Re: [wmii] Inferno/Styx - why wmii is in C and is part of the Anti-Matrix

From: Anselm R. Garbe <>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:52:18 +0200

On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:34:43AM +0200, Uriel wrote:
> >I agree that the linguistic objections with Scheme-alike langs
> >can't be dismissed at all, they are one of the reasons that such
> >langs weren't very successful for the general purpose.
> >
> >However there are applications in which such langs are without any
> >competitors. And the author ignores the fact, that Scheme-alike
> >langs behave like a stack machine, just they are direct
> >representations of a special kind of computer (though an
> >abstract computer, which cannot be compared with von
> >Neumann-like architectures).
> >
> >But I cannot imagine an abstract Object-Model-like computer.
> WTF are you talking about? any turing complete programming language

I talked about the article, because the article introduced the
computer-relation not me (in contrast to you I read the stuff).

> represents some 'kind of computer' (what a yucky expression.) What
> matters is what kind of abstractions the language has to offer and how
> well they fit the problem domain at hand. C and Scheme are good
> general purpose languages because they provide very simple yet general

Show me a graphics adaptor driver written in Scheme to prove its
general purpose facilities. I don't dismiss that Scheme has its
place, but to me it is not a general purpose language, even Java
or C++ are much more general purpose than Scheme or that Dylan
stuff, because they are applicable on a greater domain of

> abstractions, C++ and Java are no-purpose languages because the only
> thing they are good for is to write books that look like detergent

Just an opinion without any reasons?
What makes C++ or Java no-purpose langs, give us the reasons.
(C is also good to write books, like C for dummies).

> >I can agree, I don't like the movie(s), but the idea is quite
> >interesting, however reading Freud will present much more
> >insights and much more strange ideas of what you believe to
> >'know' and who you believe to 'be', if there is any 'being' at
> >all...
> Bullshit, the core matrix idea is something every healthy kid eight
> years old has
> thought about a million times. And Freud was full of shit, maybe many
> of his followers were even worse giving him a somewhat worse name than
> he deserves, but he was still a moron.

I doubt you have ever read anything by Freud. If so, you won't
blubber such bullshit, without providing reasons. We all know
your argumentation schema. If you get out of reasons/arguments,
you begin to offend. That is an old argumentation trick by
fundamentalists, already figured out by Socrates when talking
with Sophists, nothing new...


 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361
Received on Wed May 17 2006 - 11:52:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:05:26 UTC