
think i rather succeeded in my goals above.

> Perhaps -- just perhaps -- you're generally ignored ... because you deserve
> to be.

LOL. If you look at the number who responds to my posts or mentions me
out of the blue, i don't think i'm ignored at all. Many tech geekers,
in newsgroups and as well as in blogs, have explicitly claimed to love
reading my posts for one reason or another. There's delicious.com
website bookmark you can search my name “xah� to see.

hold your breath, let me run to take a piss then answer your lisp
question.

> > the fundamental problems lisp as shown in my essay here:
> >http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w..._problems.html
> > We can, itemize the essay, make it into precise statements, and we can
> > argue in detail. The statements can be made so that each is verifiable
> > and falsifiable, and most of us would agree that it is a reasonable
> > rephrasing from my essay. Then, we can argue in detail about which. Do
> > you want to do that??
>
> Ok. At least it will get the thread finally on-topic again.
>
> > Let me be more positive on this... since we don't have nothing to do.
> > Let me suggest, you pick some particular claim i made that you think
> > i'm stupid or wrong. Then, we can go on, with above guidelines perhaps
> > about precision of statement, verifiability, fasifiability, and any
> > other things about argument that make it a better one. Then, we can
> > argue in detail. So, in the end, we can see who's more right.
>
> Sure. Let's do it.
>
> Your first claimed "fundamental problem" of Lisp is:
>
> Lisp relies on a regular nested syntax. However, the lisp syntax has
> several irregularities, that reduces such syntax's power and confuses
> the language semantics. (i.e. those «' # ; ` ,» chars.)
>
> I'm aware that Lisp's reader, with the standard readtable, offers a
> syntax that includes the characters your mentioned. I happen to think
> they're convenient to the programmer, offer additional benefit, and cause
> no problems.
>
> Let me grant that the majority of Lisp has a "regular nested syntax".
> Let me grant that there are a few (deliberate!) "irregularities".
>
> The topics in dispute are:
>
> 1. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
> "reduce the syntax's power".

i have given many examples in my essay.
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w..._problems.html

In summary:
• it makes parsing the source code more difficult than if the lang
doesn't have such irregular syntax. Note that a outstanding point
about lisp is that it features a regular syntax, and this is a major
point that lispers think lisp is great, as you can see in just about
every publication and advocacy of lisp. In these mostly fanatical
advocacy, you almost never see a mention, that lisp's regular syntax
actually contain quite a few irregularities.

• as i have given detail in my essay, that a pure nested syntax has
several advantegous consequences. Macros, pattern structure matching,
automated code formatting, etc. And as i have detailed, some of these
advantages are not realized or not realized fully. Part of the reason,
or perhaps the major reason, can be attributed to lisp's
irregularities in syntax.

In the article, the above are expounded in few thousand words. Which
part you do not agree?

Let me note here, questions like “why didn't xyz happen in history or
what's its cause� is in general cannot have exact, absolute, indelible
answers. However, reasonable research and progress can be made. In
fact, all important discussions in human subjects, almost none are
actually of the mathematical logic type, fact-checking type, or
verifiable by experiment type, where absolute answer can be given,
however, most subjects can have reasonable conclusions.

It is then my claim, that my criticism is very reasonable, that any
computer scientists who have studied various computer languages, and
with a exertise in lisp, should agree that my criticism is a very
valid one.

> 2. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
> "confuses the language semantics".

One easy way to see that it in fact confuses people is by checking the
frequency of such questions arise in lisp forums.

For example, one of the frequent question is what's the diff between:

(list a b c)
'(a b c)
(quote a b c)

you can see it asked in a recent post in comp.emacs or gun.help.emacs,
where you see experts give various probing type of answers. This is
just one example, and it i think a frequent question.

There are other more esoteric examples involving other such chars,
some used in macro etc.

