Re: proliferation of computer languages

[Chris Rathman]

I can't say that I see any particular point to the essay. But I did
want to point out that Oz should not be considered part of the ML
family. Aside from not being statically typed - a very central tenet
to ML, Oz is much more part of the Logic family of languages (Mercury,
Prolog, etc...).

On Jul 18, 12:17 pm, "xah...@gmail.c om" <xah...@gmail.c omwrote:

Today, i took sometime to list some major or talked-about langs that
arose in recent years.

ML Family:

* Oz¨J. Concurrent. Multiparadigm.
* Alice¨J. Concurrent, ML derivative. Saarland University, Germany.
* OCaml¨J
* F#¨J. Microsoft's functional lang.

[Jürgen Exner]

Chris Rathman <Ch***********@ gmail.comwrote:

>I can't say that I see any particular point to the essay.

You must be new here. There never is any particular point to Xah Lee's
rantings except to cross-post borderline topics to borderline relevant
NGs and then lay back and enjoy the ensuing slaughter.

PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

>On Jul 18, 12:17 pm, "xah...@gmail.c om" <xah...@gmail.c omwrote:

jue

[szr]

Jürgen Exner wrote:

Chris Rathman <Ch***********@ gmail.comwrote:

>I can't say that I see any particular point to the essay.

You must be new here. There never is any particular point to Xah
Lee's rantings except to cross-post borderline topics to borderline
relevant NGs and then lay back and enjoy the ensuing slaughter.

Admittedly, I'm not all too familiar with his postings, but on a general
note, isn't it possible that someone else might not see it the same as
you do? I really didn't see anything really sinister about the posting
or it's content. It may very well be someone attempting to create a
conversation, someone who may not be generally well received a lot of
the time I gather.

Also, if have such a distaste for his postings, you are free to ignore
them as well. That said, I am all for alerting someone of something
which may be a complete waste of their time, but in this case it feels
like you are projecting your own dislike for the OP. Unless the OP
really is deserving of such branding (in which case I'd stand
corrected), I don't think it is reason enough to tell others not to read
of his work just because you aren't particularly fond of it.

Perhaps citing an actual example illustrating a reason to avoid him like
the plague would of helped :-)

--
szr

[Grant Edwards]

On 2008-07-22, szr <sz***@szromanM O.comVEwrote:

J?rgen Exner wrote:

>Chris Rathman <Ch***********@ gmail.comwrote:

>>I can't say that I see any particular point to the essay.

You must be new here. There never is any particular point to
Xah Lee's rantings except to cross-post borderline topics to
borderline relevant NGs and then lay back and enjoy the
ensuing slaughter.

Admittedly, I'm not all too familiar with his postings, but on
a general note, isn't it possible that someone else might not
see it the same as you do? I really didn't see anything really
sinister about the posting or it's content.

That's the, uh, "beauty" of Xah Lee's posts. There's enough
"there" there to suck people into what they think is going to
be a conversation. But it's not really a conversation. He
doesn't really read (or doesn't comprehend) responses to his
posts and will just continue to ramble on in a somewhat
insulting, half-rational stream of utterly opaque metaphors
that he thinks makes him sound deeply philosphical. It has
been theorized that he's an AI project.

It may very well be someone attempting to create a
conversation, someone who may not be generally well received a
lot of the time I gather.

Quite a few people here in c.l.p put forth a a lot of effort
(for Usenet, anyway) trying to have a reasonable exchange with
xah lee, but it seems to be pointless. He's a perpetual critic
who looks down his nose at everything and thinks he could do
everything better than everybody else (not that he has actually
ever _done_ anything, AFAICT).

Also, if have such a distaste for his postings, you are free
to ignore them as well. That said, I am all for alerting
someone of something which may be a complete waste of their
time,

It's not a waste of your time if you find him entertaining, but
I wouldn't expect any actual conversation where he reads and
understands your replies and responds to them in a rational
manner.

but in this case it feels like you are projecting your
own dislike for the OP. Unless the OP really is deserving of
such branding (in which case I'd stand corrected), I don't
think it is reason enough to tell others not to read of his
work just because you aren't particularly fond of it.

Perhaps citing an actual example illustrating a reason to
avoid him like the plague would of helped :-)

google groups should be able to find you plenty of examples
both here and in perl groups.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I feel partially
at hydrogenated!
visi.com

[szr]

Grant Edwards wrote:

On 2008-07-22, szr <sz***@szromanM O.comVEwrote:

>J?rgen Exner wrote:

>>Chris Rathman <Ch***********@ gmail.comwrote:

I can't say that I see any particular point to the essay.

You must be new here. There never is any particular point to
Xah Lee's rantings except to cross-post borderline topics to
borderline relevant NGs and then lay back and enjoy the
ensuing slaughter.

Admittedly, I'm not all too familiar with his postings, but on
a general note, isn't it possible that someone else might not
see it the same as you do? I really didn't see anything really
sinister about the posting or it's content.

That's the, uh, "beauty" of Xah Lee's posts. There's enough
"there" there to suck people into what they think is going to
be a conversation. But it's not really a conversation. He
doesn't really read (or doesn't comprehend) responses to his
posts and will just continue to ramble on in a somewhat
insulting, half-rational stream of utterly opaque metaphors
that he thinks makes him sound deeply philosphical. It has
been theorized that he's an AI project.

So, some dark government experiment gone horribly wrong?

>It may very well be someone attempting to create a
conversation , someone who may not be generally well received a
lot of the time I gather.

Quite a few people here in c.l.p put forth a a lot of effort
(for Usenet, anyway) trying to have a reasonable exchange with
xah lee, but it seems to be pointless. He's a perpetual critic
who looks down his nose at everything and thinks he could do
everything better than everybody else (not that he has actually
ever _done_ anything, AFAICT).

That's good to know.

>Also, if have such a distaste for his postings, you are free
to ignore them as well. That said, I am all for alerting
someone of something which may be a complete waste of their
time,

It's not a waste of your time if you find him entertaining, but
I wouldn't expect any actual conversation where he reads and
understands your replies and responds to them in a rational
manner.

Yeah I wasn't really aware it was that bad.

>but in this case it feels like you are projecting your
own dislike for the OP. Unless the OP really is deserving of
such branding (in which case I'd stand corrected), I don't
think it is reason enough to tell others not to read of his
work just because you aren't particularly fond of it.

Perhaps citing an actual example illustrating a reason to
avoid him like the plague would of helped :-)

google groups should be able to find you plenty of examples
both here and in perl groups.

Thank you for filling in some voids.

--
szr