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

From: Uriel <>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 12:02:31 +0200

And your so called 'arguments' are? I have better things to do than
this pointless and endless arguments, and we all know that arguing on
the internet is like running in the Special Olympics...


On 5/17/06, Anselm R. Garbe <> wrote:
> 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
> problems.
> > 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...
> Regards,
> --
> Anselm R. Garbe ><>< ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361
> _______________________________________________
> mailing list
Received on Wed May 17 2006 - 12:03:02 UTC

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