As a example, let me ask this: among lispers who has at least 2 years
of coding lisp, how many can actually list all the lisp's syntax
irregularities? How many can actually say, that which is syntax sugar,
which is not? How many can entail each's meanings exactly? How many
can say, which is in Common Lisp only, or Scheme lisp, or emacs lisp?
And which's behavior are implementation dependent and what it is? Also
note, Scheme 6 in r6rs introduced few more of these, that
controversial among large number long time scheme experts and
implementators.

So, it is my claim, that these lisp irregular syntax, is a major cause
of confusion with respect to lisp's syntax. Also, in my article i used
5 of them «' # ; ` ,» as a example of lisp's irregular syntax. There
might be more.

> 3. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters,
> even if (hypothetically) agreed to be non-optimal, are they a "fundamental
> problem of Lisp"?

Yes. Fundamental can have 2 senses here: (1) deep seated; rooted. (2)
critical; important.

It is not deniable that the irregular syntax such as «' # ; ` ,» are
deeply rooted in lisp. It has been with lisp since few decades if not
at the very beginning. As to whether it is a critical issue, i think
it is.
Note that whether this is “critical� depends on what one considers
critical... since what's consider critical is dependent on point of
view or there is a degree of it. I consider it is critical in the
context of lisp's often tauted regular syntax advantage. However,
this issue in contrast to the other issue in my essay about lisp's
cons business, i consider that the cons is more critical, or
absolutely critical. The issue of criticality or what's considered
fundamental, we can further refine, so as not to use these words. For
example, instead of saying the convenient phrase of “fundamental
problem� or “critical problem�, i can rephrase theminto something
like “is problem such that certain percentage of lispers ask these
questions or get confused by these� or other similar quantifiable
ways.

> You make all three claims. I disagree (strongly!) with all three.
>
> How can we resolve this? What process do you recommend, for eventually
> discovering whether you or I are in fact correct about this topic?

In the above, i give reasonable arguments. We can just argue about it
the usual online forum way by exchange writings. But if you do have
better suggestions, for example such as brining in arbitors, monetary
vouch for sincerity, bet, affidavit, credential, etc, as i have
suggested before, we can further discuss.

this post is posted to comp.lang.lisp and comp.lang.scheme .

Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

Xah wrote:
«
the fundamental problems lisp as shown in my essay here:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w..._problems.html
»

George Neuner wrote:
«I recommend we follow established scientific protocol - the guy who
makes the claim has to prove it.»

What exactly are you suggesting? For example, are you claiming i'm
making a scientific discovery? r u claiming that my criticism can be
scientifically proven and should? r u claiming that i made a claim,
and didn't give reasons?

i don't mean to nick pick as most tech geekers like to do, but your
quib, as most tech geekers quibs, does not seems to be sensible. I
don't see the point of you quib. What's your point?

Try to think George.

Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

I'm brand new to this group. Do you guys try to discuss lisp here at
all? If anyone wants to think they are 'most high IQ' don't you folks
think it is better to let it be. In the interest of keeping such
forums noise-free?
-shiri

On Aug 17, 10:27 pm, shiri <shirish...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm brand new to this group. Do you guys try to discuss lisp here at
> all? If anyone wants to think they are 'most high IQ' don't you folks
> think it is better to let it be. In the interest of keeping such
> forums noise-free?

This question is definitely too intelligent for this thread.

(Not that we have any hope of keeping this forum noise-free anyway.)

Yes we do discuss Lisp, but there just isn't always anything technical
that's interesting to talk about. If you have a question, feel free
to start a new thread...

-- Scott

shiri wrote:
> I'm brand new to this group. Do you guys try to discuss lisp here at
> all? If anyone wants to think they are 'most high IQ' don't you folks
> think it is better to let it be. In the interest of keeping such
> forums noise-free?
> -shiri

I notice you did not say or ask or offer anything about Lisp. Had you
done so, this group would then be talking about Lisp.

See how that works?

In the meantime, things are a little slow around here during the
northern hemishere summer, we talk about what we can to keep our
keyboards from rusting.

hth, kenny

What he's trying to say is that you seem to be an egomaniac with a
probably justified inferiority complex.