Why not Ruby?

Richard Riley rileyrgdev at gmail.com
Fri Jan 2 00:52:35 CET 2009


Raymond Wiker <raw at RawMBP.local> writes:

> Richard Riley <rileyrgdev at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Tamas K Papp <tkpapp at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:28:08 +0100, Richard Riley wrote:
>>>
>>>> posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp tutorial is far
>>>> and away better than anything else out there for the programmer moving
>>>> to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons and supportive
>>>
>>> Programmers don't "move" to Elisp.  Emacs Lisp is used out of necessity 
>>> when you want to program Emacs.  No one in his/her right mind would use 
>>> it in any other context, as far better alternatives exist (eg CL for 
>>> those who like Lisp).
>>>
>>> Tamas
>>
>> "move to Elisp" was clearly meant as "moving towards it in order to use
>> it". In this case to modify emacs. And to suggest that jobs of work are
>> not done in Emacs is ridiculous. I am at a loss to really understand
>> what you mean here in the context.
>
> 	OK, how about this: Xah's elisp code stinks to high
> heaven. His code should not be studied by anybody who actually wants
> to actually learn elisp (or anything else).

I found his tutorial easy to use and very convenient for finding out how
to do things quickly and easily. I grant you that possibly thats not the
way to be a true Elisp god, but for getting things done in a timely and
efficient manner I thought it was good.

Clearly Xah Lee stirs up some strong emotions here. I can only go on
what I have read from him and I find him interesting and always willing
to back up his own research and views.

-- 
 important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no longer the satisfactions of the primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but the reparation of the evils and damages by the technology of yesterday.  ~Dennis Gabor, Innovations:  Scientific, Technological and Social, 1970



More information about the Python-list mailing list